User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 53

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doug Weller. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

What pattern of excessive vandalism do you see that I am not that warrants a one month block on this IP address? There are 10 edits total from the IP, which is shared by multiple users, spread over a period of five months, and from what I can tell based on some of the edits, this is an IP used by at least 2,482 individual users, possibly more depending on whether more than one school uses it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I saw your work on religious-themed articles and wondered if you could look at an editing constipation on the Gospel of Mark page. There are two versions going back and forth. Could you read both versions and advise everyone on the way forward? Thanks. 86.144.10.4 (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry about the Fascist edit and linking it to Far-left. According to my research, it showed that Hitler was a Socialist, which is known to be a Far-left view. So using that research, I was thinking that since Hitler was a fascist, I listed fascists as Far-left, but I will delete it as it is known to be false. I am just asking that you do not block me. Thanks! TruthLighter3740 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@TruthLighter3740:

Wikipedia does not use individual editor's original research, because it can be flawed, as was this case. Hitler is pretty easily classified as a fascist but not a socialist. He was a member of a party that called itself the National Socialist party, but they emphasized nationalism over everything else and persecuted actual socialists. The only reason they included socialist in the name was to mean "not completely capitalist." This is what any academic source (not political propaganda) will tell you, which can be backed up by checking any of the citations in relevant articles and reading a variety of books from university presses or academic presses on the matter.

On the chart to the right, Hitler would normally be placed way up top and about halfway between the middle and the right. Stalin would be placed way up top and all the way to the left. Bernie Sanders would be about a third or halfway to the left (from the middle) and pretty much in the middle when determining up or down. Most Libertarian candidates would be about a third or halfway both down and to the right. Hardcore anarchists would be in the middle of the bottom.

The thinking that would allow one to lump fascists and socialists together requires a very limited and flawed understanding of politics, one that is entirely "us vs them," lumping together anything that doesn't agree with one's own views. This is dangerous, as both fascists and communists have used this kind of rhetoric in a "divide and conquer" manner and terrorists (whatever their ideology) use it to radicalize recruits. I am not saying you're any of those things, but maybe you need to adjust your political news diet, avoiding anything that focuses more on strong emotions (including fear, anger, and pride) rather than cold facts, and aiming instead for ideas that require reading more than 280 characters to understand. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This user seems to be trying to make grammatical corrections etc. on numerous articles, but often these edits are redundant or incorrect. Examples of incorrect edits include [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. Examples of redundant edits include [9], [10], [11]. Could this new account be a sockpuppet of User:Rithme4 or User:Graph.williams by any chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackintheBox (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

JackintheBox has posted the same message to my talk page, and I have commented there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug, thanks for the note, I’m not sure I’ve suggested that an editor is vandalizing. I know that it happens, and I think that people should probably say something. I also think that we all should be careful of seeming or appearing to do so, and according to the article that you mentioned we can even do it in good faith. It’s difficult to tell when something is intentional or not, so I try say only that it’s “possible” which, I think it’s fair to say, isn’t suggesting that it’s true, only that it’s possible. Thanks again for your concern. Madisonesque (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at your own edit history to see if you yourself point out any “possible vandalism”, as I did, and to see if you then take your own advice and follow that up with an apology, and I found that you often suggest that people are vandalizing, but you rarely suggest people are “possibly vandalizing”. In one instance you suggested that someone was either using “bad grammar or vandalizing”. I suppose I could assume good faith that you took your own advice and apologized for that one. Except that I’m not sure it’s a good policy — because, first of all it seems tacky to try to shame a fellow editor when it may not be warranted, and also because vandalism is a problem, and it’s sometimes good for people like you and me to point it out. But when you suggest that people are “vandalizing” as often as you do, I’m not sure that’s ever assuming “good faith”, in fact I don’t think it is. That’s why I say “possible vandalism”, which is better, especially if you’re not sure something is “bad grammar” or “vandalism” — just to be on the safe side. All in all I think you're doing a good job and making a good contribution to Wikipedia. All the best. Madisonesque (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Doug, thank you for sending me the relevant editing guides after reverting my changes to the Answers in Genesis page. As you can tell, I have rarely changed content and am rather new to the process. The changes were designed to moderate but not entirely eliminate a bias that leaks through the wording and content on the AIG page. I will provide answers next time I edit. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.27.241 (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

Your thoughts on this edit and this edit? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: disgusting. Blocked the IP for 3 days, posted to the obvious account. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. Another sock IP of sockmaster Roman Sakhan.[12] He's obsessed with "Baloch" content, and edits from Turkmenistan.[13] Compare with his other sock IPs, who also geolocate to Turkmenistan, and who have also called me "Nazi" [14]. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I was just wondering why you removed my edit of "A Genesis History" due to the fact of my edit not being neutral. I think that it was more neutral the way I put it because of the fact that neither creation science or evolution has been completely proven. Creation science comes down to believing that someone or something created the Universe. Evolution is theory's based on what some scientists have come up with based on their research. There is no proof of Creation nor is their proof of Evolution. It's just that more people view Evolution as true than Creation. So how is saying that Evolution and the Big Bang are established scientific fact neutral? Thank you. Zynergen (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zynergen: Regarding evolution: see Evolution as fact and theory, E. coli long-term evolution experiment, Evidence of common descent, Evidence for speciation by reinforcement, Coloration evidence for natural selection.

The idea that God created the world does not contradict evolution -- see Theistic Evolution, which is what the majority of Christians outside of America (as well as a significant number of educated Christians in America) hold to.

So-called "creation science" and the idea that creation and evolution contradict are just ploys by a movement that decided that science must be wrong since it doesn't align with their failure to read Genesis in its proper context.

