Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 246: Line 246:


We want to rewrite the lead section. Would you please participate and comment here? [[Talk:Scythians#New_Iranica_article]] Thanks. --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 06:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
We want to rewrite the lead section. Would you please participate and comment here? [[Talk:Scythians#New_Iranica_article]] Thanks. --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 06:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

== Thank you, Doug, for all your explanations to me. I spent a lot of time editing his brief contents without destroying all the hyperlinks, etc. because I'm not at all computer literate. What I edited was all Dr. Volpe's original text, written him. ==

Thank you, Doug, for all your explanations to me. I spent a lot of time editing his brief contents without destroying all the hyperlinks, etc. because I'm not at all computer literate. What I edited was all Dr. Volpe's original text, written him.

Are you able to send the deleted text back to me please. I don't want to have to go through editing his section again unless I can just copy and paste.

is there no way I can edit his profile on Wikipedia?

Revision as of 14:30, 17 May 2018

The current date and time is 24 November 2024 T 23:57 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:Doug Weller
User talk:Doug Weller
User talk:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Workshop
User:Doug Weller/Workshop
Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller
Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Userboxes
User:Doug Weller/Userboxes
Special:Contributions/Doug Weller
Special:Contributions/Doug Weller
Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
home
Talk Page
Workshop
Site Map
Userboxes
Edits
Email

Notice 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.



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.

Islam in Sweden

Doug_Weller The references there don't mention such information though also why is the information even included in there its not even realted to the topic in hand? bolanriver (talk) 9:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Skinwalker Ranch Edit - New Documentary - Edit Reversed

Doug, can you confirm your thinking behind why the edit is reversed based on "Not released yet"? I refer to other films which are not yet released which are cited - Star Wars Episode IX as an example. It's also not yet released or even completed yet it is on Wikipedia Boomerkc (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Boomerkc: my comment applies to films, books, etc. Films which will already meet our notability requirements at WP:NFILM can of course be mentioned. This clearly would incude any Star Wars sequels. The Skinwalker film doesn't compare and probably shouldn't be included at all, certainly not without reliable independent sources commenting on it. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot

I tried. You and NeilN can figure out if anything further needs to be done, but most likely anything posted on their use talk is going to meet a similar response. My other interaction with this editor at User talk:Acroterion#Republic of Florida went pretty much the same way, so perhaps I should've known better. Anyway, I have a feeling this editor is likely going to eventually end up being blocked as WP:NOTHERE, if they don't re-evaluate their approach to all things Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: you gave it a good try. I thought of adding my own note, but I think it's best to just leave them alone, and they will either find their way or not in the course of time/ Acroterion (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly and Acroterion: Thanks to both of you. I think I've stopped also. At least he's terse. Not everyone I've been dealing with in the last 24 hours has been able to resist using as many words as possible and then doubling the amount. :-) Doug Weller talk 15:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concise grumpiness is definitely preferable to verbose hostility. Acroterion (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original research at the Camp Douglas article & addition of text contradicted by the source

At Camp Douglas (Chicago) page - I was attempting to address the absurdity of comparing the northern prison Camp Douglas with other northern prisoner of war camps that were not similarly situated such as Johnson's Island (for wealthy officers already established with the intention of being a much more comfortable prison) or the Baltimore, Maryland prisoner of war camp for local secessionist millionaire politicians held in their own home town. This has seemingly been omitted and everything leading up to that propaganda style comparison has now been removed by someone else. I have not read the whole page again but seems all is well there at present. The text cited with sources didn’t even mention a comparison yet the endnote began discussing comparisons with other prison camps. Am I to understand you have to add extra sentences or paragraphs to the original existing text to counter a falsity added to an endnote? Are we to add an extra sentence to an endnote (with a source in that same endnote) countering such a comparison with sources, when the text cited didn’t even mention a comparison?

Rjr1960 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjr1960: I don't know what an endnote is, unless you mean the reference which the editor who added it fixed. There's no point in discussing that now. You can't add your own commentary, but sources meeting WP:RS that discuss the subject of the article but give a different viewpoint can be usually be added. Note that the editor who just edited is the editor who originally added what you are calling an endnote. They're the same person. Any more discussion about this article should go on its talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: In a book a footnote and endnote are the same thing depending upon whether it is at the "foot" of a page or is listed together with all sources at the "end" of the entire book. You may be correct this should be called a footnote since the page itself can go on and on and the list of sources still be at the "foot" of that page.

In some of these Wikipedia articles there are facts stated but the source given (in a footnote) actually does not back up the stated fact. Unless I learn of a more acceptable way of correcting this incorrect statement of history, I will simply delete the wording and the footnote (if the footnote no longer has any statement to back up) and explain that someone should come up with a source that backs that statement.

If there is a false statement of fact that has a footnote (with that source actually saying that), yet there are many other sources that say this is not correct, I will add language to point out some could conclude that statement by that author is not correct, with sources.

