User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 60

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article .

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Egyptian hypothesis until a consensus is reached. You have been involved in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy since the beginning - please could you lend a hand if you have the time? Wdford (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You're already aware of this editor, siince you nominated their Draft:List of Jewish Communists for deletion. Take a look at the evidence of other problematic edits on my talk page here. Liz also deleted several of their edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the IP who posted on my page has posted here as well. I added some info to it on my TP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the nature of the protection on the Bill Ayers article? What brought it on? I'm not outraged; I'm trying to understand what is going on as this is an article that I have made minor edit(s) on. I did not find any discussion protection on the 'Talk' page. TIA. Seki1949 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:RPP or added at the discretion of Administrators. Doug Weller talk

09:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

FinishedCycle

After seeing the user's contributions, (like this, this, and this), I am very tempted to just indef them as NOTHERE/NONAZIS. What do you think? Sro23 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Sro23: love their edit summary at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of Jewish Communists (N Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of Jewish Communists ? ?Created page with 'Concerns cited by Doug have been fixed; everything is correct. I believe this deletion request is politically motivated, especially concerning Jewish Bolshevism...' " now moved to "Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of Jewish Communists - oh, you've seen it. Anyway, yes. They might appeal and win but even so they'll have to be very careful in the future. Doug Weller talk 07:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the blocking. I'm sure we can expect incoming complaints of "censorship"...Sro23 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:List_of_Jewish_Communists

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935_Free_City_of_Danzig_parliamentary_election&diff=1001735366&oldid=997587367

And what somebody else said about this user,

(Confusing Israel's cause with American Jewry in general is a common mistake among antisemites) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_Jewish_Americans&diff=989293926&oldid=989242367

They also did this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgy_Arbatov&diff=1001684192&oldid=1001017733.78.97.16.58

78.97.16.58 (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, just because someone may have Jewish heritage that does not make them a Jew. I considered my grandmother a Jew. She read us the Torah every day and maintained most, if not all, of the rituals and ceremonies found there. Her mother was a Jew who escaped Germany at the beginning of World War 2. My great-grandfather did not make it out of Germany and reportedly died in a work camp outside Munich. I am not a Jew. I have Jewish heritage. I identify more as Cherokee and that is where I am a registered citizen. Still, I do not call myself Cherokee, only that I have Cherokee ancestry and identify more with that ancestry. None of my beliefs should be misconstrued as necessarily beliefs of either my Cherokee or Jewish ancestors. That is what makes lists like these problematic. It's not like a list of Jewish baseball or football players. There is a difference between historical Jewish beliefs and simply being a Jew because your ancestors came from Israel or that region. The same can be said for the Cherokee. There is a difference in historical Cherokee beliefs and being a Cherokee because your ancestors were Cherokee. --

Wolf

16:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Fascism article is completely biased to the point that Fascism is only a Right-wing thing. By reading definitions of Fascism on other sites, it is clearly not JUST right wing. It is a type of governmental system that can be applied to any political position. To not call Communism Fascism is obviously not accurate. Natzi Germany was Socalist, not right-wing.

Left leaning editors are in danger of turning Wikipedia into a nitch sight if they are allowed to twist the truth. If that is what Wikipedia wants to become, so be it. It will not be used by half the population, and half the schools in the country. I have found this bias clearly written in many articles. And when I edit them to be more center and accurate, my edits are removed.

I don't know who the "powers that be" are at W, but they need to make a decision if they want to give people complete and unfiltered information, or if they want to be a left-wing instrument of the Fascist Woke Cancel Culture.

As a former and long time donor, I won't donate any more until I begin to see some balance back in their articles. There are MANY online encyclopedias, and it's not hard to find and recommend another one that is fairer.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fascism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism

In Poland the anti-Semitic Falanga, led by Boleslaw Piasecki, was influential but was unable to overthrow the conservative regime of Józef Piłsudski. Vihtori Kosola’s Lapua Movement in Finland nearly staged a coup in 1932 but was checked by conservatives backed by the army.

The Arrow Cross Party (Nyilaskeresztes Párt) in Hungary, led by Ferenc Szálasi, was suppressed by the conservative regime of Miklós Horthy until 1944, when Szálasi was made a puppet ruler under the German occupation.

Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstanzey (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) Maybe helpful would be to read on National Socialism that other than by name has little to do with other forms of socialism (i.e. Marxist), —PaleoNeonate – 19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jstanzey: the Nazis were capitalists. See for example Krupp#World War II and this: The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists The Democratic Republic of Korea is a dictatorship. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jstanzey: - if you want to change an article, use its talk page. I don't need more nonsense on my talk page, or insults. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your revert here. Whether Sina founded FFI is not in dispute. But how does the fact Person A founded Organization X (FFI) prove that he also founded Organization Y (WikiIslam)? Snuish2 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I know that you know how to handle cases where a person edits and states that he is the subject of the article, so I ask you to glance at this talk page thread and see whether an administrator is needed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, I cancel this request. Now that I see the accusations are getting a bit tetchy, I will take this to WP:ANI instead. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Doug, I hope I'm doing this right.

The last few days have been quite - how to put it - something, and I think I need some consultation from third party users and/or someone "higher up". I'll try to keep it as short and accurate as possible, but it is my view of course. I'd like your general advisement, and whether I should file reports and/or appeal, and/or request for comments/third opinion to a larger audience.

I'm experiencing quite unusual/suspect behavior from select users, and I would even call it harassment. I feel like I'm willfully being singled out, threatened with bans and other disciplinary sanctions, and feel intimidated. I also feel that these users expect me to do everything within a few hours, if not more or less immediately. I have free-time, but not that much. Right now being on Wikipedia is basically like a 60-hour-a-week job for me, in the sense of how much I need to deal with at this pace (today I've dealt with this almost non-stop the last 9 hours). I feel that every time I make a good point, a good argument and or demonstrate (their) fallacies, then I'm only being retaliated against with how I (allegedly) violate policies or violate my subject-ban. In my honest view, I get little-to-no fair and reasonable counter-arguments. I feel that if I step out of line by a nanometer I get a knife to my throat.

I also want to say that I am intending to contribute on non-controversial/less-heated subjects (and have done so, actually), but in line with what I said above, this right now is like a 60-hour job, and I don't want to miss out/be blocked out from the section I started. I fear some of the users in question want it gone ASAP because they don't like it, and especially my participation too.

The last few days, pretty much at the time when you posted that notice on my talk page or so, I wrote on M. Greene's talk page, and contested (and wanted to discuss), just like multiple other people on the talk page, whether it's fair to label M. Greene as a "conspiracy theorist". That was not met with warm welcomes, and I find that the select (opposing) users in question were (and are) overly aggressive, unfair, actively seek the slightest mistake I (could) make and are (somewhat) stonewalling me. It has been my concern for a long time that Wikipedia uses the label "conspiracy theory" (like most other people and institutions) as if everything was perfectly fine with the term/label, when there's everything wrong with it. There's nothing new in that. This is a genuine concern of mine, and I have the best of intentions.

The section on the M. Greene talk page where I posted my most - if I absolutely have to say so myself - hardhitting and difficult-to-get-around-points, suddenly got closed with little-to-no response or argumentation in that section. Instead an ANI was filed (link is from archive), and I was singled out and the users in question speculated that there was Qanon mob wave incoming (a conspiracy theory, you might say, ironically). That ANI got closed real fast too, pretty much as soon as I posted my side of the dispute and provided a few arguments/comments. Allegedly, suddenly the "disruption", i.e. my arguments in the section on the talk page for M. Greene, was "gone" (time diff. between opening that ANI and closing the section on M. Greene is 5 hours and 10 minutes) and that was apparently enough for the ANI post itself to become closed. Obviously the "disruptions" stop when the section is closed. I post on the M. Greene talk page, which gets closed, then I respond on the ANI section as per insinuating request, which also get closed. It's difficult to stay in place when the very sections I'm in gets closed. After that, which is today, I woke up to a ban on editing about post-1993 US politics. I'm considering appealing this ban, since I don't think there's sufficient reason. However, I will abide by the sanction while it's there, to my best of abilities. Today I've also been confronted with several comments/confrontations on my own talk page, e.g. statements that say my "advocacy on WP is not successful" and accusations of forumshopping and comments like "It does not matter if your concern is genuine", and have to explain myself and give my personal opinions on M. Greene (as if that mattered). My account is being labelled as a single-purpose account (ANI post) even when there's, in my opinion, evidence to the contrary.