It's not a matter of majority vs minority opinion, it's scientific fact vs superstitious delusion. Our neutrality policy means that we dispassionately present what reliable sources say about a topic -- not that we create artificial balance between known facts and denial of those facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry , I had realized my fault. Thanks for the correction. And I want to talk you do you have WhatsApp ? then send the number on my talk page SHUBHAM PRAMANIK (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to inform you that I have stopped "edit warring" on this page, and have taken my argument to the talk page. Why are you threatening me with sanctions? I haven't changed my edits back on this page since your "warning" you sent me. Maybe you should have a word with the people who undid my edits for absolutely no logical reason? Oh no, that would be too fair. Transcendent28 (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Transcendent28: The discretionary alert is not a warning; it states clearly that, It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. Although, the edit-warning notice above does. But, with (hopeful) the cessation of edit-warring, the DS notice is just a reminder. ——SerialNumber54129

@Transcendent28: Generally when one editor keeps reverting several other editors, that is a hint that the serial reverter is on a mission to impose their own point of view against consensus. Fairness to the encyclopedia demands that the one making the same edit over and over again be the focus of warnings. Please reconsider your approach to editing the encyclopedia to take into account the necessity for consensus; this appears to be a continuing problem for you. Thank you for taking your concerns to the talkpage, as you should do after no more than one or two reverts. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Where in that source does it refer to a court contest? Could you link it? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug. This is with regards to the article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Liberal_Party_(Brazil)

You reverted my last change with comments that the links I shared do not discuss the party. But neither do the pre-existing sources cited as support for categorizing of the party as "far-right". I searched the links. You can do a word search for the text "party", and see what is said in each of the occurrences and none of them say anything about why the Social Liberal Party of Brazil is a far right party.

I consider this a serious case where the subjective political ideology of the editors is being entered into encyclopedia entry. The citations are news articles, which are good enough to say "event x happened" or that "according to person / source x, so and so is the case", but not to state in wikipedia voice that the party is a far-right party. I checked the policy of wikipedia and it says the same thing

"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

I would like to remove these other sources and the categorization of "far-right" as well please. Until there is a proper discussion about why the party is being called far right, it is not fair to stamp the party with this kind of label. Especially one which has just won a democratic election in Brazil. This would be like calling the entire country of Brazil as a far right country.

If I have missed where the other cited links talk about the party being far-right please let me know so that I can correct my mistake.

--Berzerker king (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

The user Ryanoo has vandalized the Land of Punt page and added his usual link: https://nantt44.wordpress.com/2018/08/27/chapter-vii-charmutha-becius-the-punt-kingdom-and-its-countries/ That word charmutha in the link is Arabic and it means "bitch" or "Whore" or "Prostitute". He's the one who's been vandalizing the page with that link in the past. I have reported it to @ Roxy, in the middle. wooF but I don't know if she will fix it as she's planning to take a health break. Can you please revert his changes and report him. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arboleh (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

You have undone the updates I had made to the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam

I agree that you have a logic in your argument that mentioning of Obama might seem irrelevant here. I made that citation to show that Farakkhan is a big deal. But I disagree that actions by Farrakhan is not relevant to the page of nation of islam. As you can see, in the page of nation of islam, Farrakhan is listed as one of the leaders of the movement. It should be very much relevant what the leader of the movement is saying and doing.

I would like to remove the mention of Obama and put back the rest of the comments which I had made, because I think that Farrakhan, by virtue of holding a very important tie to the organization, is relevant to this page. Otherwise, ultimately everything that happens, has to be done by humans. The organization itself cannot make any statement except though some of its own members.

Please let me know.

--Berzerker king (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mr Doug. I hope you are doing well. I have reported some user who has attacked and harassed me. However, I feel that the users who are discussing me there are very biased, I might be wrong. You can check it [15] and your input there (even if it is against me) will be highly appreciated. RegardsRyanoo (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• www.danielpipes.org
• Daniel Pipes' review of 'Empires of the Sand'
• Would Richard Bernstein be considered a reliable source for Islamic history?[16] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Bernstein yes, Pipes obviously no. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC) @Kansas Bear:. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'm writing here to reduce clutter. In your comment here, you say you can't "go back" to 1RR because 1RR is already the rule. But that's not the point.

The current situation is "1RR + this convoluted rule". If you remove the convoluted part, you'll be left with plain 1RR. That's what I asked for. You can certainly do this. Whether you think it's wise is a different question, but you certainly have the capability to do it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You have reverted ALL my edit. Do you mean Japanese newspapers are not reliable? Onhigan (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting your reply. Onhigan (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Onhigan: I'd say you were impatient, but I replied on your talk page within minutes of your post. Please respond there. You can ping me with {{ping|Doug Weller}} Doug Weller talk 13:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I know that and I have responded on my talk page. Onhigan (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Raidashir?? I am not finding any sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

All these people have 15 spellings. I suspect he existed, but this 2nd edit in 2005 suggests trouble - you might check the other edits of the isp. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I confess to be not happy with your move from Sheba to Kingdom of Sheba. Look at templates such as Template:Book of Joel: all short names. IF you believe in the move, please clean up after it: in the article, and mimimum in templates which link, because they don't work for redirects. I did the three templates for you, but believe the best action would be to revert the move, and the 3 changes in templates, for consistency with other biblical places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: ok, I'll revert, but it isn't just a biblical place and I suspect the other editor will do a move. I was going to fix the article but somehow got distracted, too much multi-tasking! Doug Weller talk 18:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I know multi-tasking, got reminded today that I left an article unfinished that is in the queue for DYK tomorrow (done), and didn't supply promised references for a discography (not done yet) ;) - How about two articles for Sheba, - the biblical and the other? But again, I suggested two articles for Luther's hymn and its translation, and was reverted twice (once last year), and accused of "deliberate misleading" (see talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I've reverted the templates and your edit to Sheba so those are fixed now I hope. Maybe you could comment on the article's talk page? I'm going to be too busy for a few days I think answering questions to do anything more. I've given in to requests above and via email. I've already been told I'm crazy for doing it again. :-) I've got to go reheat my dinner now! Doug Weller talk 18:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me you're planning on running again? Vanamonde (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: thanks, but why would I do that? 4 years seems enough. :-) Hopefully there are a number of good editors out there planning to run. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure 4 years feels like far too many. But it would be great to see you run again even so. No doubt there will be the usual e-bay-style flurry in the closing minutes of the nom period. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see why longer than four years may seem too long. Your workload seems to have eased off of late, though. I'm not sure that there are enough editors looking to run, which was part of what prompted my question...there's only three candidates, and 1 admin, running as I write this. Vanamonde (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Naw, you should do it anyway. I hope you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Doug, I would really like to see you run again. You're an excellent Arb, and reliable and sensible. We need good candidates; currently there are only three people running to fill six seats, and two of those three are not even administrators. Please continue to be of service this way, if you are able to. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• (+1) Prolific contributions to main-space and one of the most sensible folks of the outgoing lot; I do hope to see you back:-)∯WBG^converse 15:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Although I'm still listening, I'm still loathe to run. Even when ArbCom is quiet, I still find even just keeping up with my watchlist time-consuming. And our email load seems to have risen considerably. Hopefully some of the other outgoing Arbs will run again. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Just thought to check and I see Courcelles, an ex-Arb, has thrown his hat into the ring. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh, that is good to see. There's still five other seats to fill, though. :-) Vanamonde (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
      • And I'm happier still to see you went for it. Much appreciated. Vanamonde (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for running. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI, there was an arbitration case request filed involving you that has now been declined. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

