User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 → Archive 45

Wikidata weekly summary #211

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Moses' histrocity

I reverted edits that some other user has reverted because wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, right? There's little-to-no evidence that Moses was historical, that much is true. That is the consensus, not that he didn't exist at all. Dizzzer (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Message from the Afghan Royal FAMILY also known as the Family of King Saul

How DARE you erase what we wrote on OUR FAMILY!


Anonymous Family will handle this from now. We gave you a chance....


Will expose YOU and whoever else is INVOLVED

We have already connected with Scott and several other people. Our new Documentary is going to expose you all. Especially with the Beautiful Women in the Afghan Royal Family. We shall control the media and show you what's up.


-A message from Anonymous, on behalf of the Musahiban Dynasty in America and ISRAEL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.212.128 (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • How about creating an account, mr anonymous coward, your majesty? - A message from Bishonen | talk, handling this on behalf of Wikipedia. 21:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC).
 Listen you Pakistani DAAL Khor, very soon Pakistan's map will be different. We have Israel and the Pashtun's.

Don't erase our History because you will LOSE.

Alexander the Great Once Said "May God Keep You Away from the Revenge of the Afghans".

User:Ecoboy90

He sent me an email (I can forward it to you if you want) claiming that you were an extremist Muslim. Again, this is in gross violation of WP:NPA. I have reported him at ANI. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom; I strongly recommend you to do it. Ecoboy90 (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Musahiban, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pashtun. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Error at the polls; both for and gainst?

You wanna strike your oppose the close vote on the G & others case? NE Ent 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Later vote obviously overrides the other, but ok. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt

Hi Doug.

The page about Ron Wyatt seems bias to me. It portraits him as a liar and a fake.

I am not trying to promote ArkDiscovery. I just believe the guy. The videos I saw in youtube in ArkDiscovery channel helped. But it has been a long process of more than ten years looking at different kind of evidence about the bible and actually reading the bible and trying to figure out what it means (that includes using software that help with hebrew and greek manuscripts).

The replaced reference shows images that do not correspond to what is shown in the videos I saw (for free in youtube in ArkDiscovery channel) and still portraits him as a fake. When I started to read that page (http://wyattmuseum.com/more-than-geological-layers/2011-125), after a little while (maybe less than a minute), it showed an image saying "WYATT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH. Receive updates on upcoming tours, events, and specials. Sign up for 'artiFACTS'. Enter your email." over what I was reading and I had to close it to be able to keep reading, the same I saw in the broken link. That image seems promotional of tours to me.

There are video references that people (including you) could look for them selves and decide if they believe the guy or not.

I have seen these two about the ark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9pAjv1WgNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7iycpe16V0

I would like to change the page about Ron Wyatt from a more neutral point of view, that includes references to pages of people that believe him.

Can I do that or not.

JLQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose-luis-quiroga-bogota (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jose-luis-quiroga-bogota Popups like that asking you to subscribe to a mailing list are common. I get them a lot when I look at food blogs. Whether Wyatt was consciously lying I can't say, but that his discoveries were in the main fake is the mainstream consensus and we are a mainstream encyclopedia. A lot of people misunderstand neutral point or view. If you read the section "Fringe theories and pseudoscience" at WP:PSCI it says"Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked." See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories and § Due and undue weight. Our articles on subjects such as Wyatt need to show clearly that they are fringe. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Megatrend University

Somebody is deleting material from "Controversy" section. Can you lock the article?

Thank you very much

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.243.74 (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

As I edit it, I'm too involved to do this. I don't think there's enough of a problem there in any case. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Tribe of Judah, Israelites migration into and conflicts in Canaan

What do you mean that my assertions are "dubious" ?? Clearly this is a flawed assertion. You know very well there was a migration of proto-Israelites and other Canaanites from Egypt during the Hyksos expulsions. You know that one of those groups migrated and settled into the Sinai area and southern Canaan, and that this polity or group became known as Israel by at least 1200 BC, as referenced in the Merneptah Stele. We known that sometime between this point and the documented Assyrian conquest of the northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) in the 8th century BC, the Israeli polity, Hebrew language and paleo-Hebrew script came to dominate all of Canaan except for the northern region (Phoenicia). Some sort of migration and conflict took place during this process, which the Bible clearly mentions in several cases in the relation between the Hebrew Canaanites and the non-Hebrew Canaanites. Southern Canaan, which became the Kingdom of Judah after the split of the United Monarchy, clear was already established by around 1100 - 900 BC when it had to defend against the invasion and settlement of the Sea Peoples, who became the established Philistine city states. The Biblical accounts are largely based on varying historical events, put in the context of teachings and beliefes about God (Yahweh). 173.238.79.44 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Modern scholarship has challenged the biblical account using both literary and archaeological evidence, leading to questions about the historicity of some or all of the account, including the very existence of a united kingdom." Quoted from Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not doubting there are questions and doubts about the historicity of the account and nature of the United Monarchy. There is no doubt though about the emergence of the Kingdom of Israel as some sort of polity in the region, along with the Hebrew language and the paleo-Hebrew script becoming predominant. Doubts about the level of historicity of the account does not mean a dismissal of all or most of it. It's accepted a Hebrew, Israeli state emerged which eventually became the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The nature of how it emerged from a small polity in the south of Canaan and the Sinai to becoming a dominant polity over Canaan is what there are the greatest questions. There had to have been some form of migration and conflicts during the time period, as the culture of the non-Hebrew Canaanites disappeared, foreign raiders ([[Sea Peoples, Philistines) established major city-states (e.g. Gath) on the coast, and the Hebrew, Israelite culture and state was predominant in the area at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the northern Kingdom, documented in Assyrian sources. Veritas2016 (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
"Although in a later book Finkelstein and Silberman do accept that David and Solomon were real kings of Judah about the 10th century B.C, they cite that the earliest independent reference to the Kingdom of Israel is about 890 B.C, while for that of Judah is about 750 B.C." (David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition, p. 20)
You also need to remember that so many important sites are just waiting to yield important archaeological finds, but haven't been properly excavated due to political, ethnic and religious conflicts in the region. Essentially, much of the commentary you are reading is based on the views of some academics, based on current available evidence independent of the Biblical narratives. When, if ever, the Temple Mount is fully excavated, there will likely be important finds supporting a great deal more of the Biblical accounts, including the First Temple, the conflicts with Canaan and Philistia, and the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and possible some form of original unified Israel which is comparable to the United Monarchy. Hopefully, information will even found about the emergence of the Israelites themselves as distinct nation after the Exodus/Hyksos expulsions from Egypt. Veritas2016 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
See [1]. Very brief overview. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Applicable to future excavations: WP:BALL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Opinion?