I feel I'm being outright assaulted for the slightest minor error I make, them actively surveiling me to the extreme, while other users can lavishly engage in ad hominem arguments and violations of policies without warning or reprimands like I'm subjected to. Now, I'm not saying I'm an angel, or that I didn't/don't make mistakes and learn the hard way. But I feel these - how to put it - assualts or special up-close-breathing-down-my-neck-kind-of-attention is not because the users in question are concerned about me wrecking everything, but because I make strong arguments and valid points they don't like and can't reason against. Of course, that's my view, and I hope you will take a look at it all.

I was being bold. I could have used Wikipedia's nuke, but I didn't. I could easily have engaged myself in even more controversial/heated subjects - easily - but I didn't, many of my recent contributions are quite fair and withholding. I have had my account for more than 11 years, and I've made other non-political and non-controversial contributions. If I need to prove my best of intentions, e.g. by avoiding contributing in controversial or heated subjects, or post-1993 US politics, or contribute in trivial areas, or whatever, then I'm very open to settling on something. I can refrain from posting about very heated/contested stuff as we could settle on (even if we disregarded my subject ban). But I seriously think there's more to it than this, for these few select users.

Involved users (who I feel are/were antagonizing/harrassing me/treating me unduly): Slatersteven, PaleoNeonate, Guy Macon, Newimpartial^a
Involved users (who I don't feel are/were antagonizing/harrassing me/treating me unduly: Jdphenix, El_C

(a) NewImpartial has only been - how to put it - unfair and sour against me in the discussion on "conspiracy theory" as a value-laden contentious label. Also please note that it was El_C who subject-banned me, but he/she has not (to my recollection) treated me like the users Slatersteven et al., and I have thus not listed El_C with them.

The relevant pages:
My talk page - M. Greene section - ANI section - discussion on "conspiracy theory"

Some points of relevant interest:
Not all users are breathing down my neck and assult me with sanctions, to the contrary: "I'm more or less in the same boat as Lukan27"..."My behavior is at least as annoying as Lukan's and at the risk of WP:BOOMERANG, I'm not topic banned or blocked. No one's even warned me.", "They are clearly value laden as they are terms"..., "I question the utility of such labels, in that they have the potential to be cynically misapplied for nefarious purposes."...

Slatersteven says this is mentioning "an AP2 topic", but I was merely replying and objecting to his statement that I only started that section as a consequence of what happened on the M. Greene talk page, not to talk about post-1993 US politics.

This is apparantly okay to write but me replying to it (can't find the specific edit: "Do you care to explain why you add this small comment without signing?"...) (which also got the very same comment from IHateAccounts!) is apparantly not okay and I get this on my talk page, but IHateAccounts doesn't get a single comment or reprimand at all.. Please note that this user has also been blocked for sockpupetting, and also please review IHateAccounts's general history which is nothing else but talking about highly political and controversial/heated subjects. For comparison I can't make the slightest mistake, but an account like this can't engage lavishly in dubious behavior.

I have probably forgotten something, but I gotta get a break from Wikipedia now. Please ask if you have questions for me. Thank you for your time. Lukan27 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no wish to derail your talk page but note that this was not a reply to me, and was posted after I had suggested they tread carefully over the TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note as well they are TBAN'ed from AP2, the above thus constitutes a violation of that ban.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I initially declined answering when invited on my talk page but decided to since I'm mentioned above. I posted twice at Lukan's page, once to help by answering a question they posted at an article talk page (

WP:FREESPEECH). —PaleoNeonate

– 23:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: thanks. I couldn't have said it better and am tempted to quote it in the future. I see another Admin has given a 31 hour block. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to quote/adapt, —PaleoNeonate – 16:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Response from jdphenix

I'll just summarize my thoughts.

• I generally agree with the assertion that Lukan27 is in violation of
  WP:TBAN for the diff
  that Slatersteven posted above. I find myself annoyed with that conclusion, but the policy is clear.

  I personally feel that the diff in question was practically (unintended) bait, as it was a response to an argument that seemed to dismiss the discussion on the basis of how it came about. Lukan27's edit is only a violation because they confirmed part of Guy Macon's argument; that they had posted at MOS after the Greene talk page.

