User talk:Doug Weller: Difference between revisions
→AM I A SOCKPUPPETEER?: new section |
|||
Line 276: | Line 276: | ||
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the [[Wikipedia:Request for comment|request for comment]] on '''[[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#rfc_9D80571|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)]]'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding|suggestions for responding]]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:Feedback request service]]. <!-- Template:FRS message -->— <!-- FRS id 11116 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 00:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the [[Wikipedia:Request for comment|request for comment]] on '''[[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#rfc_9D80571|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)]]'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding|suggestions for responding]]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:Feedback request service]]. <!-- Template:FRS message -->— <!-- FRS id 11116 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 00:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
== AM I A SOCKPUPPETEER? == |
|||
See [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy]] and view history. Your summary said, "strike sock puppet edit". I'm not a sockpuppeteer - Give evidence that I'm a sockpuppeteer. [[User:CloudComputation|<span style="color:#80FFFF">CloudComputation</span>]] {{su|p=[[User talk:CloudComputation|<span style="color:#80FFFF">Talk freely</span>]]|b=[[Special:Contributions/CloudComputation|CloudTracker]]|fontsize=1.5ex}} 01:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:47, 29 June 2014
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia. If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click here to start a new topic.
|
First, please remember that I am not trying to attack you, demean you, or hurt you in any way. I am only trying to protect the integrity of this project. If I did something wrong, let me know, but remember that I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please keep your comments civil. If you vandalize this page or swear at me, you will not only decrease the likelihood of a response, your edits could get you blocked. (see WP:NPA) When posting, do not assume I know which article you are talking about. If you leave a message saying "Why did you revert me?", I will not know what you mean. If you want a response consisting of something other than "What are you talking about", please include links and, if possible, diffs in your message. At the very least, mention the name of the article or user you are concerned with. If you are blocked from editing, you cannot post here, but your talk page is most likely open for you to edit. To request a review of your block, add Administrators: If you see me do something that you think is wrong, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo my actions. I would, however, appreciate it if you let me know what I did wrong, so that I can avoid doing it in the future. |
You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise.
Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right; don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.
Require administer for discussion in talk page of Nanking Massacre
I see you are an administrator.If you are an administrator, can you administer the discussion of Nanking Massacre in its talk page? This discussion is totally mess. I hope there is at least two administrator to administer it for fair.
It is really a mess and endless discussion if no administrator to manage it. I hope at least two administrator to manage this. There will be no result to make everyone satisfactory. I hope there is a vote which is managed by administrator. Otherwise, this discussion will be endless. Everyone is wasting their time. This discussion started from section "I see a significant change of the figure about people killed in this Massacre".
Miracle dream (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2014
Require administer for discussion in talk page of Nanking Massacre
I see you are an administrator.If you are an administrator, can you administer the discussion of Nanking Massacre in its talk page? This discussion is totally mess. I hope there is at least two administrator to administer it for fair.
It is really a mess and endless discussion if no administrator to manage it. I hope at least two administrator to manage this. There will be no result to make everyone satisfactory. I hope there is a vote which is managed by administrator. Otherwise, this discussion will be endless. Everyone is wasting their time. This discussion started from section "I see a significant change of the figure about people killed in this Massacre".
Miracle dream (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2014
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=610312951 reported by User:75.73.22.81 Thank you.
Stop threatening people
I have to say your conduct is a disgrace. This isn't an attack. It's an observation. I have been editing Wikipedia for a decade now, and I not only deserve more respect from the likes of you, I also don't deserve you strolling onto my profile page and threatening me with warnings. How about entering into civilised conversation with someone before rolling out your position as admin and threatening someone with blocking. My point that I made was a valid one. Ie: That the reason this individual removed my edit was because the UKIP official website was not a valid one. Yet he has allowed the Liberal Democrats reference on their membership to stand. It's a Liberal Democrat website for goodness sakes! So where is the even-handedness. The even treatment. I didn't see any warnings put on his page exactly? He asked for a third party reference. To which I added a third party reference and then suddenly that wasn't good enough either?! This whole matters has dissolved into a joke! I would kindly ask you to remove your threat from my talk page and enter into civilised debate instead of abusing your position to threaten people. This is a civilised world is it not? It seems to me that the user in question is making up justifications to his undoing of edits. I also note that the user in question has been questioned on multiple occasions accused of engaging in Edit Wars. Not that you noticed that I am sure? How can anyone think it's acceptable to make an Wikipedia entry solely based on Newspaper articles and references. I look through the main political parties pages every day and see direct sourcing from official lines. So why is it any different for UKIP? User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2014 (GMT)
Hey rover, the thing is this guy seems to have a liberal dem slant as well. He's denying credible sources because they disagree with his worldview, in spite of their factual accuracy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.232.202 (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Guardian
My humblest apologies. The Guardian is a broadsheet, not a tabloid! I am sorry if I degraded your intellect for a moment or two there! But my point stands. Whether the Guardian Newspaper is Left-Wing or Center-Left. Being objective towards UKIP is something the Guardian, The Times and the Huffington Post have proven they cannot be with repeat attacks on UKIP and their character. If I cited articles written by the likes of Dan Hodges, you could edit UKIP to say it's a "racist", "homophobic" and "far right" party. These papers cannot be considered "impartial".