Hey Doug, long time no talk. Hope you're doing well. I was wondering; long-term sock abuser User:Artin Mehraban, when he was still around, created alot of hoax maps, images, and what not that, which almost all still linger forth on Wikimedia. Every now and then, unfortunate Wikipedia users who were not acquianted with him use the map. They're outright blatant hoaxes, WP:OR violations, and what not. Is there any way that we can opt for them to be deleted? Even most of the images/maps he created with his socks still linger forth such as this one. This map in particular is the one that creates most of the problem atm, by the way. This matter is a pretty problematic thing, and every now and then I see that his hoax maps/images return here on Wiki. Please let me know your opinions regarding what would be the best to do. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

{{yo\LouisAragon]]. It's used on several en.wiki pages[2]. You can request it's deletion at [3] - point out it was created by a sock and the problems with it. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Ooops I meant @LouisAragon: Doug Weller talk 16:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Doug, will do so then. Take care - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin The Wordsmith's comments re: "...the ineptness of many current Arbs..." is certainly casting aspersions

Given the seriousness of this Rfc at User talk:The Wordsmith/GMORFC the ongoing threats to sanction participating editors seem to ring hollow in light of supervising admin The Wordsmith's astonishing comments regarding ArbCom members. The comment, which by any definition "casts aspersions," raises a number of questions that call for immediate answers, given the self-created deadline for comments.

The questions, which I hereby put directly to The Wordsmith, are as follows:

  • Exactly which ArbCom members are you referring to, when you describe them as "inept?"
  • In what way are these current community-elected ArbCom members, as you term them, "inept?"
  • Do you have diffs to support this sweeping claim, and can you produce them? If not, why not?
  • Since the thrust of this extraordinary Rfc seems to be to prevent "casting aspersions," in the Talk pages of GMO articles (as well as precedent-establishing proposed "locked in" multiple article wording regarding GMO safety) is this not exactly what you are doing in the past 24 hours towards members of the Arbitration Committee? Does this not disqualify you immediately from further participation?

To all concerned: I will post the above subsection on the Talk pages of current ArbCom members, per The Wordsmith's declaration, despite substantial objections, that they will be locking down the page a few hours from this posting, making further timely discussion on this page impossible. Jusdafax 11:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jusdafax I see that it's become even more of a clusterfuck, with Laserbrain stepping out because of doxing threats, and that it's been postponed. Anyone who becomes an Arb also becomes a target, and since I've been called an extreme Muslim and a fag this week, "inept", if he includes me, is pretty trivial. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough Doug, and being unaware of your circumstances, my condolences. Yes, Laserbrain has withdrawn since I posted, about an hour or so. If the email(s) contain threats they should be forwarded not only to ArbCom but, if necessary, to police. I've reported abusive editors to legal authorities in the past, myself. In any case, thanks for your reply. I'm going to monitor the situation, and try to keep my sense of humor. A "Muslim AND a fag?" Yikes. Jusdafax 19:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Only thing I got called was "alpha neckbeard." But those were kinder, gentler times. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. I've gotten death threats just from deleting spam and garbage, well before I was an Arb. So anything after was pretty much par for the course. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hammudid dynasty

Dear Wikipedia user, I have seen that you reverted the changes in the wiki page about the hamuddid. If you take a look at the history of the page, you will see that the originall text included that the dysnasty was a arab dynasty from the Idrissid tribe. Someone chaged it intop berber not a long while ago and left the old sources in. Im not changing the information, I simply reverting the information to the older ones, but it had to be done manually because it was changes some weeks ago without any explanation. I hope you understand the changes I made.(User talk: Alhaqiha) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Source said Berber but someone changed the text but not the source. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, in https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Who_R_U%3F/Archive , under 75.162.244.4, there is just one word "Closing". So does this mean whether 75 is a sock or not a sock? When I asked Bbb23 for clarification, he/she did not respond. Can you please explain to me? Thanks. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don’t know anything about this particular case, but according to policy CheckUsers won’t publicly link any IP address to a named account. I guess the closure there was so laconic because the IP had already been blocked.—Odysseus1479 00:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #212

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Removal of sourced content

The information from both articles, which you removed, is sourced. Please, read that source, why did you remove it? [4]. It is clear Evidence points to human habitation since 7000 BC. 87.227.208.188 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

But it isn't a list of oldest human habitation in an area, it's a list of oldest cities. Even Sofia makes it clear that the age of it as a city is uncertain. 17:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Anyway, you left other cities with the same claims in the table. If you check the page of the oldest Argos, you will see no claim for the age of the city or the continuous habitation. The first source of Athens as well. Could you, please check the claims of the second source of Athens?87.227.208.188 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I've been slowly working on it for years now. But this year being an Arbitrator takes up most of my time. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Can I also fell free to remove the unverified cities from the list?87.227.208.188 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Doug, this user (a Bulgarian nationalist by the looks of it) simply doesn't listen and pretends he doesn't understand. I have added high quality sources that back the claims for Athens, Argos, Thebes and Chania, and they are all viewable online, but he still tagged them. Athenean (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Doug, the user insists this falsification to be untagged. I just realize that this is the main user(nationalist by his username) that simply falsificated the sources of these cities. Please, check them. It is necessary. The article suffers from disruption by imaginary ages, just to satisfy somebody's desire his city to look older.87.227.208.188 (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Moon split

Hello. Regarding your revert here: [5] I remind you that the question to NASA here is about the Moon split and this is enough. It will be important for the readers of the article to know the answer of NASA to a question about the same subject of this article. Thanks. Kfaani (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kfaani Since the person who answered the question made it clear they didn't understand the question "I’m not sure what you’re referring to" the answer doesn't refer to the subject of the article. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
He didn't say (I don't understand the question)! He said (I’m not sure what you’re referring to) and that doesn't mean he didn't understand the question! Kfaani (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Kfaani, then why did you not use what he said about splitting, ie " while it is not possible to “split” the Moon into two parts and reassemble it,"? Doug Weller talk 20:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The full answer of NASA is a long one, so I wrote the summery that connects to the subject directly when he said that the Moon (currently) is the result of two bodies colliding each other. Kfaani (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

1RR

Thanks for the heads-up! Parishan (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewish nose

What do you think of this article, especially Jewish nose#Morphology and genealogy? I can't tell if there's a way to re-write it with more up to date sources that would make it sound more encyclopedic and less like a Nazi textbook. I also can't tell who on talkpage is being genuine. Thoughts? —PermStrump(talk) 14:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: - it's a notable subject. I suggested a couple of sources and I can see a lot of talk on the article. Let's see what happens. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 21:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

This organisation has its own category. That is where the categories mostly belong. Rathfelder (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Rathfelder Your explanation really should have been in your edit summary, failing that the talk page so that others understand. I've reverted myself. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. But not many people care about categorisation. If I had to explain them all I would go much slower. It's more efficient to provide a detailed explanation to the small minority who care about it - and indeed to concede that I may get things wrong.Rathfelder (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced text was removed from 1st paragraph. How best to proceed?

Hi~ I saw that you made this edit.

However, that "citation needed" tag from 2013 seems like it was originally pointing to text seen here.

I think the text you removed was actually inserted only 2 months ago here.

So my question is: Should the article still have "citation needed" tagging the original text, or should that other text be removed also (as I think you intended to do)? Or maybe just leave it as it is now? (I'm not familiar with the topic to add content.)

