User talk:Doug Weller

The current date and time is 2 January 2025 T 19:44 UTC.

If you are here about an arbitration matter, please - wherever possible - post instead on the appropriate arbitration page to keep discussion centralised.

User:Doug Weller	User talk:Doug Weller	User:Doug Weller/Workshop	Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller	User:Doug Weller/Userboxes	Special:Contributions/Doug Weller	Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
home	Talk Page	Workshop	Site Map	Userboxes	Edits	Email

Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...

Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, or I'm slow to reply, feel free to approach me here.

---

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. If I have not made any edits in a while, (check) you may get a faster response by posting your request in a more centralized place. If you need to get a repeat vandal blocked, you can report them to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. If you need a page to be protected from editing, try Requests for page protection. If you would like to request rollback rights or account creator rights, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions is, well, that way... :) If your problem does not fit into any of the above criteria, and your issue is urgent, you can: Make a post on the Administrators' noticeboard, the Incidents noticeboard, or one of the other noticeboards. Ask another administrator for help. Here is a complete List of Wikipedia Administrators. If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add {{helpme}} before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.

Did I delete your page, block you, or do something else that I should not have done?

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. Also, if you sign your post (by typing four tildes - ~~~~ - at the end of your message), I will respond faster, and I will tend to be in a better mood, because unsigned comments are one of my pet peeves. 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 {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. (replace reason with why you think you should not be blocked.) I watch the talk pages of everyone I block, so I will almost definitely see you make your request. If I am making edits (check Special:Contributions/Doug Weller) and I do not answer your request soon, or you cannot edit your talk page for some reason, you can try sending me an email. Please note, however, that I rarely check my email more than a few times a day, so it may be a couple of hours before I respond. 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.

Edit War: David Irving article, injust threat to block

See, its not me who is edit warring. I made a correction, and commented in Talk. Then another editor reverted. I again invited to discuss in talk. And he reverted again. Now, third time I again discussed, but he again ignored. And commenting each revert he said I promote David Irving's own views, whereas my correction was related to quoting from his book, to quote correctly, i.e. restore what he DID say and editing out what he did not. When we retell what is said in the book, we must quote correctly. Irving said this (what I put there, this is my small edit, article is large and the edit is a minor one) and he says that this is promoting the views that should not be promoted. Why misquote. Is that collective journalism? I mean, the consensus of it, I mean we all don't support Hitler and many accused Irving in supporting that man, so what the consensus would be? Is it OK to misquote? No one could correct? Consensus people own this one piece of writing? I mean, this reads like say Golda Meir and perhaps some others, all of them 'Jews' by some remote control 'controls'... Hungary, a whole state, that is how it is in the text, and that is 'supposedly', Irving says so, a conspiracy. But Irving did not say in the book that is quoted, nothing of this. And due to that what he DID say are his 'views' (he a historian, must have some view on history) we misquote and attribute to his what he did NOT say. And to change that is an offence. And no debate.

Could you advise, how we do arbitrate this?

It seems to me that the warring party refuses to explain self in Talk, shutting mouth with wiki procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 22:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Tintern Abbey

Hallo, Doug Weller, I have recently added sections to the Tintern Abbey article and have had them targeted by Editor Hchc2009, who I believe is taking the OR and Verifiability guidelines too far. I wonder whether you could contact administrators whose speciality these are to comment on the article's talk page and on Hchc2009's, where discussion has commenced. I suspect I may be being victimised, but don't want to approach arbitration if I truly am falling short. Thanks, Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mzilikazi1939 - arbitration would be a long long way off. And I'm afraid Admin's have no special content powers, but if I have time I'll comment. There's the WP:NORN notice board for original research, and the WP:RSN one for sources. Doug Weller (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

04.11.2015

What 'uncivil' comment exactly are you referring to?Zacksfenton (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This one. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 19:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:Westfield Derby about moving articles to "Intu" X and I'm only notifying you as you participated in a previous move,
BTW sorry if you got a ping earlier - Something went wrong so figured I'd just post this to everyone instead, Fun times! ,
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

About Heritability of IQ

Hi, I submitted a request about semi-protection for the Heritability of IQ article today at about 18:00. It appears that the same IP editor has returned with an account, and is again incorrectly citing publications, and deleting information which more experienced editors of the article have not deemed to require deletion. Would you be so kind as to look into this matter? Or at the least, would you be able to recommend to me what steps I should take to get this issue resolved correctly? Thank you, and please forgive my inappropriate use of your talk page.