After you addressed another IP/editor using said PA.[17] --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I can't find the editor I addressed, but this one seems to be from Vermont given their first edit. Possibly COI. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Eraj b Far0den? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Very different interests. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Doug, there's a user that has been persistently vandalising the Aesop page since the start of the month, despite warnings. It's a new user, probably some childish schoolboy, who might need a short block to bring him to his senses. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: sorry, I missed this. Seems quiet now however, and I see another Admin seems to be watching the page. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Using talk pages to rant about a religion can get you blocked Doug Weller talk 09:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have a floating IP so I guess you are sending this to someone else?

Perhaps this is not a good method for communicating with users?

Maybe they should be signed in to comment?

Regardless, the person you were addressing will have got a new IP when they reset their device, like I did today, and then I saw that message! Which means they didn't see it!

Hope that clears up floating IP's for you?

Cheers :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.141.252 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Thank you very much for your continued support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orugaberuteika (talk • contribs) 13:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting for your constructive and wise opinion! I love you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orugaberuteika (talk • contribs) 13:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You are invited to participate at Talk:Steve King#RfC: Most openly affiliated with white nationalsm. R2 (bleep) 17:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I used
Studies In The Weekly Parashah Volume 1 - Bereshit BEREISHIS BY Y. NACHSHONI
Which I believe is a credible source. Why do you feel this is not credible or did you have another reason for deleting my contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mage67usa (talk • contribs) 08:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mage67usa: I've posted to the article talk page with a suggested version and detailing some other issues. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug, sorry to bother you, more than month ago about the situation in the Saudi page with Oxfordlaw, you asked me to open a RfC to see the result. I did, and more people supported one section over different sections for the pre-Islamic period of Saudi Arabia[18]. When I changed the article to accommodate the result, Oxfordlaw reverted me by saying that this version was in place for much longer and gained much support. However, in reality 1) the pinged users preferred the "one section" over every kingdom/state having its separate sections[19], [20] 2) the 3O discouraged multiple sections "There probably shouldn't be separate sections for Lihyan, Nabataean, Dilmun, Thamud and Kindah, etc." 3) the RfC result, was that, more people preferred one section over multiple sections.

I have done really everything to gain consensus, from pinging users to asking for 3O and opening a DRN (which he failed to participate in) to requesting comments. It is worth noting that the said user was recently banned in Saudi Arabia article for edit warring over Khashoggi incident. Nabataeus (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you take a look into it? The problem is getting tedious with a user determined to stick to his version despite all odds, when it doesn't need to be. Nabataeus (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I am new, but this is fantastic!

Bob Tarver (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I am new. Why did you delete? Thank you :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)

"4 August 70 CE (Tisha B'Av - 9th Day of Av) or"

Bob Tarver (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

BobTarver — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobTarver (talk • contribs) 11:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Because it added nothing to the article and didn't support the claim. It was just a calendar. Editor2020 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I should have put more in, as you can see, the 9th Day of Av or Tisha B'Av is 4 August 70 CE. Please see the Wikipedia article "Judea_(Roman_province)" in the right side of the article "Historical Era", and the Hebrew/Roman Calendar which details the Holidays at in end of the page.

How about this:

"According to tradition, on 4 August 70 CE[1][2][3], which would be the 9th Day of Av (Tisha B'Av in the Jewish Calendar), the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans."

Bob Tarver (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) we never use our articles as sources. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Your other sources are no better. Where is this tradition coming from? If it's authentic there will be scholarly sources discussing it. And hopefully explaining the difference in dates. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC) @BobTarver: Doug Weller talk 11:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I am found a source. ^[1] said "According to Josephus, a Roman soldier took a torch and threw it against the beautiful tapestries that Herod had made for the Temple and that hung along its walls. When they caught fire the Romans attempted to put it out, but there was not sufficient water. Somehow the fire was so intense that even the stone took hold and the building collapsed. The Talmud says that it burned not only on the late afternoon of the ninth of Av, but the entire day of the tenth.[1]" Also, the reference [1] said "[1] In fact, there is an opinion in the Talmud that the day of destruction should be the tenth of Av instead of the ninth because the building was actually destroyed on the tenth. Nevertheless, since it started on the ninth, and because of the connection to the destruction of the First Temple, the ninth remained the memorial day for the destruction of both Temples." Now, using the Hebrew/Roman Calendar ^[2], the 9th Day of Av would be on 4 August and the 10th Day of Av would be on 5 August 70 CE. Also, Josephus (Judean War, 6.4.5 249-253) wrote:

   "So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the Temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the Holy House; but, as for that House, God had for certain long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of the ages: it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Av,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus's retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the Holy House fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning in the inner court of the Temple; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the Holy House itself. 
   At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the Holy House, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward the Jews made a great clamour, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered anything to restrain their force, since that Holy House was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard upon it."