(BTW, I'm not worried about your edit. I was just not sure what should be done about the remaining text since the whole paragraph lacks citations. Thank you for any advice! :)) Zeniff (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@ZeniffMartineau: thanks for spotting that. I've simply trimmed all the text (which was just speculation by an editor) that was added between the old text and its sourced. None of it was discussed in the article in any case. See WP:LEAD. I also remove some more material that wasn't about the subject of the article but was about Jews in Afghanistan.
Thank you for your time on that! Sorry that I had no idea what to do there. o.o I think I don't know enough around here yet. And also, thanks for the explanation!:) Zeniff (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

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) 04:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

REVDEL request

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

[[yo|Evergreenfir}} done, IP blocked also. didn't see it until just now. The "{{re}}" template above doesn't do anything, by the way. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Trouting myself and trying again:@EvergreenFir: Doug Weller talk 08:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Lol thank you! And quit wasting trout. Gonna be endangered at this rate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Officialsigep

Should some sort of username warning be added as well? thanx.Naraht (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, got distracted. Done now. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Opinion

Should The Luminous Life of Our Prophet, By Reşit Haylamaz, be used as a source for the historical battle of Mu'tah or does this appear to be simply a translation of a primary source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not at all sure. He's written a large number of books and is editor-in-chief of Kaynak Publishing Group in Istanbul, which is a quite large company and in a bit of trouble.[6] I found a mention of where he got his PhD.[7][8] But this[9] confuses me. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't ask since I know you are super busy, but I recently found that a source("Interpreting the Qur'an: A Guide for the Uninitiated, Clinton Bennett, page 111), being used by another editor(Xtremedood), states Muhammad was at the Battle of Mu'tah. This is a glaring historical error. The real issue is, Xtremedood has been repeating the usage of 100,000 troops(Bennett, page 111!!!) at Mu'tah from the Bennett source, yet has apparently "missed" this glaring error which is mentioned on the same page! This is the second time I have found information in the Bennett source that contradicts Xtremedood's POV.
  • "As for the figures, Western historians also say that there were 100,000+ Byzantines such as here [25] on page 111 of Interpreting the Qur'an: A Guide for the Uninitiated by Clinton Bennett." --Xtremedood.[10]
  • "KansasBear said: "FYI, you cited Bennett, while trying to hide the fact he states the Muslims retreated. That's called cherry-picking. I simply highlighted your disingenuous behavior."
  • "This is clearly a personal attack, as I have nowhere hidden this fact. I have been clear in my usage of his source and making a false accusation against me does not to bolster your case, it only de-legitimizes your stance. I have been explicit in my disapproval of your removal of the 100,000 to 200,000 figures on the article. While accepting that Western historians have been of the view that it was the Muslims who retreated first, I wanted to make the case that Western historians have also pointed out this figure and that removing it clearly shows bias." --Xtremedood.[11]
I believe this is a case of outright deception to push his own POV into the article, while using an unreliable source that is written by a Religion Phd, yet is historically inaccurate. I do not feel there is anything left to discuss with Xtremedood, having proven his actions are less than sincere, not once but TWICE.
What would you suggest in this situation? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Finalization

Greetings! I was wondering if you could perhaps finalize this discussion? It officially expired over two weeks ago [12], but this hasn't yet been formalized. All the best -- Soupforone (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

  • New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
  • Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
  • New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Doug,

This message is in relation to my edit of the North Africa page. Many thanks for the comment that you left me. The information in the article is misleading and incorrect, which is why I edited it. As I'm relatively new to editing Wikepedia articles I apologise if I have not followed the correct protocols. Could you please, for my benefit, explain in simple terms why you have taken issue with my correction of the article?

I have edited the article again, please don't take this as a challenge to you. The information is incorrect and misleading and it should be corrected. I would be very happy to discuss the subject matter with you and to follow the correct procedures for editing articles in the future if I am not presently doing so.

Thanks very much. Mrmisr (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Actium

Hey Doug, I ran into this by accident, and found that you're in the history as well (surprise surprise). Leprof 7272 is a well-known troublemaker but there's nothing wrong with his sniffer, which pointed him to a pretty blatant copy/paste job. Turns out that the offending edits go all the way back to 2009, when we were all young and svelte. It starts hereabouts, with a whole bunch of copying by Reddi. So I think it goes back too far to be scrubbed from the history, and the book is out of copyright--so it's plagiarism, not copyvio. I suggest that we keep the frame of the article, and totally remove the two offending sections, replacing them--for now--with old text (unless Leprof found more copied text elsewhere?). The article is listed somewhere in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history for improvement, so that may help, and I have no doubt that The ed17 is on it like a boss. Thanks, and let me know what you think about the copy/paste job. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait, why do we have to remove the sections? Taking public domain material is totally okay (see Wikipedia:Copyright violations, WP:1911, etc). I agree that it's not ideal, but we're fine as long as the copying is noted, and I'd rather have content than none at all. ;-p Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I believe I’ve added the correct form of attribution to the relevant entry in the References section. I didn’t remove the copy-paste tags yet; please review.—Odysseus1479 04:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC):::((ping|Drmies|The ed17|Odysseus}} Thanks for all this, but I have a problem with using Schuckburgh. He's way out of date, I can find no one lauding his scholarship, and just a cursory check shows that while he says A&C had 140 ships with Octavian having 260 (of course the infobox gives different figures, see my userpage for my opinion on infoboxes), modern sources say 500 and 400[13][14] and that's checking only one set of facts. Don't get me started on Reddi. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to block a website

Hi Doug. This website and its mirror are personal and pseudo-scientific websites of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. I don't know if the main domain is blocked or not, but users still can use the mirror domain links in WP articles, an example. So what should we do? --Wario-Man (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: you could ask at WP:Spam blacklist, sometimes sites like that get added. I'm no good at the markup needed to do it myself. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #214

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

3102 BC

Hi.

I thank you for reviewing [edit]. Krishna may be considered as an reincarnation of God by believers, but for non-believers he was just another king in history. So, it's a suggestion that this fact may be kept in timeline of normal history also (with suffix Lord removed). It has been proved by archaeological discoveries (especially that of Dwarka) that his existence was not merely a myth. Thank you. Regards. --Manoj Khurana (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Manoj Khurana: Neither Krishna nor Dwarka claim that he was a real person. Sure, there are claims, none accepted by the archaeological or historical community, only by a tiny if popular minority. His dates are also disputed and Wikipedia cannot state that one is correct. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Editor's name is actually User:Manojkhurana so ping didn't work. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Fine. Thanks for the insight. :-) --Manoj Khurana (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Screenshot question

Hi Doug!

Im trying to get rid of current screenshot on plesk's wikipedia page as that is the old software, and update with the new. Failing miserably so far. Any suggestions? thank you so much!

signed Contentcult (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)contentcult

Hi User:Contentcult It looks like you fixed it. The best place to get this sort of help though is at the Wikipedia:Help desk. If you look at your post, you don't need to add 'signed' or your username. You should start a new section though - how you do it depends upon your skin, but in the menu at the top of my page it should say edit and then to the right of that a + sign or something that opens a new section. I'm not sure about the copyright status of that image though. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Congoid

Greetings! Yes, Coon coined the term. However, "Congoid" is indeed a synonym for "Negroid" - please see [15]. Kind Regards -- Soupforone (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone Coon used it as one, but it isn't even in the OED. I've taken this to the talk page, it seems fringe. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, Coon did coin it, so that's probably why. Point taken, though. Cheers -- Soupforone (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Will you please help me to add images to my Wikipedia page.

Thank you! Goldartdog (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&action=edit&section=new#

Will you please help me to add images to my Wikipedia page.