Also, would it be possible to assign Victor Chmara with some ability to limit edits; since he seems to be the most neutral and the largest contributor to the article, and will likely be the least biased. If that is possible, and if he will accept it. ScholarBlue ^talk 21:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Also can I point out to you that Windkin has now reverted my edits 3 times. You should probably warn him of the 3 edit rule. ScholarBlue ^talk 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Off to bed. Doug Weller (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ScholarBlue's disruptive edits were already discussed on the article's talk page last month. Also can I point out to you that ScholarBlue has now reverted my sourced contributions 3 times, as well as deleting my requests for sources for his own unsourced assertions. You should probably warn him of that 3 edit rule. Oh wait he was already aware of it. Funny that. Windkin ^talk 22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windkin (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...

for your recent action David in DC (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk political correctness

Hello Doug, I don't know if you have been watching 'PC', (I would well understand it if you hadn't been). PAs, spurious RfCs, arguing in circles and general battleground and IDHT have reached epidemic proportions. this was a recent response to this fairly reasonable attempt at discussion. I appreciate you are partially involved, but is there any option open to us other than ANI? Pincrete (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC) … … …ps please ping if replying

Pincrete you can try WP:DRN. Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I explained:

He does it more covertly than I did but nevertheless the section focuses on me and he states things I never did, which is clearly affront. He declares I inserted a paragraph which was a duplicate of the 1980s: untrue for it was added before 1980s existed. He declares that I sparked the edit war even though it was his non-stable changing of the timeline to non-chronological that did. He accuses of "blanket reverting" when he pretty much "blanket edits" the entire article. I mean he removed two sections from the history. He himself truly offers no explanation for why the history section needs to be changed to be like that. He constantly repeats that I offer no explanations but I have repeatedly again and again and again explained why Kimball can't be misquoted when the person whose view he specifically endorses is Frederick Crews. And good faith needs to happen on both sides.

that it was pretty much just towards me as a person and that it heavily distorted events that took place. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman Bulgaria - POV

Hi Doug. Its been a long time! Something caught my eye. In the article Ottoman Bulgaria, the opening paragraph has the statement:

"The Ottoman rule was a period marked by oppression and misgovernment and represents a deviation of Bulgaria's development as a Christian European state".

I'm just wondering whether its slightly biased or whether its ok as it is? I've had a look at the sources cited and whilst they does suggest misgovernment (I'd suggest more neutral sources, but there you go), the phrase "marked by oppression" doesn't seem to fit into the tone of wikipedia. Your advice would be appreciated. Thanks GiggsIsLegend (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. Not a very good sentence. This book looks like a good source for the article. Not sure about Konstantin Josef Jireček. I certainly wouldn't use Jacob Gould Schurman - he isn't a historian. And "deviation"? What's that mean? As for "marked by oppression", that needs attribution to at least one good source. Doug Weller (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes I've been busy with studies so its all bit all-over-the-place. & I've made a start with a detailed note as to why I've deleted some content. Hope you're well. Thanks again. Will be sure to talk soon. (P.s) I've added a header for the next post...Housekeeping and all that :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Moorish Science Temple of America bias wikipedia scholarship

Greetings. Last night, as I sat and read this page, I immediately began to edit many NON-REFERENCED bits of information. I have tried to edit this page in the past and many others pertaining to the Moors (see the Almoravids thread to this same editor/overseer). I would post and would give reasons why a citation was needed. For instance, Noble Drew Ali NEVER referenced himself as Timothy Drew, he referenced himself as Noble Drew Ali. Not only did he and the membership reference him by this name, the public and the media also referenced him by this name. Proof can be shown in the following newspaper article along with MANY others and yet, this Wikipedia article constantly refers to him as "Timothy Drew" and "Drew." This was not the case when this page was first established. Someone was allowed to come onto this page and edit and now, no one can change it. I find that quite odd.

File:PROPHET VISITS GARVEY.jpg

Chicago Defender reporting on Noble Drew Ali's visit to Marcus Garvey

The use of the name is inconsistent in the article. In some portions he is referenced as Timothy Drew. In others, he is referenced as Drew, and yet still, he is referenced as Noble Drew Ali. There are things within the article that have absolutely NO merit and cannot be found in the organizations religious text or literature. I will list just a few of them here:

• "...and in religious texts, adherents refer to themselves racially as "Asiatics"."

This can be found nowhere in the religious texts of the M.S.T of A. Please cite your citation.

• "Traditionally, it was believed that Timothy Drew was born on January 8, 1886 in North Carolina, USA."

This is not guess work or belief, this is from the man himself and his birthday celebrations were reported in the Chicago Defender which can be evinced below:

File:Noble Drew Ali's birthday celebration reported.jpg

Drew Ali's birthday celebration

Poor scholastic methodology was used in this article. Let us continue...

• "Drew reported that during his travels, he met with a high priest of Egyptian magic. In one version of Drew's biography, the leader saw him as a reincarnation of the founder, while in others, the priest considered Drew a reincarnation of Jesus, the Buddha, Muhammad and other religious prophets. According to the biography, the high priest trained Drew in mysticism and gave him a "lost section" of the Quran."