The reference included by your esteemed colleague saying that UKIP.org cannot be considered as a reliable source speaks volumes as to the biased editing that is going on with the UKIP page on Wikipedia at present. Put simply. It stinks! User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2014 (GMT)
Cilicia
I just started reading the article on Cilicia, and I have found a sentence in which something doesn't seem quite right. It is in the middle of the first paragraph in the section Cilicia#Geography and nomenclature. It reads:
- "Ancient Cilicia was naturally divided into Cilicia Trachaea and Cilicia Pedias divided by the Lamas Su. Salamis, the city on the east coast of Cyprus, was included in its administrative jurisdiction."
Can you figure out how it ought to read?
Also, at the end of that paragraph is the phrase, "the northwesternmost part of the peninsula", but no peninsula has yet been mentioned in the article, so my reaction was "What peninsula?" I don't even see one in the map of Cilicia. Perhaps the northeasternmost corner of Cyprus? CorinneSD (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
CorinneSD , sorry, real life... I really don't know. Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities perhaps? Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.
It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
what makes one website a legitimate source and another one a "conspiracy theory" website, Mr. Gestapo man sir? is it all based on which books and records you like and thus don't burn, and which books and records you decide to destroy all trace of? i'm sorry, sir, i'll try to remember from now on that only sources which *YOU* deem are legitimate thus truly are so! please don't send me to reeducation camp, okay great and glorious leader? from now on I only read state-approved news sites and not anything from those "conspiracy theorists"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.232.202 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- @65.34.232.202. Please refrain from uncivil comments. This can be considered a form of WP:VANDALISM. With respect to conspiracy theories I would refer you to WP:FRINGE. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Ad Orientem. Love the IP's edits, eg ". It is useful to note that the crescent moon and star looks like the falling star, Lucifer, as he falls through the atmosphere ascending to earth during his fall." And at the Sandy Hook shooting article, "It is very important to note that to date, no pictures or any other evidence of victims has ever been revealed." with links to the usual suspects. Etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
IP addressThis user supports mandatory registration.
- Thanks Ad Orientem. Love the IP's edits, eg ". It is useful to note that the crescent moon and star looks like the falling star, Lucifer, as he falls through the atmosphere ascending to earth during his fall." And at the Sandy Hook shooting article, "It is very important to note that to date, no pictures or any other evidence of victims has ever been revealed." with links to the usual suspects. Etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
::
This user favors quicker use of the conspiracy theorist camisole. |
John Carter (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am sooo stealing that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- It gets even better, found this edit to Veil by the IP:" It is important to note that the word "veil", when rearranged, spells out "evil". The veil is primarily used by Muslim men to force their women to hide bruises, scars, and other telltale signs of domestic abuse." Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 June 2014
- News and notes: With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
- Featured content: Worming our way to featured picture
- Special report: Wikimedia Bangladesh: a chapter's five-year journey
- Traffic report: You can't dethrone Thrones
- WikiProject report: Visiting the city
June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Military Order of the Purple Heart may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- spending on programs outside the organization's core mission. At a 2008 National Convention speech], a graduate of the Foundation's flagship training initiative, the Veterans Business Training
- programs he bankrolled through the Foundation litter the internet like virtual abandoned houses (e.g., http://www.purplehearttechsupport.com/, http://www.purpleheartcallcenter.com/, http://www.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: Military Order of the Purple Heart
Page was originally a redirect, and it was turned into an article a few months ago. Re: this edit, which part of the article you wanted to comment out? You know that most of the paragraph is based on that reference, so you may have to clean up more. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks User:OccultZone. I raised the issue at BLPN and most if it has now been deleted. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I tried to make a infoboox for the Battle of Halys articlr. It's there bu can you help fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Gellos (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
bakshi ka talab
thanks for your comments. I would like to tell you that we have a long tradition in our family that we are the descendants of the Raja Tripur Chand but unfortunately we have no documents to prove this. Some of our elders had tried to get the priest to let them see the title deeds that the Raja had given to him but of no avail.There are relatives in Farrukhabad and Shshjehanpur who also confirm that he was a Saxena Kayastha. We are still searching for relevant papers.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaleepeare (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
bakshi ka talab
thanks for your comments. I would like to tell you that we have a long tradition in our family that we are the descendants of the Raja Tripur Chand but unfortunately we have no documents to prove this. Some of our elders had tried to get the priest to let them see the title deeds that the Raja had given to him but of no avail.There are relatives in Farrukhabad and Shshjehanpur who also confirm that he was a Saxena Kayastha. We are still searching for relevant papers.. hope you understand.