Bob Tarver (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC) ____

Hello! Could you, at least,correct the source of Great Power on Brazil’s article. It’s still wrong. The correct source is in my last edition. As you can ser there, the source is double on great and middle power right now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B777-300ER (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is presumably the same IP hopper you and I reverted a few times earlier today. The original target pages have been protected, so it looks like they're now trying to insert this stuff into related articles. Is there anything clever that can be done to identify the IPs and range-block them, or do we just have to play what-a-mole? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: ask at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, they seem to use the same text. This range[21] has a lot of very bad edits but also some good ones, not sure it would be right to block it. I'm about to go watch tv with my wife so don't have time to make the edit filter request. Need to try and get action on my other request there! Doug Weller talk 19:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: thanks for the suggestion - I've never investigated Edit filters before. It looks like they've stopped for now, I've searched for a few of the terms that they were using and can't see that they've added anything since I last reverted them, but if they start up again I'll ask for a filter. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug, shalom. There is currently a discussion on the 1RR rule in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment‎, while the initial request for amendment was entered under a case affecting Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). As you know, I am still under a pending topic ban relating to articles involving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Does this mean that I cannot submit a suggestion for better improvement of the 1RR rule currently under discussion, since the rule also affects other non-related Arab-Israeli issues, but of edits and reverts in general? Am I permitted to respond there?Davidbena (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I need to check about this. I'll get back to you. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davidbena: you can only take part in discussions about your own sanction, e.g. a clarification, an appeal to the ban, or to defend yourself at AE or a dramaboard. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I trust the wisdom of the panel of contributors who have, each, expressed his opinion there about the 1RR rule. My opinion would be of little weight and bearing anyway.Davidbena (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you check my rollback request ? I found that you're available now and i really need rollback right to fight against vandalism with huggle.  TheRedBox (Talk) 20:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug, in this discussion User:EdJohnston mentioned the possibility of someone stepping forward and taking ownership of the discretionary sanctions placed by Coffee. The more I think about it the more I think that's a good idea. (It's a pain to run back to the noticeboard and get a new consensus every time one wants to change something.) Might that be something you'd be willing to take on? I did a search for edit notices that he created and it looks like there are about 140 (my list here contains some redlinks). I've thought about asking to take them over myself but I'd rather not for a couple of reasons. ~Awilley (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug could certainly handle this assignment. But I wonder if he would have to recuse on some Arbcom votes if he became the sanction owner. (The owner might need to take responsibility for lifting or modifying some of the sanctions, since people would make requests to him for changes). As an alternative, User:Awilley could ask some admin to take on the assignment who has been active enough at AE to understand the nuances of the various bans. And of course Awilley would be a logical candidate to be the sanction owner, except he doesn't want to :-). EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot that Doug's term on the committee is expiring the end of this year and he is not running again, so he could certainly take this on if he wants to. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley and EdJohnston: why would anyone need to do this? I've already told Sandstein I don't believe that the Admin who placed the sanction is responsible for its enforcement. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions certainly doesn't suggest that and only says that any uninvolved Admin can place sanctions on editors. Where does this idea come from? Shall I ask my colleagues to clarify this? Doug Weller talk 08:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This is regarding "No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below)." So Awilley wants someone to take over the restrictions so that changes can be done with their approval instead of appealing to AE/AN every time. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct, there would be zero obligation to actually enforce any of the sanctions, it just gives you the authority to modify or remove them without needing to get prior consensus. ~Awilley (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC) As for me taking over the sanctions, I've placed discretionary sanctions on exactly one article, and that was after being asked multiple times to do it. I don't want that count to increase from 1 to 140 overnight. Besides I strongly disagreed and even clashed a bit with Coffee before his retirement over the way he was enforcing sanctions, and I'd feel a bit weird becoming his "successor". Whoever takes over the sanctions I will probably be approaching them and asking them to remove the sanctions from some articles that aren't experiencing disruption. But that's something where I'd feel safer having to convince someone else in addition to myself. The same goes with my efforts to find an alternative to consensus-required. ~Awilley (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley, EdJohnston, and Galobtter: Actually I think it's the bit under the section "Appeals from sanctioned editors", which says "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below)".... I think the bit you quoted is about sanctions on editors, given that the 2nd sentence is the quote I've just given specifically mentions requests for modification of page restrictions. A bit that I think needs to go or be referred to in the section on placing page restrictions. A bit confusing. In any case, I think we'll have to take some formal action for someone to take them over and I'm looking into that. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, we'd need to make a request and get a consensus of administrators at AE, AN, or ARCA, giving you ownership of all sanctions placed by Coffee. There may be some users still around who have indefinite editor-level sanctions placed by Coffee, and you'd then be on the hook if they decide to appeal directly to you, but I think the bulk of it would be the page restrictions. ~Awilley (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

http://www.muellerscience.com/

Ran by a Roland Müller? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I redirected the Kurdish genocide dab page to the primary topic, Anfal, but I was surprised when I saw your name in the editing history (I did this as what seemed like obvious cleanup, but now I'm worried there may be some past discussions I wasn't aware of). The content didn't seem appropriate for a dab page. I checked Max Planck which is my go to source for authoritative international law stuff and the only thing that came up was the Iraqi Special Tribunal. In any case, I'm prepared for a discussion if it's needed, as I'm currently working on improving coverage of ICTR and ICTY cases so I have a bunch of sources already open in front of me. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I'll leave it to you, I don't have an opinion. Doug Weller talk 21:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Tap on the shoulder, forgot to sign your post here. Britmax (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Mr Weller, as you're so quick to advise I am wrong about Mr Ellison because I don't have four, independent, and seperate sources for the claim: I suggest you look to KEITH ELLISON VERIFIED DIRECT TWITTER ACCOUNT on January 3rd of 2018 and see for yourself in his own words and photographic evidence of his own self portrait. Perhaps before you threaten people or censor them, you should look outside your own echo chamber bubble. PatrioticMiguel (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The tweet you're apparently referring to shows Ellison holding a book. Not sure if serious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

He held a book. He didn't say he supported Antifa. According to the notoriously left-wing Fox News, "In a post on Twitter, Ellison said that he found the book "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook" at a Minneapolis book shop and said it would "strike fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump."[22] @PatrioticMiguel: either you haven't actually seen the tweet or you are misrepresenting it. It's shown on the Fox News link. This is also interesting. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug - mess here. I've corrected Leslie to Lacey, but the book title & link go different places. I imagine The Origin of Roman London, which I'd just put in FR, is correct. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: thanks for sorting that. I'm not sure what happened there. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how the following paragraph is an accordance with Wikipeda's policy of a Neutral point of view in regards to Richard Santorum :