Thank you! Goldartdog (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&action=edit&section=new#

Responded at your talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Need help

I'm using a shared IP. It is fixed, and only changes once every 10-12 months, if not more. There are multiple users editing, but some are banned. The problem is all the "sockpuppetry" is attached to one person when they belong to many different people using the IP.Critiasp (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Critiasp I'm not clear exactly what the specific problem is and what you see as the solution. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2016/02/what-will-wikipedia-editor-goblin-faceatlantid-do-next/ What is written on this link is mostly misinformation and slander by Rome Viharo (a banned Wikipedia user who is known as a big troll across the net, i.e. his Rationalwiki entry: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo), but it shows the problem: he thinks Goblin Face is the same person as all the other accounts on the Anglo_Pyramidologist archive. It's a shared IP with multiple different users, not only from my household, but others also using the same Wi-Fi. This is clear to see from the accounts and edits which are very distinct. As an example, Rome Viharo writes: "his most recent and active Wikipedia editing account likely to be found here JuliaHunter, based on identical article editing and writing style." Julia certainly isn't me.Critiasp (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Off to bed now. I'm still not clear what you want done. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #215

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

oops

This was an accident. I fixed it. I left the typo intact. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 14:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User talk:HighInBC no problem, I've done the same thing. Glad you noticed the typo, which I've fixed. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't know, I always enjoy a good wheel-war when I see one. Breaks up the day, and distracts from British politics. Softlavender (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pytheas 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:
  • ''[http://www.academia.edu/26576329/Albion_the_earliest_history Albion: the earliest history]"] (Dublin, 2016)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Pytheas

I see that you deleted my link to the book John Taylor Albion: the earliest history, and referred to me as an amateur in talk. If you had taken the trouble to read the manuscript, you would have seen that it is part of a thesis submitted to the University of Oxford, supervised by Prof. Sir Barry Cunliffe, and examined by Professors Frere and Jope. I was a field archaeologist for ten years, working on Iron Age sites like Danebury Hillfort and Hengistbury Head port-of-trade. I was a member of the Oriental Faculty, Univ. of Oxford for 15 years, published in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology, and was a Fellow of the Royal Numismatic Society for 20 years. If you still think this is amateurish, your a hard man, Doug! Dr. John Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0x0n (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@0x0n: I'm sorry, but I did read the pdf didn't see any of that (even with a search). I also searched for your name but obviously not well enough. I should have looked at at your user page, that would have helped. There is the issue of conflict of interest but as I am now the latest editor to add the link, even if it was originally added by you, that's not a problem. We really need more archaeologists editing Wikipedia so I hope that I haven't put you off. I did try to explain in my edit summary that I was in error. You might want to join WP:WikiProject Archaeology, it could use your help. Doug Weller talk 08:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Request for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Request for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #216

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing Vandalism to the Article About Pumapunku

Hi, Since, Since June 28, 2016, there has been ongoing vandalism by editors 69.63.83.102, 108.195.128.57, and 155.229.209.58 to the opening paragraph of Pumapunku. There is a need to semi-protect / protect this article as these editors have been posting the same statements about Erubus being connected with Pumapunku. I have mentioned in the talk page for this article. Paul H. (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Paul H., hopefully Ian can deal with this as and when, otherwise RPP. As Ian has been active blocking and protecting and I edit the article I'd rather leave this to him. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Long--term disruptive user

Hey Doug,

I wondered whether you could do something about this user whos clearly WP:NOTHERE on a pretty long term period right now? He managed to dodge the bullet over and over simply because he doesn't make edits on a structural basis, and only edits low-profile articles. Just to illustrate the frantically disruptive pattern with a few diffs, e.g.;[16]-[17]-[18]-[19]-[20]-[21]-[22]. Literally -/+ 90% of his edits are related to this apparantly frantic obsession with "Afghans" and "Pashtuns", as we can see. Numerous users have given him warnings throughout the past and tried to make it totally clear that he's being disruptive per definition, e.g. [23]-[24]-[25] but to absolutely no avail.[26] Bringing this to ANI would unfortunately be utterly futile, given how its dealt on ANI with such forms of disruption (aka WP:tl;dr and in the end no action will be taken). In fact, I just noticed that he's already been blocked multiple times for the exact same reasons throughout the past, and the last time was actually very recently, namely in August 2015, for, once again, the exact same reasons. On multiple terms and for a pretty long period right now, this user has shown to be a total nuisance to Wikipedia's community, and highly disruptive towards Wikipedia's content and integrity. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Bish gave him a DS alert. We'll see. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Aight. Thanks for the prompt response. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Source

Did you have a source for this? Seems like it definitely needs one. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

DNA history of Egypt

Hello. How should we deal with the IP hopper on DNA history of Egypt? Should we request a semi-protection? Khruner (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Khruner Yes. It's probably one of the accounts that have tried to add this. I'm too involved to add it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Done here, not sure if that will works, expecially if the IP has some accounts too. Khruner (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Piped categories

I didn't quite understand this edit you made, with the edit summary "please don't pipe categories, didn't show anyway". Piping categories is something that is done everywhere on WP - see Wikipedia:Piped link#Categories. They're not supposed to show; it's for sorting. StAnselm (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm:Just shows that categories aren't really my thing. Perhaps you could explain that one, thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
It isn't piping, it's sorting. Obviously Genesis flood narrative should be sorted in the Genesis catefory under "Flood" not "Genesis". Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Further, in Flood myths for example, we still want the article to appear under G, so a DEFAULTSORT of Flood would be unhelpful. With the pipe syntax an item can get sorted appropriately for each parent category. You’ll also see the pipe with just a space after it, where a page is the eponymous or principal article in a category, which brings it to the top of that list.—Odysseus1479 21:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I've learned quite a bit here. Not that I plan to get involved in category work, it's only less of a mystery to me, still not something I'm happy with. Thanks everybody. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Twenty-second Dynasty of Egypt

Berber dynasty? If not, this IP(sock of Omartoons?)[27] is starting to get a bit disruptive. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Berber, see Meshwesh. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
And I see the IP is blocked for a month. You might check Omar-toons contributions at Commons, if someone starts using them at en.wiki. Omar-Toons is globally locked, checking the status of Omar-toons. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

IVC

This one's for you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Pure copy-pasted content

Hi. Is this a legit edit? An IP user just copy-pasted the content from those sources (Britannica and country-data.com). How do you deal with such edits? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Wario-Man Attributed and in quotation marks, so ok. But see also History of Tajikistan, Persian people#Sub-groups and this. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Long knives

May be a good time to semi for a while. Editor has already jumped IPs three times today to revert the same content. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood Done. I see another Admin has been busy blocking the IPs as well. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sunni template

An editor has reverted the edit that we achieved through consensus on The Sunni template. [28]. Although discussion is ongoing in the talk page, do I have the leeway to revert him back to the consensus version? Misdemenor (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Misdemenor, sorry, hard to say definitely. As there's no deadline I probably would see how the discussion goes, but that's me. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Karen Stollznow

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Karen Stollznow. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Rowanis sock?