I'll also try to give fair warning or heads up I am considering changing a statement (with sources) for discussion at that article talk page. I am still learning how to do that.

Thank you for your assistance. Rjr1960 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysses S. Grant a/k/a Hiram Ulysses Grant

What is the best way to make this more historically accurate?

"A tactical defeat, the battle gave Grant's volunteers confidence and experience.[1] Confederate morale was shaken, while Grant as a general willing to fight was noticed by President Lincoln.[2]"?

"A tactical defeat"? - Not correct, this was a decisive CS victory. (This can be backed up by many sources).

"gave Grant's volunteers confidence and experience" - Experience - Yes, confidence - No. (This can be backed up by many many sources) but also this sounds as though the writer is leading up to say that Confederate forces lost confidence and did not gain experience when the opposite is true (again, many sources).

To top off the absurdity the next sentence reads...

"Confederate morale was shaken" because of Grant's defeat at Belmont. Dozens of period sources can be cited here to refute this. Also, and not surprisingly, the source cited does not appear to say that. A cursory free view of that source at books.google.com shows the word "morale" and "Belmont" are not even mentioned in the same chapter. I do not believe this source backs that statement but I have not bought the $35 e-book by that author.

"... while Grant as a general willing to fight was noticed by President Lincoln." I have not researched that particular folk tale, thus I personally will not try to change that but I do not believe a viable period source will ever be found indicating the President was impressed in any way by Grant's blunder at Belmont. Yes, shortly after this Grant began to show he was willing to mix-it-up with the Confederates and aggressively attack the entire situation but Belmont?? Come on.

I would be happy to explain the well documented cover up by Grant which began the very night he returned to Cairo and why today the U. S. NPS's official summary is "Union Victory" but I don't mean to bore anyone and it would mean nothing in this talk section. Confederate morale did not suffer as a result of their rout of Grant's army at the Battle of Belmont. They gained valuable experience and the rout caused an increase in volunteers. Grant's blunder at Belmont, (actually attacking contrary to specific orders), probably prolonged that war.

Consider giving me pointers on how we should clear up this misrepresentation of American history. Should we simply delete that statement or do I need to have a counter statement with sources? How do you correct an absurd statement like, "The sky is never blue in the month of May in the Sunny South." ? Do you delete it or do you add several sentences with sources showing photos, conclusions in books, diary accounts, etc.?

Please take this to the talk page so that others can see it and participate. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rjr1960 (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McFeely 1981, pp. 92–94.
  2. ^ Bonekemper 2012, pp. 33, 35.

Suggested Warning Template

Hi Doug!

I realized recently ([1], [2]) we don't have a good warning template for AP2 active remedies. I thought it might be useful to make one specifically for pages that have active remedies on them like United States presidential election, 2020.

I've made a test template at User:EvergreenFir/AP2 based off of Template:Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions page restrictions and Template:alert

Would this be something useful for the rest of the community? Since it's related to ARBCOM issues, I figured it best to ask before using.

Pinging a few folks who may be willing to chime in: GorillaWarfare KrakatoaKatie Drmies.

Cheers, EvergreenFir (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me, though I'll point out I'm no longer on the ArbCom :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any admin can weigh in! Feel free to ping folks too. DGG, RickinBaltimore for some more arb folks EvergreenFir (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: This is probably best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. It's based on something Coffee created[3] - see Template talk:Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions page restrictions. I've tried to get it changed and probably will again. Our decision was simply " standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people." This goes beyond that. I'm not fond of the consensus required bit. Coffee used to keep lists of what was consensus on talk pages but that's obviously unworkable. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! To be honest, my goal was more about the 1RR issue than anything else. We have 3RR warnings in Twinkle, but not 1RR+DS warning. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Félix-Marie Abel

Hi I created article in my userspace User:Shrike/Félix-Marie Abel could you help me with copy-editing.Thanks --Shrike (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #312

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Open request for adminship: Adminor
  • Development
    • Fix the bug where changes in the watchlist and Recent Changes on Wikipedia should have been shown but were not (phab:T192673)
    • Clarify error message for the merge API (phab:T180296)
    • Add violation type to restrict which entity types a property can be used (phab:T164744)
    • Added a constraint to blacklist values for a property (phab:T183092)
    • Fix a bug showing the wrong alias in the edit summary when editing an alias (phab:T190492)
    • Fix some bugs related to displaying thumbnails in statements (phab:T193880, phab:T192667, phab:T193499)
    • Continue looking into dispatch issues (phab:T194602)
    • Working on adding an integer constraint (phab:T167989)
    • Preparing to deploy WikibaseLexeme extension on Wikimedia cluster (phab:T168260)
    • Making sure that the form ID counter is preserved when clearing the lexeme via the API (phab:T192264)
    • Applying the same validation to the language code of the Lemma and the representation (phab:T191504)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


About the alert!