Who did "Drew" report this to? This can be found NOWHERE in the teachings, literature or oral sayings of Prophet Noble Drew Ali which can be read here

• "This text came to be known as the Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America (which is not to be confused with the Islamic Quran)."

This view was obviously inserted by one who holds OBJECTIVE VIEWS to the prophethood of Noble Drew Ali who stated in the M.S.T. of A's religious text that "The fallen sons and daughters of the Asiatic Nation of North America need to learn to love instead of hate; and to know their higher self and lower self. This is the uniting of the Holy Koran of Mecca, for teaching and instructing all Moorish Americans, etc." The full text can be read here.

In this, Noble Drew Ali claimed to UNITE the text as oppose to replace it as this wikipedia article suggests. What this also suggest is that Noble Drew Ali did not bring any Islamic teachings and this too is blatantly false.

• "Drew took parts of his book from the Rosicrucian work, Unto Thee I Grant, and most of it from The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, published in 1908 by esoteric Ohio preacher Levi Dowling."

More poorly stated research with absolutely no citations to back it up. The Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America was compiled using these direct sources:

1. Lost historical information about the true origins and identity of the Moorish Americans, being falsely called black people in the United States of America by the most Noble, Prophet, Drew Ali.
2. 19 of the 182 chapters of The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ By Levi H. Dowling
3. The Economy of Human Life, Complete in Two Parts, Translated from an INDIAN MANUSCRIPT written by an ANCIENT BRAHMIN. 1806 By Robert Dodsley, Philip Dormer Stanhope Earl of Chesterfield, John Hill (first published by Dodsley in 1745) [This text was copied by the Rosicrucian order in 1925 so the Wikipedia article is wrong. A link to this text can be found here ]
4. Elegant Extracts: Or, Useful and Entertaining Passages in Prose: Selected for the Improvement of Young Persons: Being similar in Design to ELEGANT EXTRACTS in POETRY. Published in London, 1790. Author unknown. A link to this text can be found here.

Again, this wiki article is poorly sourced and offensive to members of the organization.

• "Drew claimed to have been anointed Noble Drew Ali, the Prophet."

Anointed by who? Citation needed and yet, my edit for a citation needed was removed by this editor. It seems completely bias and it appears as if this article is trying to shed a false light on the organization and its founder by letting anyone come and make non-sourced claims, and not taking into consideration other sources which counter the claims of the books cited in the article.

• "Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork."

This is an absolute, and blatant lie and obviously said by an opponent to the organization. No citation was given and yet, this was allowed to be posted on this cite by apparent opponents of the organization. This is false light and slander as Prophet Noble Drew Ali urged members not to eat any meat accept fish. Prophet Noble Drew Ali expressly FORBADE the drinking of alcohol. If such is not changed within this article, we will in fact begin the process of suing wikipedia for allowing these types of statements to stand unchallenged with absolutely no proofs to back them up.

"Drew believed that African Americans were all Moors who he claimed descended from the ancient Moabites (describing them as belonging to Northwest Africa as opposed to Moab as the name suggests)"

Prophet Noble Drew Ali's exact words were "The Moorish Americans are descendants of the ancient Moabites whom inhabited the Northwestern and Southwestern shores of Africa." (Act 6 of the organization's bylaws). He taught that the Moorish people, falsely called "black" people, TRAVELED FROM the ancient land of Canaan and INHABITED West Africa (Ch. 47 v. 6). You can read the full text here. The wording of this article makes it appear as if Noble Drew Ali made up this claim as if people have not migrated since the beginning of recorded history. Not only have peoples migrated, the places they settle, are usually named after the people themselves like the name Mauritania.

I can keep going and going with the blatant misinformation within this article. If these things are not changed, if you cannot find citations for slanderous statements like "Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork.", we will be suing this platform for false light as this article makes those interested in our organization not want to join. You have 72 hours to bring your citations or we will commence with a lawsuit in the appropriate venue. Peace.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 December 2015

Zamzam Well

Hello Doug Weller, Thank you for guiding me. I really appreciate it. 'Zamzam well and potential health risks' description mentions the potential health risks of packaged Zamzam water rather than Zamzam water. It also points out the scientific research which denies the health risks of Zamzam water. So I think the title is misleading. The title should be something like 'Packaged Zamzam water and potential health risks' as the description talks about the potential health risks of packaged Zamzam water and about the scientific researches that disprove the potential health risks of Zamzam water. Thank You.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shathir Puthalath (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 January 2016

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

• From the editors: Help wanted

• Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the Signpost

• In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board

• Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?