"Santorum's anti-LGBT history has brought intense criticism from LGBT rights advocates and supporters. Human Rights Campaign, a leading LGBT rights organization in the United States, published a report during Santorum's presidential campaign that vehemently berated him for his comments and statements that were interpreted as homophobic.[226] During an event Santorum held in 2012 in Illinois, two men were escorted out of Santorum's rally after they publicly kissed each other to mock Santorum for his anti-LGBT views; the crowd booed the men before their exit.[227] After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, Cornell University invited Santorum to speak in November of that year; his appearance was met with fervent protests by several students who censured him as a fascist and a bigot.[228]"

I removed this paragraph for the sake of objectivity and somehow discretionary sanctions are being imposed against me, is there any political page (besides Santorum) which states nebulous "protesters" censured previous or current political candidates on the basis of being facists and bigots? This is almost a Trumpian critique with bad sources and poor faith ("people say it's the best, the greatest!"). There's been plenty of "protesters" who have called Obama a "Socialist" or "Kenyan-born usurper" are their opinions to be highlighted too? As a matter of fact Obama had the exact same position as Santorum during the time in which he was most politically active (2012), there's no reference anywhere to Obama's anti-LGBT history. As a matter of fact the section under Santorum is replete with the words, Anti-LGBT, as if that framing where neutral, that's about as vague as saying a president is Anti-War or Pro-Peace,. Any article would seem infantile if this treatment was done to another candidate, imagine an article stating, because of Obama's Anti-peace stance he was in support of bombing Yemen and Afghanistan? I don't think it would go over as neutral, much less accurate. If a specific criticism is leveled by an individual and is properly source, that is fair game but a six paragraph review on Santorum's LGBT views seems excessive, especially while all his other positions only get one sentence treatment, or two sentences at best. This was a two term Senator from a very big state, a runner up in a national Republican primary, the article should at least attempt to be neutral, least we retroactively brand all political entities Anti-Black and Anti-LGBTQQIAAP for being victims of their times. Best regards, Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Exadajdjadjajdsz: I'm not getting involved in this content dispute - this belongs on the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Why do I have discretionary sanctions then? Someone must have arbitrated that. Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I addressed my dispute on the talk page, yet another user deleted it, can I be involved in an "edit war" regarding a talk page and not the actual content itself? Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep changing the demographic information on the Londinium page that I provide. I don't see how the BBC can be a more reliable source, than the publications of a historian like Tacitus, who lived during that time. I hope you have a good explanation to maintain that position. I wait your answer. Best regards BryceHarper34 (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi, please read this and this. Tacitus is what we call a primary source, while Wikipedia goes with what reliable secondary sources state. Also, please note that age matters, as said in the first link i posted above. Happy editing.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I was going to say that and add that a source written around 98CE isn't going to work as a source for an overview of the demographics of Londinium. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I see that you are falling into a clear fallacy here. Because this is not a scientific or medical postulate. It's not a theory either. On the other hand, the information provided by the BBC is really a theory, therefore, it should not be taken as an absolute truth and as a reliable source. On the other hand, Agricola by tacitus, is a text written by someone who lived it in the first person. And for that reason it should not be taken as a "primary source", because Tacitus didn't theorize, he simply wrote what he saw. And for this particular reason, I consider that this is a more accurate source than a theory, such as is the information from the BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryceHarper34 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, have you read the links provided above ? If you have not, please read 'em and refrain from aggressive behaviour like "I see that you are falling into a clear fallacy here" when you disagree with other editors. Also, Doug's remark about a 2000 years old writer sounds quite legit.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I read the links, and that is why I find the use of the information obtained by the BBC inadequate. Since it is a theory. Second, please avoid falling into a misunderstanding of the words, since I find no insult or aggression in the term "fallacy". Finally, I believe that if no information provided meets the requirements, it would be best to remove the information from the demographic section in the meantime, until a more viable source is obtained. And also, are you trying to tell me that the information obtained from a writer who lived during that time, is not a reliable source? But the information published by a television channel is a more reliable source? this makes no sense BryceHarper34 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

81.191.69.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Could you look at this IPs edits again? They've been disruptive again immediately after your previous block on them was lifted. Thanks. 134.196.241.184 (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to protect Wikipedia, I see from your page that you have deleted many entries that also had proof.

I am amused by your phrase "trying to translate the Latin". Anyone with even a reasonable grasp of Latin can see that the phrase "(I)N NOMINE D(E)I PATRIS ET (S)PERETUS SANTDI" references only two of the Holy Trinity, where is "ET FILIUS" for The Son? This is a point made during by the tour guide of St Illtyds.

Your edits seem to prevent the spread of knowledge via Wikipedia and I ask you to reconsider insisting on an erroneous translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi07971 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I have deleted material that was badly sourced or unsourced or for other reasons against policy. You however have tried to make the article look as though the Latin has only one possible reading (let alone the difference in expansions) and the reading you added doesn't even seem to be in the source. You also seem to be taking a tourist guide's word over that of Victor Erle Nash-Williams (I see his brother wrote Latin textbooks). I'm not claiming that it is definite that the son was part of the inscription, I'm saying, and the article needs to say, that it's been translated at least once that way by an exper. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I just added the name of the site where the date of birth has been given, but I am not able to add that the citation properly. NJIndia (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#2017 ArbCom and the GdB unban. Fram (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, just reminding you that you protected the page under ECP, but you didn't log it as such. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Damn, I got interrupted and forgot. I'll do it tomorrow when I'm back on my PC. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I added the name of a person to a clan because the clan belong to that person.clan name is sarbani the nickname of the person and the book is a concise history of Afghanistan volume 1 page 355 and you could help me on article i will provide more sources Durrani khurasan (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Durrani khurasan: That's not how the clan is known nor was it how he is known. We don't use self published books like that one. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The clan name is derive from the person this exists on wikipedia that sarbani is the ancestor of Tareen,Abdali,Zirak,popolzai,Durrani,Sadduzai,Barakzai, Alkuzai and much more and the wikipedia tells us that Saraband is the son of Qais Abdur rashid and saraband decendent are Tareen,Abdali,zirak,popolzai,Durrani,Sadduzai,Barakzai, Alkuzai,musazai,Muhammadzai and much more.this is getting us on the page that Saraband is the person and sarbani clan is derive from him an adobted name. Pashtun people reference the clan by a nickname of his ancestor or his own name.the nickname for clan should belong to the real name of the person Durrani khurasan (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sir, I've re-added the reliable source which got deleted here. I've added info based on that without mentioning the names and precise DoB of her kids. Only the year of birth has been mentioned. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:DOB, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.