Does this editor seem familiar? --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry User:Kansas Bear, I'm not sure. Maybe I'll have time this weekend to look. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Rowanis? Can you give me a link? Doug Weller talk 16:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
My bad, Rowanis12. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Kansas Bear Oh yeah. Confirmed and blocked. I see another editor spotted it also. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like another one, same edits as RowanFraser2004. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: blocked and tagged. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Another one? Dragon25920, your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks a matched pair. Rowan2904. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Should one of us break down and file an SPI, since we might find even more? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Kansas Bear could you please start one. Thanks. Real life keeps me busy. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. If you wish to comment, here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Antikythera mechanism

I reverted your revert because the user you reverted corrected spelling. Your revert restored the incorrect spelling. CrashUnderride 19:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Guled

Greetings! A user named Guled appears to be spamming the same anti-Arab material across different pages using his main Libanguled account [29] and a newly-created Guled2016 account [30]. When you have the time, could you please take a look Doug? Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Doug, I was just contacted twice by an ip claiming to be you. Please let me know here if that was indeed you when you get this. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Soupforonr That was me able to post to you but not my talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Damn oPad. @Soupforone: I don't know if I can do anything before Tuesday. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC) SPI may be the way to go. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure if it was you there :=D Anyway, there's no hurry. Let me know if you need help with anything. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel

Hi Doug. The article name and the redirect here need to be switched as all reputable media sources such as BBC News use a hyphenated surname, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. Since this can only be done by an administrator, could you please help? I asked User:John on his talk page since he was editing the article but so far got no response. I see that you're active at the moment, so if you could help that would be great. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've doe the move as requested. --John (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #218

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Gaffney correction

Thanks for the correction to my edit on the Gaffney page. However, I'm a little confused, and would like your insight, regarding not placing the Reagan stuff in the intro page. I was trying to maintain the RfC consensus that he is a conspiracy theorist but doing my best to try and maintain a Neutral Point of View on a living person, as per Wikipedia policy. You stated the because the Reagan stuff is "already in the body of the article" and would need to have the context that is in the article. His background as a [Reagan official] is one of the reasons he's notable in the first place. Additionally, I'm not really understanding why it can't be in the intro considering his conspiracy theories are also already in the body of the article. As someone who doesn't have as much editing experience as you I would greatly appreciate your insight. Please don't take my inquiry as an attack.

Additionally, I believe Roxy the dog's statement (to the editor Professor Mike) of: "Call me a vandal again, and see what happens" is a threat. Is that something I should take to an administrator? The Armchair General (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Armchair General: I'll comment on the Reagan issue at the talk page. You've brought the issue to an Administrator, me. I'm also a member of the WP:Arbitration Committee. WP:Vandalism defines vandalism, and Professor Mike was very much in the wrong calling Roxy the dog a vandal. If he continued to call editors with whom he's having content disputes vandals, he might be sanctioned. Threat, warning? What you call it depends I guess on perspective, but whichever, you shouldn't go around calling one side of an ordinary content dispute a vandal. I certainly don't see you comment as an attack. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Ha! I totally, didn't realize you were also an Administrator. I agree that Professor Mike was name calling and in the wrong. But I also saw Roxy the Dog's response as a threat of retaliation. I don't want to get anyone in trouble. Either way, I look forward to reading the talk page. The Armchair General (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Protecting Mahidevran Gülbahar

Hi there. Hope you're good. I am noticing some constant controversial edits to Mahidevran Gülbahar. Can you please protect it as there is a clear sign of vandalism. Much thanks in advance! Worldandhistory (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Worldandhistory, looks like it's just one editor. If they do that again I'll block them. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing and responding. Hope it will stop. Worldandhistory (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Contests

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on Wehrmachtbericht at the NPOV noticeboard. As a follow-up, I posted a link to the Talk pages where it had come up, and it may have helped to sway an editor's opinion, which originally was for inclusion: Wehrmachtbericht transcript. It was great to get input from uninvolved editors, so thanks again. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinion

Would you consider:

  • Insights and Interpretations, ed. Colum Hourihane, Princeton University Press, 2002.

..reliable for medieval history(royal genealogy)? The section in question is authored by Judith K. Golden. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, why wouldn't it be? Doug Weller talk 13:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess the art and archaeology seemed, to me, to place them outside the realm of historical research. I thought it might be a reliable source, but since it had information I could use, figured I should get a 2nd opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Woodroar (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #219

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

I Did not Call anyone a Troll; Someone accused me of trolling (falsely)

Doug, you posted on my user talk page that I had accused someone of trolling. But I never did that. Someone came there an accused me of trolling. But I never used the term. Now are we all equal on Wikipedia? Will you now post a warning to the one who said I was trolling for having made a personal attack on me? (PeacePeace (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC))

Responded on editor's talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Woodroar

Dear Doug, Thanks for you reply herewith request you to clarify about the word god in Viki it has been mentioned that it has derived from Sanskrit I need your opinion on what basis they allowed as the word God derived from Sanskrit that means the editor of that bags has no idea about the history of the language as I understand Sanskrit It self created around B.C 5th century only from the language called TAMIL, BRAHGRATH & BAALI, but the word கடவுள் is used from the age of stone in Tamil, moreover if you analyse 2 out of 5 words of Sanskrit is from Tamil. How you people can accept that the Sanskrit is the ancient language of India, for your kind references i would like to inform you that the name India itself from 65 years only if you wand to know the earlier name the subcontinent you have to come to the ancient language of Tamil only. If you are a true researcher please revisit the research and identify the true history of Languages.


Thanks and Kind regards Amir Ali (அமீர் அலி) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiralif80 (talk • contribs)

User:Amiralif80 No, Tamil is Dravidian, Sanskrit Indo-European, they derive from different language families. I am not 'you people'. The name India derives from Indus, as does Indies. I don't know who told you the name India is only 65 years old as that is obviously wrong. See for instance [31] where I see a book published in 1813 with the name India in the title. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


I can't begin to figure out how this ended up at User talk:Woodroar, but it appears to have been meant for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
{{yo|Ian.thomson]] Thanks, the above editor is a follower of Devaneya Pavanar. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: trying again. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't know the name, but I had a sense he was operating out of some Tamil-centric worldview. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Request

Dear Doug. I translated a small part of an interview into English fto aid discussion on the talk page of the article 2016 Nice attack. That was because non-French speaking editors were unable to read the content and parts of it had been used as sources in the article. My translation was removed as a copy-vio in this edit.[32] This does not seem correct as a translation is just a parpahrase, but in a different language. I have restored my translation. How can we even discuss French language articles if editors are deleting translations in this way? The removal was made by a non-administrator. Mathsci (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Mathsci, why do you think we even bother to write an encyclopedia, if it was OK to just translate everything from other languages? Regards, Biwom (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
But sometimes we do do just that. For example Chateau of Vauvenargues is essentially a translation of a French booklet by Bruno Ely. No translation is word for word. And obviously some bits I combined, but most of the article is essentially a translation. Copyvio does not apply to translations by wikipedians. And this content was written to help other editors on the talk page. Here is another example: A solis ortus cardine. The translation form early Christian Latin was prepared by me. I had a glossary for the poem of Sedulius and two very recent English translations. But please let Dougweller reply. You have removed my translation twice.[33] Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure. If that had been a copy of an English text it would be too much, IMHO, and thus copyvio. Let's ask User:Diannaa who does a lot more copyvio work now, or see if User:Moonriddengirl is around. I'm a bit worried if we have an article that is a copy of something Bruno Ely wrote. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I have actually asked Moonriddengirl, who gave a partial reply. She said that a translation of a copyright article was still a derivative work so WP:NFC still applies. Perhaps a short paragraph is OK, since its purpose it to help discussions and provide context. I'm waiting for her reply on that. I might also ask Diannaa. I had forgotten that she's a copyright expert.
When I went to school and university, French O-level (and Latin) was a prerequisite. But now we have this bizarre situation of editors with no knowledge of French trying to write an article on France and French issues, where in many cases the only sources are in French. The Calcutta Telegraph has been used as a source; and it turned out to be highly unreliable. For the same reason that going for an Indian meal in France is a recipe for a disaster. A Tunisian, Moroccan or Vietnamese meal will be cheap and delicious. In the UK I have had excellent Jamaican goat. Mathsci (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Translation has some information on this topic. Proper paraphrasing means you re-write the content into your own words: presenting the material in a different order, replacing unique phrasings, summarizing the content, etc. What you did at Talk:2016 Nice attack is translate (not paraphrase) a source article and posted it on the talk page without paraphrasing. That is not okay, as it is a copyright violation, and should not be added to any part of this wiki, not a sandbox, user talk page, article talk page, or article. The excerpt is far too large to qualify as fair use. A short excerpt would be okay, as would a summary of the key points in your own words. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I already did what you you suggested with my last edit describing another source.[34] As I explained to Monriddengirl, in the case of the source here, I really only needed one short paragraph. Some editors might object to hearing about a paraphrase. If that happened, they could always be advised to brush up their French. Mathsci (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Advice on ARBPIA