kaleepeare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaleepeare (talk • contribs) 13:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Falsified information from Source
Unless User:Torontas produces a quote from "Sykes, Percy, History of Persia, Vol. 1, (Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, 1969), pg. 492" to support his edit-warred[1][2] inclusion of "Arab Christians", I believe Torontas is falsely using said source. Just thought I would give you a heads up. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Zgmet/62.147.217.114 (whom you have warned once warned) keeps inserting their poems and essays into talk pages despite repeated warnings and reverts by several editors. What would you suggest? --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Bhumihar brahmins/babhan
hi Mr X i want to make some comment on you. you are always referring the fake or defamatory stories of aswani kumar book as the origin of bhumihar brahmin. Any storis or fake rumours can not be cited as a reference. Even the author has mentioned it as a tale and i do not think that i need to tell you the meaning of this word. If u are so keen to know about bhumihar caste then gather all the clans information of bhumihar caste and their origin, that is done by noted personalities like swami sahjanand saraswati. he was a noted freedom fighter and many brahmins refer his book to know all the facts about their origin, since he has compiled it well. If ypu want to practically know the clans you should visit the village of BABHAN(Bhumihar) and ask them about clans and search for their origin. It is a nice sociological topic, you can do phd on this topic just like bibha jha has done. swami ji material will be helpful for you in this course. so i request you repeatedly not to put up some story or myth on wikipedia that is derogatory and contested. wikipedia is the collection of most credible materials not rumours or stories so please do not revert those stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Bpandey89 - this is the thing. I could visit and do a sociological study (and I have studied some sociology), but unless I got it published academically it would be of no use on Wikipedia. My knowledge, or your knowledge, would be fine if we were writing blogs. But this is Wikipedia and our articles should be based on sources that are reliable by our criteria, which are at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. It isn't up to us to judge them, although if there are sources that disagree and also meet our criteria we can use them. Sometimes this can mean that our articles aren't entirely accurate, but if we follow our policies and guidelines articles will reflect what the best published sources say. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Check this out
Seems posting evidence(ie. a quote) is way too much effort. So notifying anyone he can is in order.[3] Not to mention, a paragraph at Adam Bishop's and two at Callanecc's about me, and no mention of the quote, of course. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Religious persecution
The article talks about multiple incidents which happened all across China and not just Nanjing. The Japanese smearing of pork fat on Mosques and deliberate recruitment of Hui Muslim girls as sex slaves happaned in other provinces and which were targeted at their religion, the article mentions they opened a special school for Hui girls for that purpose. What happened in Nanjing is in fact is only mentioned on one or two pages of the article.Rajmaan (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Rajmaan, the source makes it clear that this as anti-Hui. It also talks of an Islamic policy of "mobilizing Muslim forces against the United Kingdom, Holland, China and Russia in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.” It says "Many available sources reveal the brutality and violence of the Japanese against the Hui." No where does it say Japan was being anti-Muslim. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hui means Muslim in the Chinese language. Being Hui in the Republic of China (1911-1949) by definition means being a Muslim, you could not be a Hui without being Muslim. Hui jiao (Hui religion) meant Islam and Hui meant Muslim in the Republic of China and still mean that in Taiwan today, the Communists changed the name in the 1950s to Yi-si-lan jiao (Islam religion) and Mu-si-lin (Muslim). Only in the 1980s did the People's Republic of China let some non-Muslims like the Ding (surname) classify themselves as Hui because of their Muslim ancestry. Japan mobilizing Muslim forces for its own pursposes has nothing to do with Japan being Muslim friendly. Inciting other people to do their bidding as slaves does not make them their friend. Japan made it clear that the Yamato (Japanese) race was superior, that they regarded the Emperor as a God (which is offensive to Islam) and wanted to use Muslims as its puppets in its war against the west.