My question is since The Times of India is considered a reliable source, will it be wrong to include the subject's full birth date as supported by this reference? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sir. Kindly respond. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I should be doing something else right now, User:Fylindfotberserk. The Times is a reliable source, but that's not enough to show it's widely published. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

OK Sir, I'll try to find other reliable sources but then again there are many actor/celeb articles with single news article sources to support full DoB. I believe I need to consult Cyphoidbomb as well since he has guided me many times in this kind of BLP related stuff. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Doug, I corrected the date of death because I was /am in contact with his widow and she gave me the correct date. That is why I don´t know why it was changed back. I have made several changes on Wikipedia based on records (death certificates etc) but they always seem to be edited out. Except on the Wikipedia page someone did about me without my knowledge, there my corrections (except for the ghastly photo) were left in.

Best Deborah Vietor-EnglanderDebenglander (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Answered on her talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I recently read a book on spiritual science, and looking at the current science of world I thought, since it is changed my perception of life as a seeker of actual science, I must add the view of the book onto wherever possible. And it is why I tried adding onto Wikipedia the same texts as it written in the book. But you have messaged me saying that I am not here to improve the wikipedia. Frankly speaking, It is true that I am not here for improving Wikipedia but here to improve the knowledge of readers.

Weller, What your thought on this being a human?

Regards, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Responssor (talk • contribs) 03:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If I may, this unannounced WikiJaguar was padding by, noticed this item, and thought I might be able to help this new editor....

Hello Michael, and welcome to Wikipedia! How are you today? Where I live the gleam of the sun is today hidden behind the coat of clouds, many of them, but such is this physical realm.

I am writing this note in an effort to help you, if not become human, then to improve your understanding of Wikipedia. Firstly - and as it turns out, lastly - I note that you explicitly wrote above that "[i]t is true that I am not here for improving Wikipedia." Perceiving that, and interpreting it appropriately, I conclude beyond the slightest shadow (there's that sun again!) of a doubt that you should probably not edit Wikipedia, and instead focus your efforts elsewhere to "improve the knowledge" and, if I may be so bold, be the sparkle of mirror for everyone. I did not reach that conclusion lightly or hastily, nor by merely sitting in a cave or jungle, but rather by familiarizing myself with Wikipedia and its policies. Here is how you can do the same: on the main page of Wikipedia, over on the left side of the screen, you will find a section entitled "About Wikipedia." Click on that link and read the entire thing. Really and truly, read it all. If, however, you are pressed for time because of your activities as a spiritual synthesiser, brain mechanic, energy practitioner, or whatever, you could (for now) read just the subsection "3 Contributing to Wikipedia." Pretty much everything you need to know about why "I am not here for improving Wikipedia" is an absolute non-starter is therein provided. Fortunately for you, me, Weller, and indeed the universe, those policies are not only clear but, here and in this particular situation, not up for debate.

As you know, Michael, everything and everyone deserve (sic) happiness in the universe. That includes you. If, however, you continue to edit Wikipedia in a manner that is contrary to its policies, I guarantee, with the same conviction that I can guarantee the book ‘Sunlightenment by Fathor’ is a self-published work that does not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia, that you will become sad. No one wants that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The lack of a neutral point of view that is laced throughout this article is embarrassing and in violation of Wikipedia core content policies. See WP:NPOV.

The fact that this article is called "pseudoarchaelogy" alone is biased enough, but the introductory paragraph at least provides a decent opening in that it states that it "refers to interpretations of the past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted datagathering and analytical methods of the discipline." However, after that, there is a clear lack of a NPOV. The article goes on to say that these interpretations "construct scientifically insubstantial theories" and that "[m]ethods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, and fabrication of evidence."

While it is true that SOME scientists with theories outside of the archaelogical do not have data backed by science, that cannot be said conclusively said for ALL of them. The article was edited to soften that language, make it more neutral and make that qualification but it was reverted back at least three times. You have even proposed protecting the article to prevent this edit rather than discussing this further on the talk page. User:Just_plain_Bill and User:Joe Roe, I welcome your opinions also on how this edit does not further a NPOV and ask why you have reverted the edits on this article.