Doug. Could you do me and my colleague WarKoSign the courtesy of looking at both my page and Israelites. The suggestion is that any article from high antiquity regarding the Israelites, then the Jews, comes automatically under ARBPIA3 because it affects the legitimacy claims of Jews to Israel/Palestine. I'm fucked if I know why citing one of many scholars who note that Samaritans are descended from Israelites is read as delegitimizing Israel or Jewish claims to 'Palestine', but the principle suggested is that ARBPIA can be inferred to apply, and thence the 1R regimen is in place there as well. If you'd prefer to stay off this one, for whatever reason (it's late etc.) could you get another admin to look at it and clarify. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As a totally not interested in editing anything to do with the I/P area ... I wouldn't see the specific issue of Samaritans being descended from Israelites as being a matter for ARBPIA, but I am not a lawyer or even a wikilawyer. (But even I, the lowly medievalist, recall from my long-long-ago student days that Samaritans were Israelites who set up their own temple (broad simplification, but close enough for government work.) (You couldn't pay me enough to edit in that area... gods above it's a minefield.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani, I'm fucked if I know, but I do know that these arguments are indeed made. As far as I am concerned (and this is my opinion as an editor/human bean), it's not the ancientness of the topic (or the lack thereof) or even geography (in this case) that determines whether something is to be regarded as problematic, but the use made by editors (and pundits, fools, professional spinners) of that topic.

The proof is kind of in the pudding (I think I'm sort of speaking as an arb now, though I don't speak for the committee). If there's trouble, it's safe to assume it should be covered--"any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". But in this case it's not clear that it should construed in that way from the get-go, not until any disruption starts and is reported, and in that case we shouldn't go around punishing editors after the fact. Or you can go ask at WP:AE. Whether all this is helpful I don't know. In the end it will be up to the community to decide one way or another whether this ancient topic's ongoing importance mandate it fall under ARBPIA. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, please note that my use of the expression "I'm fucked if I know" was prompted by the words of a notable member of the community of editors, and I am proud to stand here to represent said community. I intend no disrespect--though I gotta say, American English, what a glorious language. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Drmies. No need to justify the vernacular, it's our linguistic safety valve against insanity. I remember asking a Swiss roommate who was helping me on the finer points of construing Goethe, to provide me with a dozen idiomatic words in German to cover moments of exasperation. He looked bewildered, so I prodded him: 'You know! What do you say when 'you're pissed off,' or couldn't 'give a fuck', or 'feel knackered', or want to 'give someone the arse' or tell a dickhead 'to get rooted' etc. I had to explain these expressions, and, studious, he busily noted them down, but blushed as he did so. I finally convinced him one can't get through life without expletives, and after 20 minutes of searching his profoundly bourgeois gentlemanly memory, he came up with: 'Das ist Käse!' (What cheese!) It wasn't much help when a Swiss train conductor, a Curt Jürgens look-alike in uniform and leather boots, bailed me up against a wall and yelled me out in Nazi-style because I had the wrong ticket for Berne. He kicked me and 2 immigrants off the train. Finger-language allowed me to give him an appropriate 'adieu'.
I can see why a disreputable figure like myself is often read as subtly trying to push over an anti-Semitic, Israel-denialist POV when offering to overhaul articles like Khazars, or Israelites. But as several hundred of those Near Eastern history articles stand, based on the Bible, and a scraping of dated views and scholarship, extending ARBPIA to them would just consolidate the utterly pathetic mess they languish in. I don't get (to cross dress metaphorically for a moment) my knickers in a twist at this. It's just a pity that there is almost no point of contact between contemporary historical scholarship and that subject matter. They can't be touched, though rare exceptions occur. I once got down and rewrote Joseph's Tomb, and by some miracle, no one interfered, except when I did the modern section on the I/P conflict. One of my high wiki moments was to see my effort for the historical background award with a barnstar by User:Chesdovi, a deeply religious orthodox person with whom I had elsewhere often had edit conflicts. He could see that the fascinating detail on its complex origins was far too interesting to allow POV worries to undermine it. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Sorry, I've been too slow in replying. I raised the issues with my colleagues and although few replied the feeling was that this should be a community decision. As for Joseph's Tomb, I'd say personally that the article itself isn't covered by obviously the section on the I/P conflict is. Interesting issue, can 1R apply just to a section? I'd like to think so but I don't know of any precedent for this. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No problems with that distinction, Doug. As to extending ARBPIA3 to ancient middle eastern history, it would be a recipe for chaos in articles that are mostly subpar, and of negligible value. I don't know more than a few that would pass an 'encyclopedic content' exam. There is no doubt that POVs exist, among editors and in the best scholarly sources. We have Biblical Minimalism, Biblical maximalism (I just read that for the first time and immediately had to alter:'There is no scholarly controversy on the historicity of the events recounted after the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BCE, but there is great controversy concerning earlier data', an extraordinary claim which asserts there is no controversy over Biblical accounts from 599 onwards. There are scholarly controversies over virtually every datum in all ancient historical sources.); these positions influence, undoubtedly, editors who espouse Christian Zionism, Religious Zionism, and Zionists who take the Biblical as a basis for political claims, on the one hand, and anti-Zionists and critics of Israel or promoters of a Palestinian State. Editors whose POV is stronger than their historical curiosity or passion for rhetorically unadorned empirical knowledge will tend to pick, choose and challenge sources according to whether their reading of them finds an endorsement of their POV or not. Since Karl Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia, we are all supposed to furnish ourselves with some critical awareness that there is a sociology of knowledge that, duly absorbed, makes us cautious about temptations to confirmation bias in the use of primary and secondary sources. Unfortunately, while awareness that this is part and parcel of their job exists among historians, it is not part of our general cultural awareness. I know that I have a bias towards the minimalist school (it extends to the orient: I read extensively in Japanese textual fundamentalism once, which took the primary chronicles to be sources of fact instead of being, like the Bible, court/sacerdotal documents legitimating an ideology in order to promote a specific sectarian or clan vision, one revived in the modern period). I also know that minimalists tend to underestimate the tenacity of folk memory, which the older school of anthropology registered everywhere from Arab and Yoruba tribal genealogies to the Guugu Yimithirr. Bias is avoided simply by casting the net over all academic approaches, and describing the various positions.
Specifically, the old Judeo-Christocentric scholarly POV underwrote the Tanakh narrative of a foreign population supplanting the indigenous Israelites of the north, and then assuming the Torah, but nothing else (except the Book of Joshua). Now that Samaritan studies are highly advanced, it is increasingly thought that Samaritans were basically the descendants of the northern kingdom of Israel. This disrupts the traditional POV which sees Judea and Samaria as the heartland of Judaism, for it translates as meaning Samaria was an Israelite successor state in which there developed an outlook which differed from the Judaism that later defined the Jews in terms consonant with the sacerdotal vision of Babylonian returnee caste that essentially controlled the recension of the Tanakh. To a religious orthodox Zionist or secular Zionist raised on the old narrative, any attempt to register this newer scholarship is read as an anti-Zionist attempt to undermine Israel's legitimacy in so far as it is partially anchored in the Judea+Samaria =Jewish people's homeland equation. One could try to palliate this anxiety by adding that the demographic carrying weight of Palestine was around 1 million, and of this there is no evidence that the Samarians constituted a majority (over Jews and pagans), so one needn't think that stating the Israelite descent theory of non-Jewish Samaritans imperils modern Zionist claims to Samaria. The suggestion that ARBPIA applies, arose I think from this retrosctive reading into the academic sources of the POV angles in the I/P conflict, and meant I can't edit the page without the consent of the two editors there who underwrite that traditional narrative. Well, okay. But practically this means that a dozen specialist sources on the Samaritans can't be cited for whatever they say which might endanger the Zionist narrative. It's all very trivial, anxiety-obsessed and, ultimately, boring because Israeli scholarship is way ahead of the Zionist narrative, and doesn't feel that Jewish identity is threatened by whatever historical research throws up. There's no solution, really. ARBPIA in any case should not apply. One looks at the numbers line up, and desists when it suggests edits will be reverted on sight, and that's an end to it. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Heinrich Schliemann