- What other purpose does rubbing pork fat on Mosques serve other than insulting Islam?Rajmaan (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- User:Rajmaan I have copied this and replied at [{Talk:Persecution of Muslims#Japanese]] so that others can respond. Please continue this there, not here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Ragdeenorc is edit-warring just to keep his fringecruft. He's already broken 3RR, again. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- How can this be a case of undue? --Ragdeenorc (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- And you will be the one who would have broken the 3RR, again: --Ragdeenorc (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The reported user uses WP like a cheap forum. He uploaded his browser screenshots to WP! Wow... good for WP! --89.165.80.64 (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Further discussion here. --Ragdeenorc (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Rima Laibow and 3RR
I've stopped putting the tag up since I knew I was edging in on 3RR, but thanks for the heads up anyway =) WegianWarrior (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, just wanted to make sure you knew. It also worries me I'll miss it sometime! Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:ERA stuff on Han Chinese
BC/AD notation for this article was actually begun on July 27, 2003[4]. I did not, however, check later, where all era notation was removed for a few years, until a BCE system was added in 2006 as you point out. I'm not going to fuss about it though, since my main concern is when wholesale dating changes to BCE wind up incorrectly changing the titles of cited articles. Russ3Z (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Russ3Z, that's one reason why the original era notation isn't the deciding factor. Here you have an 11 year old article which indeed started with BC but has been BCE for 8 out of those 11 years, and some of the 11 had no era notation. Clearly BCE is the stable version. Any wholesale changes whether it goes BCE to BC or vice versa, spelling changes in names, etc can cause problems (including renaming books and journal articles). But please in the future remember the word is 'stable'. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
When to pull the trigger
Wondering how to proceed regarding what is to my eyes one of the most obvious cases of group misconduct I have seen in a while. I am referring to the Dorje Shugden content. @JzG: has some experience regarding this so I am pinging him as well. So far as I can see 3 POV pushers User:VictoriaGrayson User:Heicth and User:kt66 are all historically rather obvious SPA POV pushers apparenty intending to stifle any disagreement with them on their topic of primary if not almost exclusive interest. Two of them are even apparently trying to get their “opponent” banned from editing. And I have received indications regarding the latter which I have asked the person who raised them to send to ArbCom. To me this looks very much like the earlier Falun Gong cases which between them led to the banning of pretty much everyody involved particularly those with obvious problematic behavior like the three mentioned above. Personally I am finding the conduct of the one most active of them to be increasingly tiresome and am coming very very close to starting a request for ArbCom involvement now but I do know I have a bit of a short fuse and I would welcome review by you and anyone else who might see this for their opinions regarding whether there is any good reason to think these matters will improve without intervention of ArbCom.
Also on a more or less unreated note I was wondering whether someone under an interaction-ban who might be clearly seen to be stalking the person he is banned from interacting with is grounds for going to AE.
And probably next week I look to be starting an RfC on “major holidays” as we use that term here. Right now I'm still getting material together but I would very much welcome any input regarding that matter when I raise it as well. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I knew it wouldn't take long for John Carter to call me a SPA POV pusher as well. My main interest is the Hinduism pages, and only got involved after John Carter specifically asked for neutral editors to be involved.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless of your disagreement with him, he seems to me to be entirely right in his characterisation of you. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I acknowledge you had in your short history here only become singularly involved with this subject recently and I apologize for that error although I cannot remember asking you personally to be involved. However if as you say you only became involved at my request then I guess I can now say I withdraw that request that you seem to believe was made to you on a personal basis. That is at least until you show a better grasp of policies and guidelines than you have displayed to date. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- John Carter, what about the pro-Shugden campaigners such as User:Prasangika37 or User:Kjangdom?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Bluntly, right now your conduct is much worse than anyone else's. Others do not engage in the virtually constant failure to abide by WP:AGF,WP:TE, and other policies and guidelines that you do. The best and most reasonable way to go forward at this point is to give any reasonabe editor access to the materials I and others have gathered and decide how to proceed. But given your own recent history and the very dubious judgment displayed in it, I think development of a reasonable encyclopedic article would probably be easier without your involvement than with it John Carter (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- John Carter, what about the pro-Shugden campaigners such as User:Prasangika37 or User:Kjangdom?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I acknowledge you had in your short history here only become singularly involved with this subject recently and I apologize for that error although I cannot remember asking you personally to be involved. However if as you say you only became involved at my request then I guess I can now say I withdraw that request that you seem to believe was made to you on a personal basis. That is at least until you show a better grasp of policies and guidelines than you have displayed to date. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless of your disagreement with him, he seems to me to be entirely right in his characterisation of you. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
H. L. Mencken
You might be interested in a request for consensus regarding the proposed addition of some lines to H. L. Mencken that is on the talk page at Talk:H. L. Mencken. You'll see that the first section, written on March 23, 2014, proposes the addition of material which is now in the article (I don't see any response from any other editors). This is a new request for consensus. CorinneSD (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Phonetics
There have been some back-and-forth edits at Phonetics, with one impolite edit summary by an IP editor. CorinneSD (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Good work in removing "Veterans.today.com" links. Sometimes I couldn't decide if recent edits were constructive or not, and then I would see edit from you, I would know right, for example.[5] On my watchlist there are many of your edits, at times they seemed so essential that they would often resolve the content dispute. Thanks a lot for your contributions! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC) |
Requesting lock
Hello Dougweller, I am requesting article protection: Abraham with WP:SEMI. Unconstructive editing done by multiple IPs. -- ♣Jerm♣729 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it time to refresh your knowledge of tendentious editing?