HocusPocus00 (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You have a misguided understanding of NPOV. NPOV does not mean that all points of view are treated equally. Rather, NPOV means that we give due weight to points of view based upon their prevalence in mainstream reliable sources. The article is currently written in this manner, giving due and primary weight to mainstream scientific understandings. What you are asking is that we reject this policy and instead give equal validity to fringe, widely-rejected pseudoscientific beliefs. This we will not do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof:, you are misunderstanding what I am asking for. I am not asking for the article to be edited to state that pseudoarcheology be considered the mainstream, the correct line of thinking or on par with regular archaeology. I am asking that the article be written with an objective tone, or in other words, a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV. The policies that you cited, including WP:FRINGE even state that these articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Instead, this article is currently written from a point of view that comes off as severely biased. Please give the introductory paragraphs a read through. It currently insinuates that ALL psuedoarchaeological theories are non-scientific, which is untrue. And further, that they are "dramatic" and "romanticized". These are very dangerous and biased adjectives to use in an article that should be from a NPOV. This article is simply about archaeological theories which are different than the mainstream archaeological approaches. That's it. HocusPocus00 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Please note the citations to WP:Reliable sources in the article, including in the lead. There is a difference between novel or unconventional archaeological theories or interpretations and pseudoarchaeology. If a novel or unconventional theory or interpretation has been treated in multiple reliable sources, it may be covered in Wikipedia, always applying due weight. I know of some articles that mention theories or suggestions from established archaeologists that various cultures/peoples in the Southeastern United States represent migrations from South America. Those articles also usually include comments from other archaeologists expressing doubts about the proposed migration events. All of those articles use citations to reliable sources to support the statements. I also have a copy of a little book that claims that the Calusa where Mayans, but it was self published (without a publisher, or even a printer, listed), and is therefore not a reliable source, and not eligible for citation in Wikipedia. In the end, it comes down to what is covered in multiple reliable sources. - Donald Albury 13:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Doug, yes I have a COI with Bearsville Studios. Since I provided most of the original article content, I've removed links per guidelines. I don't think this page captures the facts well anymore and the process of only retaining artists that are well referenced on wikipedia makes wikipedia into an echo chamber not a collection of facts. This article has been in need of reference to verifiable sources like the NYT, Kingston Freeman, and Woodstock Times. But no editor has had the time to do that work, to add those links. Maybe removing the page altogether is a better action than presenting a biased view? ... Thank you for your efforts in editing to the guidelines. Not thrilled with, but understand and accept your edits. -Shepard Siegel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss42 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure it out but I think you have that paper pegged pretty well. You are a wise editor. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Robert Olivia" has made ~ 90 edits, mainly on Afghanistan/Pakistan articles. Though he has made very few edits (all of them unsourced), his editorial pattern bears a strong resemblance to that sockmaster you dealt with recently (Astore Malik), who also had a keen interest in the word/name "Sadduzai/Sadozai" and various obscure Pakistani topics. Just a few days ago, "Robert Olivia", without any discussion or whatsoever, changed numerous long-standing article titles, adding the word "Sadozai" to it.[23]-[24]-[25]-[26] "Robert Olivia" has also edited the very same low-profile articles that were edited by sockmaster & co. in the past[27]-[28] - LouisAragon (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: it looks like User:Sir Sputnik dealt with a sock more recently, I'm not sure when I can get at this. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• I can't believe I didn't save the above reply! Just found it scrolling through my many tabs. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Since you had posted a warning on this editor's talk page concerning sourcing and the lack thereof[29] and their belligerent response months later,[30] I thought I should notify you of this editor's latest use of a source which has been shown to be Wikipedia:Cherry-picking.[31] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to follow up earlier, but I've been out of town for a while. (Currently writing from a layover in Denver) Have you had any more thoughts on User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_53#Taking_over_Coffee's_sanctions? If you'd rather not I'll understand :-) ~Awilley (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: I don't, but we're discussing how to deal with these and I need to follow up on the discussion. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, could you clarify who is discussing this? (Does "we" refer to: you and me, a group of admins somewhere, the Arb mailing list?) ~Awilley (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: sorry, the Committee. It seemed to me to be a general issue and we're looking at it that way. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a general problem, not just when an admin retires or becomes unreachable, but when they are desysopped. The easiest solution is when the admin makes a statement prior to their departure clarifying which other admin(s) may modify the sanctions. But when someone goes completely and permanently MIA, not responding to emails and the like, it might be reasonable to make the discretionary sanctions act like regular blocks that can be undone by any admin without the threat of being hauled off to ArbCom for desysopping. ~Awilley (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: here we go.[32] Doug Weller talk 16:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Doug, I note you previously participated in the subject talk page. I am trying to revive discussion and create resources for people rejoining after a period of absence. While I am doing this in part in response to concerns raised at WP:BN regarding administrators who only make token edits (e.g. one edit per year) to avoid being considered inactive, the purpose is broader. I would welcome your insights and participation in the project.

Best,

UninvitedCompany 17:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug! Would it be possible for you to have a look at this discussion? Others are more than welcome to join in. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Doug! I understand your concern about the author's copyright. You will notice that the Q-MAG.org site is the place where Gunnar Heinsohn publishes all his latest original work on chronological revisions. The translation has been done in full agreement with him. It is unlikely that he would be publishing on a site that is blatantly violating his own copyright. RadostRadost (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

	Happy New Year
	Hi Doug Weller, Sending you a warm greetings for New Year 2019 and may this new year bring you joy and laughter. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Please reinstate the November 10 2016 edit to "Demagogue" that added "Donald J Trump" to the list. The entry is factually, historically, presciently accurate and not inflammatory. It includes his ties to Russians and Vladimir Putin, white supremacists, and his racist dog-whistling. All of these elements have born out to be true and Wikipedia could have demonstrated its value to the world by not censoring material that it might deem controversial or that goes against its moderators' politics, but instead by allowing the truth to speak for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemacher (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shoemacher: we're a source-based encyclopedia and this looks like original research which isn't allowed. If you can find several sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY it might be possible. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it needs sources. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the latest edits there? Some form of synthesis, I think. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently received a Discretionary sanctions alert mentioning possible sanctions for editors who do not follow, among other things, page-specific restrictions.

The page-specific restrictions part is not exactly clear to me. e.g.: for one of the pages I was editing (Terrorism in the United States), I see the alert on my talk-page linking to generic pages (so I assume it's not those). The Talk:Terrorism_in_the_United_States page is having, at the top, an "Article policies" section, is it OK to assume these are the "page-specific restrictions" or should I look elsewhere ?

Thanks for your time! Mcrt007 (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mcrt007: they'll be clearly labeled as part of discretionary sanctions - they may limit editors to one revert, to something called "consensus required", etc. That article has discretionary sanctions restrictions. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! Mcrt007 (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

My Kasky was one Wikipedia already used. I can site it. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/opinions/florida-shooting-no-more-opinion-kasky/index.html

The sleepwalker (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@The sleepwalker: where? I don't see it. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven't sited it with my change but I read an already cited article on him which I found through Wikipedia. It's the link I attached. "But the truth is, nobody really knew what was going on. We huddled in a room, listening to terrifying noises we couldn't identify..." That's what the CNN report says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The sleepwalker (talk • contribs) 11:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@The sleepwalker: this really belongs on the article's talk page. Your quote doesn't say he was a bystander, and it's original research to make that interpretation. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ugh Thank you. I understand you're in accordance with the original research and why Wikipedia can't risk defamation suits. It really irks me that he or someone on his behalf can justify lie to further his cause no different than politicians he's criticized. I don't follow politicians or him. I just stumbled on his page and read the reference articles and noticed it's inaccurate. That loophole is the worst. At least you didn't penalize me, for correcting their immorality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The sleepwalker (talk • contribs) 01:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

http://www.historynet.com/second-afghan-war.htm

Do you know who Simon Rees is?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

1. In case of Old Fort, person had used the image of Tughlaqabad. Old Fort and Tughlaqabad are two different forts of Delhi. I am a research scholar from Delhi and my specialization is Forts and Stwpwells. Both Forts exist 30 kms apart from each other.