When you did this revert you posted nothing at all on the talk page of the editor. When you revert an inexperienced editor, please post something, either a template or a heartfelt request to do better, on the editor's talk page. Surely you know better than this. The editor restored their material and I reverted it again and posted a warning. Edison (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please disregard the above. It looks like the user created a sockpuppet with a slightly different username and then restored the flawed text. You did indeed post an appropriate warning when you reverted. Edison (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Pair-non-Pair

Hi mate! it is up: Pair-non-Pair ATBWikirictor (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Impact factors

Hi Doug, I think you probably know more about this than me because I've never really understood impact factors except in so far as they're supposedly more useful for science journals/articles than for humanities. I do worry when I see journals with seemingly massive broad scope and the International Journal of Academic Research (!) has just popped in up that category. So, I went to their website and they're proudly boasting an IF of 3.656. Is that of any significance at all? - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush:I'm ignoring your question as frankly it's irrelevant. What you need to look at is who gave it that impact factor, ie the "International Institute of Organized Research" (I2OR) which is on Beall's list "of questionable companies that purport to provide valid scholarly metrics at the researcher, article, or journal level."[35] The journal also get an award from the same organisation, which seems to charge a fee and has a gmail address. Useless. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug. I wasn't even aware that there were multiple awarders of impact factors. - Sitush (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alyson Hannigan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alyson Hannigan. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Schliemann

Good idea. That editor's really pushing the good-faith envelope; kinda disruptive. I was going to ask you but seeing how busy you are... Anyhow, I also wanted to ask you something; it's marginally related. The editor in question has a link to a youtube page on his user-page; a link to a video on editing Wikipedia. He also has three such links at wikimedia, on editing and uploading to and from wikimedia. All useful, I guess but... AFAIK, youtubers earn a little when anyone clicks on one of their pages? Is this considered problematic? Probably not, all other things being equal, but just thought I'd ask. Haploidavey (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

TPS butting in By default YouTubers do not earn money on their videos, but can opt in to a programme which gives them revenue from adverts. Details on how much people earn are thin on the ground but the consensus is "not much", perhaps around $1 or $2 per thousand views. Nev1 (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Stone me, a regular gold mine! Thanks for that. Haploidavey (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2016
Doug, the guy's just trolling now. Haploidavey (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Haploidavey I know, I'm just indulging myself. I'm sure they'll read my reply. I wonder what his 'team' is. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, good for you. I know what fun that can be. I'm not sure the team has a physical substance, as such. I imagine an infinite series of self-reflecting mirrors, you know? Or perhaps a little herd of tiny, tiny men. With tiny wings.Haploidavey (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Awirs

Oops, thanks for catching that. I was trying to check they were all properly linked before putting the navbox on. Must have not been paying enough attention! Joe Roe (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Not a problem, I'm still struggling with it. You probably saw I just created one article and renamed another. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #220

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 21:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser?

Hi, Doug. At EP there is an anonymous editor who I suspect (on various grounds, including geolocation, single-topic focus, pov, and rhetorical style) is closely associated with the topic he edits, and therefore has an undeclared conflict of interest. Would checkuser be an appropriate of checking on that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: No, for two reasons. CU is basically used to detect sock-puppetry, and that's not being suggested here and we couldn't do that in any case without some good evidence, eg diffs. And if no other editor is using that address, CU won't show anything useful. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, and thanks. Any suggestions on what might be done if there are indications of an undeclared coi? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

3 barn caves for 3 creative wikiminds

File:Sarisarinama.jpg
 Three barn caves for the three initiatiors and creative minds behind Template:Navbox prehistoric caves‎; User:Joe Roe, User:Doug Weller, and User:Wikirictor!
Not archaeological though, but wow...
Tisquesusa (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orange County

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Orange County. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

My Mistake

I've been under the impression that if tools were not used for a certain period of time, they could be removed. I thought I'd read it somewhere too, but I'm clearly wrong. I'll strike accordingly, sorry about that. -Roxy the dog™ bark 20:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting the article

Hi D. weller, i noticed that you previously redirected Gadri (clan) to Gadaria, but according to references i given (of books on google books) states that Gadri is a jat clan. Gadaria is somewhat different caste, Gaderia is a cast found in India, while Gadri is a clan of jats. There is much difference between both peoples. I want to decide after your answer. Thanks.– i'm FxdhMxdh (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

FxdhMxdh, I did multiple searches at Google Books using both terms.[36] Google News also confirms, eg [37] "Other than the Gujjars, the SBC include Banjara/Baldiaya/Labana, Garia-Lohar/Gadoliya, Rebari/Devasi/Raika and Gadaria/Gadri/ Gayari." (which reminds me the 'Gayari' spelling should be added), "Put together, the two sections – economically backward classes and the special backward classes – Banjara/Baldiya/Labana, Gadiya Lohar/Gadoliya, Gujjar/Gurjar, Raika/Rebari/Debasi and Gadariya/Gadri/Gayari – will take the total reservation upto 68 per cent"[38], "the Rajasthan cabinet cleared 5% quota in government jobs for Gujjars under the Special Backward Classes (SBC) category after adding Gadaria/Gadri as the fifth community to this group late Wednesday night."[39]. I also see sources which show the Jat and Gadri as separate.[40] See also this. Some of the late 19thc and early 20th c sources aren't as good as we'd like. Are those where you are seeing the Gadri identified as Jat? Doug Weller talk 14:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, i agree. But why in the wiki of jats, they declared Gadri as a jat clan.– i'm FxdhMxdh (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@FxdhMxdh: No idea, trying to take it over? We don't normally use other wikis, or Wikipedia, as sources. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Ok, i Agree with you.– i'm FxdhMxdh (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Doug, don't know how this happened. Paul August ☎ 17:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Paul August: no problem, I do it occasionally, especially when using my iPad and trying to look at a diff. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Blurry Photos Podcast

Hi Doug,

Thank you for your feedback. Is the article I submitted being considered for publication on Wiki or just rejected?