    • talk, First of all may I know what's your position; second, why do you start from the language I have used, when that is a symmetrical response to the same language used by him (who calls himself, administrator?!); third, the term the revert is coming is the response to his double revert of the page. I didn't revert any version. I did only changes, that I consider improvements. I gave explanations about my changes and he is telling me that I haven't, furthermore he is threatening me; fourth, it is not clear to me what do I have to do, because the info that is already published is partially wrong and unsourced!Verginia's star (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Verginia's star: Although anyone can add the alert, I can enforce it. Like User:Drmies I'm an WP:Administrator, and we were both on the elected WP:Arbitration Committee that set the sanctions. I still am. And we are very experienced editors. I've explained how you need to change your behavior. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding; what about Dermies?; so, you are enforcing sanctions against editors who contribute on Wikipedia, for inappropriate behaviour. I would like to know, what kind of sanctions have you applied to the administrator for the same issue, and moreover for being the one who started. thx.Verginia's star (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to take action against User:Drmies as he's shown no evidence of any behaviour violating our sanctions regime for Balkan related articles. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, my behaviour has violated your sanctions regime for Balkan related articles?Verginia's star (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has. It's also violated some other things but I'm ignoring that. You can't be sanctioned without an alert first and then only for actions after the alert. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear--thank you Neil. I'm not surprised. Of course Verginia's star knows that names and languages have enormous importance, symbolic and real, in such nationalist disputes--if not, they wouldn't have made (unproven) claims about the Internet having fallen victim to Romanian propaganda. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my first intervention on Wikipedia. I didn't know about the regime and I didn't repeat it. So you are telling me that the alert is due to the edit that I have done one month ago?!.. According to Doug Weller the reason for the alert is my improper behaviour against Dermies. I asked him twice and I'm waiting the response about the sanction applied to Dermies for his improper behaviour. Remember he is an administrator! Verginia's star (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC) the text is addressed to Bishonen and Doug!Verginia's star (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verginia's star, the alert was to notify that you are editing in a contentious area and to conduct yourself accordingly. And Drmies is pretty much on the ball here. All content needs to be sourced, especially if contentious. "in 99% of the cases where editors make changes without evidence and then claim "racism" or "propaganda" or what not, it's complete bullshit" is also very accurate. --NeilN talk to me 21:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not discus the issue again from the beginning with all administrators! You think that I'm naïve... you applied the sanction to me for a single violation done by mistake, more than one month ago?! The alert was raised today by Dermie, because he likes to flexes his muscles!

I'm waiting the response about the sanction applied to Dermies for his abusie behaviour, and threatening, and not about the regime!Verginia's star (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Verginia's star, no sanctions have been applied to you. You've been made aware that sanctions could be levied (Drmies is already aware). You should drop this now before I or another admin decide to block you for disruptive and battleground editing. --NeilN talk to me 21:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truth vs agenda

Doug,

At this point we might as well ask for page protection for BCE as I can post truth and put in citations all i want but clearly those w/ an agenda are bent on putting in opinions.

Is BCE widely used - no. What is CE / BCE based upon? - The time frames involving Jesus. Now I realize that the PC culture would love nothing more than to erase this but fact is fact. The rest of the article in fact confirms this and it does the reader little benefit to ignore this. I've provided citations numerous times only to have them deleted. I'm not a wikipedia expert but I've ran across those w/ agendas a few times in my years here. I once even had to argue w/ admins over a plant that can kill you if eaten green (but not yellow) b/c duffus mcgoos were hell bent on keeping fictitious info on the board. In the end, if it comes down to it, I'll move on as its really not a huge deal and I have a life. If Wikipedia wants to keep up false info well its Wikipedia house so they can rule it as they see fit. Best of luck. SGT-Craig (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SGT-Craig: Looking over your talk page history and at the history for the Podophyllum article, the problem was that you plagiarized from a source, not other users' "agendas." Maybe if you tried paying attention to what others actually say, instead of just crying about "agendas" while completely ignoring the possibility that maybe you don't know what you're doing, you'd have more fun here. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian, not worried about it random person. The point is helping people and protecting them. I cited information. They removed it. Big deal. I provided the citation and reworded it. Too easy. Same situation on BCE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view comes to mind. SGT-Craig (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scythians: Please comment

We want to rewrite the lead section. Would you please participate and comment here? Talk:Scythians#New_Iranica_article Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doug, for all your explanations to me. I spent a lot of time editing his brief contents without destroying all the hyperlinks, etc. because I'm not at all computer literate. What I edited was all Dr. Volpe's original text, written him.

Thank you, Doug, for all your explanations to me. I spent a lot of time editing his brief contents without destroying all the hyperlinks, etc. because I'm not at all computer literate. What I edited was all Dr. Volpe's original text, written him.

Are you able to send the deleted text back to me please. I don't want to have to go through editing his section again unless I can just copy and paste.

is there no way I can edit his profile on Wikipedia?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&oldid=841704815"