Your recent comments on the Unite Against Fascism talk page suggest that you may hold very strong opinions on this organisation, a quick look at your editing history and comments from others on your talk page would tend to support that conclusion.
Even the finest editors and admins will see the need to refresh their understanding of Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines from time to time, perhaps it is time you reviewed your knowledge of Neutral point of view NPOV and tendentious editing.
"Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. Just as some articles are likely to receive more counter-NPOV edits than others, some writers are more likely to make them. Tendentious editing is what these writers do. Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions."
Thank you Vanzil (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Mona Lisa etc
Hi Doug! I really don't mind fielding all the Original Research that comes up on the Leonardo da Vinci pages. The things that this latest editor has come up with are really very much better than the news story that some conservator had found microscopic initials written in the pupils of her eyes.... That was a real, published story and is probably now in the article.
Sometimes the stuff comes from kids doing Leonardo as their homework. I had one little boy there who put up a really solid case that one of the flying machines was intended to work like a hovercraft. We analysed the mechanical problems in quite some detail, before he was done. He's probably back here on Wikipedia as an engineering student, by now.
Anyway, the particular discovery that this man had made was really very observant, even if his video was very poor. He was more perceptive and less fanciful than most of the people that I have had to deal with. I left him a message on his talk page, which will hopefully encourage him to come back and do some Wiki editting.
The real problems with the Leonardo articles arise when someone thinks that they have discovered an unknown or lost Leonardo da Vinci. We have had five of these in the past few years. The problem is that if the painting can be reasonably firmly attributed to Leonardo, then it could be worth an extraordinary amount- possibly $50 million or more. On the other hand, it might be worth $5 million, $50,000 or $5,000 if it is by a lesser Renaissance painter, or a 19th century imitator. So it is in the interest of the owner/discoverer of the painting to get it up on Wikipedia and prove to the world that it is indeed by Leonardo. Because of the money involved, some of these guys can get quite bullying. See Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci
There are also a number of well-known scholars who have occasionally bought into specific articles. Portrait of a Young Fiancee was originally written by Martin Kemp (art historian). Since then I have tidied it up and formatted his info so that it complies reasonably well. Amandajm (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Amandajm, thanks for this and for your work in this area. Do let me know if there are any future problems where you could use my help. Your point about the financial interest is well taken. Does this relate to the IP who was just reverted at the talk page? Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, it certainly doesn't! It refers in one case to a blustering American real-estate tycoon who bought a very obvious pastiche, which may have been painted by a contemporary of Leonardo's but was more probably an outright forgery.
- In another case a couple of Italian brothers, one who worked in a small gallery and the other a solicitor, came across a nice little portrait, almost certainly intended to represent Leonardo, and done some years after his death by a 16th century painter who had been commissioned to produced a very large series of small portraits of famous people. The artist Cristofano dell'Altissimo, copied his pics from every available source. They are a nice series, but not especially valuable individually.