2. For Qutub Minar, ask any archaeologist. In Delhi, we were not using baked bricks. It was an error made by a British officer while documenting it. It is made of rubble masonry (stone) and there is a cladding of stone around it. Bricks were used in Delhi after 17 century and Qutub Minar belongs to 12-13th century (some historians have raised doubt on date also).

PS: I have served as a consultant to many organizations including UNESCO, ASI (Archaeological Survey of India - Body that manages most monuments in India), and many other private organizations. My information is not hearsay, but comes from archaeologists and historians. I have spent first 2 years of my research on Qutub Minar only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterrai (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masterrai: the problem is that we are a source based encyclopedia and those sources must be attributable to reliable, published sources. We can't use our own personal knowledge or experience. There are obviously sources for bricks, can you help with a source that meets our criteria at WP:RS? I can see some Google snippets but I don't like using snippets. There must be some as you are correct on this issue, although for some reason as I've said some sources say bricks. Thanks for your help with this article. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed that. It was added by these, the only edits of an isp, with no new refs. The Unesco ref certainly doesn't mention bricks. Nor does James Fergusson in his History of Indian and Eastern Architecture of 1876 (pp. 505-506 here). But of course it is usual in India to blame everything on the British, without feeling any need to explain why so very many Indian sources are still repeating the mistakes a century or two afterwards..... Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: thanks. Qutb Minar complex also says it's the oldest brick built minaret. The brick bit was added August 2005[33] and I suspect that's why we find sources such as this and this although the writer of that seems to have been there. This file description also needs changing. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This may be right. There are plenty of Indian books, including textbooks, but I can't see any pre-2005. The Minaret of Jam and other "victory towers" are indeed of brick. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

hi, I noticed that you contribute in articles that I am interested in so I would like to ask you a question since you are an admin and an expert in editting in Wikipedia. I am having an issue with some titles of Wikipedia articles. The article Sabaeans is mainly about the kingdom of Saba' or the Sabaean kingdom not about Sabaeans in general as someone would assume from the title. the article Sheba seems also about the kingdom of Saba' but its more about the biblical stories. The article Sabaeans also contain biblical stories from the beginning so basically they are different articles with the same subject. I want to start contributing in these articles and other articles but this is one of the issues I am facing I don't know where to contribute?! because I don't see any differences between them. Here is my suggestion: if the article of Sheba is about the biblical kingdom so it should not start with "Sheba was a (South Arabian) speaking kingdom whose location is unknown!" and the article of Sabaeans should be renamed or moved to the "Sabaean kingdom" or the "kingdom of Saba'" and should contain less biblical narratives and more archeological and historical statements. If you agree with my suggestion I can start fixing these articles that are very confusing and I guess that's mainly because editors didn't have much knowledge about the subject of the kingdom of Saba'. SharabSalam (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I've removed that, it was an old unexplained IP edit. It's now clearly about the biblical kingdom, I hope. If you want to rename Sabaeans I suggest you start a move request. I'm not sure those names align with other similar articles. Saba perhaps? Doug Weller talk 17:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello DW, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thought I'd check with you before proceeding. You cautioned me about the 24-hour revert rule, so I undid my revert of the revert of my edit. However, I still think my edit was justified and proper. 24 hours after my undo (which I guess counts as a revert), I intend once again to restore my deletion of the section in question. The reverter has blocked comment on his Talk page and has not responded to my explanation on the Jerusalem Talk page, where he was pinged, so I he's not engaging, other than to say, "But it's true." Another user has commented that the section should be in the article, "but only if properly sourced". Should this become a revert war, unless you'd like to rule yourself, then I intend to take it to arbitration. That's OK, rule-wise, right?

Too much POV sneaks into Wikipedia, and articles get far too long by enthusiasts, and when there's deletion or editing down, it gets reverted by bruised egos, relying on the fact that editors would rather let it go than get tangled up in a revert war. So, Wikipedia's credibility takes a hit. — J M Rice (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The Edit warring policy is blind as to who is right. If you edit war you may be blocked. Raise your concerns on the talk page of the article and hope other editors agree. If they don't, find another topic to work on. Yes, it can be frustrating, but there are plenty of articles in Wikipedia that need improving, and the climate at a particular article may change in the future. - Donald Albury 00:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

An unsourced section was tagged in April 2015. Nothing has been done as of December 2018. "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Accordingly, I removed the section. My edit was reverted, I restored the edit and "raised my concerns" on the article Talk page and received some support. My edit was reverted, and now I'm being warned about edit warring and of being blocked and kindly asked to go elsewhere? J M Rice (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Varanasi, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ikhtiar H (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

I noticed you were cleaning up the Coast to Coast AM article. The article on The Rush Limbaugh Show could also use some attention; I made a very bold cleanup in August that got reverted, and have re-removed a few of the changes from that diff since then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Doug Weller, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 15:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

— 20:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I see that you reverted my edit which changed the assessment of the article Megalithic Temples of Malta from Mid- to Top-importance for the Architecture, World Heritage Sites and Archaeology WikiProjects. I asked a question on each project's talk page and will reassess the article according to any replies I get.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture#Importance assessment of Megalithic Temples of Malta
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Heritage Sites#Importance assessment of Megalithic Temples of Malta
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Importance assessment of Megalithic Temples of Malta

I believe that this article should be Top-Importance for Architecture and World Heritage Sites, and Top or maybe High-Importance for Archaeology (depending on one's interpretation of the criteria).

Anyway, best wishes for Christmas and the New Year! :)

Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2019 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Doug,

Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM

Thanks,

Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at ODEM (talk • contribs) 07:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! GSS (talk

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Hello, I assume you meant to put a protection tag on Christmas? It's a POV tag instead. It definitely needs protection. BillsYourUncle (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@BillsYourUncle: thanks, I've protected it. But the pov tag was deliberate, see the talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Ahem, you just replaced the indef semi with a short-term one. Maybe you intended a short extended? Favonian (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian: you're right, I was too hasty. To make it clear, I reverted myself, ie restored the indefinite, then changed it to 3 days extended. Now I hope I remember to go back to autoconfirmed! Change it if you think it needs it. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)