High Heeled Jacq (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #221

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 09:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

check my texts

Hi! Here Wikirictor - ?our recent co-operation motivated me quite a lot - just created: Boomplaas Cave, I would be grateful if You could check and correct my texts as i am a non native speaker - Thanks and All the best...Wikirictor (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma

Just to let you know, User:Zbrabs is the PR representative for Kappa Sigma (indicated in a note he left on my page) and a rather new editor. I've been talking to him on his talk page and I've restored the controversies a couple of times, he seems to be OK with trying to find references to indicate what he personally knows. I'd appreciate another set of experienced eyes on his edits. There is a lot of useful stuff he has added to some of the related pages like the list of Kappa Sigma chapters, but it will be a *long* time before removing the COI note on the Kappa Sigma page will be appropriate.Naraht (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Naraht Thanks, that's why I added the COI tag. He still needs to understand that there's stuff that needs independent reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to chime in. :)Naraht (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Weirdness on Elf article Talk, re Flarn2006

Back on 2015-10-04, user Flarn2006 added a section in all-caps with seemingly incomprehensible statements. You reverted it the next day [41] and questioned the user about it on their user Talk page, who then replied that it was just a joke and that it could be removed. Then, 2016-06-26/27 (8 months later) Flarn2006 reädded the reverted section [42] (including the previous time stamp) with a random "hi" inserted and signed in another section, whilst replacing a Talk section which had been added by another user after the previous incident (as well as a comment by you, yourself, to another user in another Talk section, and some edits to templates). Not sure what Flarn2006 motives are in all of this. — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Imeriki al-Shimoni: Thanks very much for this. It's not on my watchlist anymore so I'd missed it. I've reverted and posted to the editor's talk page asking him why he should be allowed to continue to edit. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


Treaty of Kurakchay

Hi Doug, I recently stumbled across this article (^), and, not to my surprise, it seems as if there's an insane amount of WP:OR going on there. So far, I got my hands on the source of Firouzeh Mostashari — she doesn't back the material up in remotely the way the creator of the article wished it to be. Given that its about Azerbaijan, a nation that was created in 1918 by the Soviets, and not a single book/article/etc is published without government consent (and, is equally important, known for openly denying and/or deforming crucial historical events, e.g. the Armenian Genocide, Iranian history, etc.) this should be digged out properly. Now I wonder; apparantly, the other main reference the user in question, written by a certain "Professor Johannes Rau" (Johaness Rau. The Nagorno-karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. A brief historical outline. Berlin: Verlag-Koester, 2008. ISBN 978-3-89574-655-0) is one of them that I can't get my hands on. I searched the professor up and it seems he's openly implying pseudo-history (its to the point of it being hilarious, actually), and, obviously, he's lauded for that by Azerbaijan. Now my question is; could you see what his education is in particular, or could you confirm just in general that we can't use him as a reference for a historical matter? If thats namely indeed the case, then we might actually have to redirect the article or even AFD it, as its basically telling about a historical treaty, that basically never happened in such a way as described. Thanks much. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Took a while but when I realised Peter Lang had published him I found his bio."Johannes Rau, born in the former Autonomous Republic of the Volga Germans, studied at the Moscow State University in Moscow, where he received his doctorate. After his habilitation at the Russian Academy of Sciences, he became head of the Department of Sociology and Philosophy in Astana and received simultaneously the Professor degree in Moscow awarded. The author published his scientific works (philosophy, sociology, culturology, Islam and Islamism, Conflict Studies) in Russian, German, English, Arabic and Italian in Moscow, Berlin, Vienna, Astana, Cairo, London, Rome and other cities. He is currently Emeritus in Germany and an active member of the Scientific Forum of International Security at the Staff College (Hamburg)."[43] The "scientific forum" is linked [http://www.fueakbw.de/en/network/nationale-partner/wifis/ here. Signing late. Doug Weller talk 09:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks much Doug. There's one more "title" that I'd like to know more about and which is currently literally being spammed on multiple low-profile articles --> Encyclopedic dictionary of Azerbaijan toponyms. In two volumes. Volume I. Baku: "East-West". 2007. ISBN 978-9952-34-155-3. User "Freedom Wolfs" is adding this book on virtually every village/minor city/town etc article of Azerbaijan, and to me and several other users, this all seems highly suspicious, mainly with our concerns being that there is definetely something behind it (GF was assumed on multiple occassions, but this is way too obvious). Not only is, "according" to the "book", everyone occupied in all these places, with "husbandry", "gardening", and "animal keeping" (not even joking!), also whole etymology sections of millenia old place names are suddenly Turkified by said user while citing this so-called book.
I did some research myself and in fact, I can't find literally anything about it. In fact, it seemed to be as if the whole book doesn't even exist. And even if it does (if you can find it?) I highly doubt that its actually WP:RS. Are you able to tell more about this? If our concerns are indeed right, then quite a large rv-spree needs to be initiated I'm afraid. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #222

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 08:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Pull quote

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Pull quote. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

?

why this? Jytdog (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: iPad fumble, undone. Doug Weller talk 07:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
:) Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nuragic civilization

Hi i have reinserted the section about the language, the source cited about the possible alphabet came from a 100% scientific publication , Tharros Felix 5:

  • Il nuovo volume di "Tharros Felix 5", la collana della Scuola di specializzazione in Beni archeologici di Sassari-Oristano, raccoglie ricerche originali suddivise negli ambiti geografici dell'Africa antiqua, Sardinia antiqua, Mare Sardum e mare Balearicum fra Bisanzio e Islam. [44]
  • È stato pubblicato Tharros Felix 5 (Carocci editore, dicembre 2013), quinto numero della collana di studi istituita dall'Università di Sassari - Dipartimento di Storia, Scienze dell'Uomo e della Formazione e dal Consorzio UNO nell'ambito della Scuola di Specializzazione in Beni Archeologici con sede ad Oristano. Il volume è a cura di Attilio Mastino (Rettore dell'Università di Sassari e Professore ordinario di Storia Romana), Pier Giorgio Spanu (Professore di Archeologia Cristiana e Medievale) e Raimondo Zucca (Professore ordinario di Storia e Archeologia del Mediterraneo Antico).[45] --Xoil (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


clumsy English

Hi Joe, Hi Doug! Please go through my text of Tam Pa Ling Cave and correct. ATB Wikirictor (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It wasn’t all that bad, @Wikirictor… I gave it a quick once-over.—Odysseus1479 02:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks mate for your help, but User:Joe Roe did a lot of editing already. ATBWikirictor (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Wikirictor: Looks good. I did a light punctuation edit although others may differ. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_41&oldid=1142974043"