- One of these two men found the painting in a stack of pictures in the cupboard of the private home of an old noble family. The family thought it was meant to represent Galileo, but he recognised it as Leonardo. It was quite damaged- the sort of damage that occurs when one painting with large hooks on the back is dragged across the surface of another picture that it has been stacked on. Anyway, this pair immediately put out that they had found a Leonardo da Vinci self-portrait. In publishing this, they had the assistance of a girlfriend who was an American journalist. A number of people bought into this, including a pompous New Zealander who was in Italy studying Tarot Cards (his specialty). He really tried my patience as he wrote at great length, without formatting, and generally on top of my signature, rather than his own. He was incapable of comprehending what constituted Personal Opinion in the context of a Wikipedia article, and got furious when I deleted lengthy chunks of his idealistic waffle.
- The brothers first approached a reputable Museum Director, Alessandro Vessozi, with whom I have had previous dealings and with whose small museum in Vinci I am familiar. Vessozi spoke to the British media (Guardian?)and was quoted as saying that it was probably by Cristofano (which was my thought, as soon as I saw the reproduction). Now, it is most unlikely that the British press made this up, because Cristofano was not a great painter, and no-one trots out the name of some little-known second-rate copyist, without a good deal of knowledge of 16th century painting. However a little further down the track, Alessandro Vessozi left a message of the talk page to say that he did not tell the British press that it was by Cristofano. He refused to answer my emails, and was never in the office, from that date onwards.
- Meanwhile, the brothers got funding from two regional councils, that in Lucano where it had been found (if I remember correctly), and that in Milan, where Leonardo spent many years. The work was subject to forensic examination, which indicated that the board and the paint were 15th-16th century, so the work really did date from the right period and was beyond doubt not a forgery. A fingerprint was found which was said to match a fingerprint on a painting firmly attributed to Leonardo. (There are a lot of problems with this which I won't go into here). Basically it doesn't prove anything. Several people who had published books or articles on Leonardo, including a German art historian, Hohenstatt, who is quite well known, apparently came to the party. However, I have never been able to get a definitive statement from any of these people that they actually believe the work to be by Leonardo. They are merely cited as believers.
- Then they got out the big gun- Carlo Pedretti. Pedretti is an elderly Italian scholar who is often cited as "the world's expert on Leonardo". He is incredibly slippery. He looked at the picture and said "We must be very cautious! It is definitely not a forgery! Anything that is related to Leonardo is interesting! How wonderful that the council funded research! More research is good!" .... and he hasn't stated any opinion whatsoever. They published a book on the provenance and forensic findings, got Pedretti to write the preface, and he still cleverly evaded the question of whether it was a Leonardo self-portrait.
- If this painting was indeed a self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, then it would be the most important discovery of a painting for 200 years. Its discovery would be as significant as the Lascaux caves, King Tut's tomb, or the entombed Warriors. It would be worth unprecedented millions of dollars. It would tour the major galleries. It would be the subject of block-busting exhibitions in Milan, London, Paris, and New York. None of this has happened. Plainly, no-one with any real knowledge believes that it is a self-portrait.
- I told these guys that I would put up whatever published written opinions from art historians they could make available. Basically, what it needed was for someone to publish an analysis of the form and style of the image by comparing it with Leonardo's works, and a statement to the effect that it had all the characteristics of a Leonardo. At the end of the day, the only way to tell if it by a particular artist is by its appearance. If it doesn't have any of the visible characteristics that a connoisseur would expect to find in the artist's work, then it isn't by that artist. In this case, the painting has all the characteristics of Cristofano del' Altissimo, and lacks all the characteristics of the renowned master, innovator and teacher, Leonardo da Vinci.
- Well, the process of writing an article that stated the known facts, rather than fulfilling the ambitions of the painting's finders and minders, was a very difficult one. In the process, I put my own OR on the subject onto the talk page and told then to get their support party (Hohenstatt and co) to look carefully at some comparative images.
- They were never able to produce either definite statements from art historians, or a critical analysis from anyone except the New Zealander who added his opinions to the article and was seriously out of his depth. A great deal of bullying and blustering went on. I still don't have any idea why Vessozi was reported as making an attribution to Cristofano that was almost certainly correct, and then suddenly denied that he had made that suggestion. That in itself is worrying. Amandajm (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Star of Bethlehem; antimatter comet
A note of thanks and appreciation! Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this?
History of the Jews in Nepal
An editor has been trying to add fringe material related to Ten lost tribes, etc.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Your watch requested
DISCUSS--Amitesh93 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
You have been invoked of the talk page of this article John Carter (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
AM I A SOCKPUPPETEER?
See User:NewsAndEventsGuy and view history. Your summary said, "strike sock puppet edit". I'm not a sockpuppeteer - Give evidence that I'm a sockpuppeteer. CloudComputation Talk freely
CloudTracker 01:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)