• News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge engine background

• Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration

• Traffic report: Bowled

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit filter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

you deleted my modification on Jihad Makdissi page and i did provide an Edit summary as requested . i was just trying to update the information , u had a lot of wrong info "rumours" and i used a URL for an interview he gave yesterday ( a lengthy one) to update the info on him. in addition to a recent interview on Arabiya ( it shows his political affiliation , job, political tendency.... everything i provided was verifiable

!!!!

I'll reply on this editor's talk page, he deleted almost everything critical without noting it in the edit summary, url didn't work, trivia added, eg Master's thesis title. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Change made with citation to "Noah's Ark" page on Wikipedia

Regarding the "Noah's Ark" page; I made a change which you have commented on where I explained my reasons for the edit namely a broad statement had been made with no citation and strongly suspect NPOV which did not give credit to the wide debate on the subject. This was rapidly removed without explanation. I made additional change (without removing any text) providing balance to a statement which I believe breached NOPV rules. I backed this up with citations and careful reference to other internal (Wikipedia pages) and one external via a link to a source in the public domain and freely available. I have then been accused of initiating an "edit war". I would be grateful if you could explain on what grounds I have broken Wikipedia laws? With kind thanks 81.158.48.173 (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Edward

University of Kansas "Ancient Central America" course assignment

This is just a heads-up to let you know that I'm once again having students create Wikipedia entries for a course this semester. I've posted the information for them here:

User_talk:Hoopes#Wikipedia_Assignments_for_.22Topics_in_Archaeology:_Ancient_Central_America.22_at_KU_.28Spring_2016.29

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pre-Roman_Iron_Age#Move_to_Pre-Roman_Iron_Age_of_Northern_Europe

Hi Doug! Thoughts welcome there. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Doug thanks for your previous feedback , i knew now why you removed my correction to the page of jihad makdissi . i did introduced the new adds to the page and i inserted the URL as i should and i left u a summary of the change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimak2012 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

• Special report: New internal documents raise questions about the origins of the Knowledge Engine

• In focus: An in-depth look at the special report's newly revealed documents

• News and notes: Another WMF departure

• In the media: Jeb Bush swings at Wikipedia and connects

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: A river of revilement

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation removes The Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law requirements

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

how is my editing even remotely disruptive

Just because you are the admin, you can remove an NPOV tag, but I am a user, then my addition of an obviously reasonable NPOV Tag is "disruptive"? how has Wikipedia become a dictatorship of you admins? 160.39.203.39 (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You think it's reasonable because you think the SPLC is bad, FEMA agents are censoring one of our articles (and adding a censorship tag was also clearly disruptive), etc. That sort of addition of tags is disruptive. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You are an editor, by the way, like me. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't buy in FEMA conspiracy theory. I do believe that SPLC is bad, at least given their dubious roles in the Black Lives Matter movement.

By the way, how does my political belief justify your decision that my edit was "disruptive"? If everyone is indeed born equal, and you, as a Wikipedia administrator, is not supposed to be "a bureaucrat" that reigns over us commoners, why is my addition of an NPOV tag disruptive, and why is your removal of an NPOV tag justified? And why are you threatening to block me?

Also, on the talk page there has been a good deal of controversy about the neutrality of this article. Granted, some of these people (including me) are opinionated and vocal, but it does not mean that our opinions should be totally discredited as fringe theory. (Your belief that I am a FEMA conspiracy theory follower is a prime example of the staggering amount of prejudice and ignorance in your mind). There are valid elements in Sovereign Citizen Movement, such as the support of personal privacy, something Wikipedia actively supports. The overall tone of this article is overwhelmingly negative and is just not balanced. Alonso McLaren (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If you are the IP, you think that FEMA employees are censoring the FEMA article. Ok, you don't think it's a conspiracy, fine, but the template is clearly not designed for the purpose you used it, nor did you use the talk page to add any evidence. Our articles are not meant to be balanced in the way you probably think of balance, read WP:NPOV carefully. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If you are the IP, you think that FEMA employees are censoring the FEMA article. Ok, you don't think it's a conspiracy, fine, but the template is clearly not designed for the purpose you used it, nor did you use the talk page to add any evidence. Our articles are not meant to be balanced in the way you probably think of balance, read WP:NPOV carefully. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonso McLaren (talk • contribs)

I am indeed the IP, as I forgot to login with this account at first. I do not think that it is FEMA that is censoring the article. I did not even mention FEMA once in my edits. But why you admins are censoring the articles? And how do you prove that this article has a "neutral point of view" from the sacred axioms of WP:NPOV? At least as I am seeing it, this article as it stands suffers from editorial bias. Then why cannot I add a NPOV tag on this article? Just because you can block me and I cannot block you? Alonso McLaren (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

I suspect that you've probably already seen it DW but this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting the abuses of administrator Doug_Weller has been opened at ANI. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)