• I don't agree that posting here is a violation, but merely a procedural error. See
  Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications
  . Options for Lukan27 for a next course of action are clearly laid out.
• I agree with the assertion that my own personal behavior in this topic area is comparable to Lukan27's. As such, I've decided to treat myself as topic banned from AmPol and COVID-19 until I can not act like an idiot, as of this edit. Anyone looking over my edit history the past month can see that I've been hotheaded and spent too much damn time here.
• Based on this post and others pointed out, I do not believe the TBAN should be removed at this time.
• To Lukan27 specifically, COVID-19 is just as contentious. Trust me on that one. Just take a break. There's no reason to spend so much time on a volunteer effort. You and I both need to heed the advice here. Where you're standing, you're going to end up getting blocked from editing altogether.

This entire process almost seems like an overly bureaucratic joke. Jdphenix (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

He was warned (by me) in advance about his actions, I told them they were going to step over the mark by accident if they did not disengage. See

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, if he had taken my advice he would now not have a ban. He choose to continue to push the limits of his IBAN. Moreover, even if we take the above wall of text as an appeal it would have failed as appeals are only about the user's actions, not anyone elses.Slatersteven (talk

) 10:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I do hope I am not out of line here, if I am then Doug can tell me to go shovel some snow, but as a relatively newer editor here, six months or so, but one who has been involved in contentious discussions, some I have had to apologize for the uncivil tone and others I stand by my position, I have to say it is easy to tell someone to back down. If we are to be impartial, which we are, then that should be a message not directed at one person but all involved. Too many times I see the person who "hits back" gets punished when all they were doing is defending themselves from attack. I understand they chose to enter the fray but why should one be disavowed from being able to speak on a topic when others are allowed to come back at them with little to no contestation and no regard for the civility in their own tone. There is rarely a call to disengage when it is a topic we are either indifferent to or even have a particular side, usually giving the benefit of a doubt to side we agree with. I am not saying this is the case here. I admittedly know little about the issue, and even less about you as individuals, other than I did look over most all of the comments and followed the links above. I think you are all wonderful people, I just think sometimes we get caught up in our respective positions and I agree that we should walk away. I also think it's inherently dangerous to point out our perception of the position of others, especially those feeling as though they are being specifically targeted, and further singling them out while letting others make their own self-evaluation about their actions when both are very much not only similar but tied directly together, if that makes sense. What is the criteria by which we allow certain editors more freedom of expression while others are held to this seemingly intermittent line called civility? It's a genuine question and not one directed at any particular person or decision made. It's an observation I keep seeing repeated over and over and it does concern me. --

Wolf

18:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No one else had a TBAN in place, so no one else needed to be warned they might be about to break it. So in this case the "criteria by which we allow certain editors more freedom of expression" was "don't breach your TBAN, for any reason, you may be about to". It was not a case of they were baited, they had been warned in advance of thier post.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This may have been relevant if you could show that they're the target of personal attacks or that editors who don't agree with their proposed edits do so out of

WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than to reflect what reliable sources say... —PaleoNeonate

– 18:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Slater, I'm not debating the merits of your warning. I think it was totally justified to warn them of their potential breach of the TBAN. But it sounds to me like, and in review of all the information, there were others involved who took a less than civil approach and may or may not be engaged in further actions against the above editor, even if perceived. What of them? Where are they warned to "walk" away, per se? What I offer is food for thought. We all have to evaluate our comments and words individually. I am not judging particular actions and the only reason it is indented to your comment is because it is the next in sequence, not a direct response to you.

Paleo, absolutely, the onus is on them to provide examples of the attacks on them but that's not always black and white. Many attacks can be implied through passive aggressive tactics. To say my comments are not relevant is a form of aggression in and of itself. I would never say something you see as a concern is irrelevant. This isn't an argument. It's a general observation. And of course it's relevant or I wouldn't be saying it. They may not be appropriate to apply in this particular case and I made room for that. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen or that what I say isn't true. --

Wolf

19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I had informed them that if they had an issue with users behavior to take it to ANI, and not make a case on an articles talk page (which is a breach of talk page guidelines). As to why others were not told to walk away, because (as I said) they had not been warned or sanctioned. As to why they had not been warned or sanctioned, can you give an example of what they should have been warned about? Because without some policy breach there is nothing to warn anyone about.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

One even said they were engaged in the same behavior and gave themselves a TBAN, which is commendable. I read the whole conversation and it's quite remarkable for them to, first recognize and second commit to it. Much respect to them. We could sit here all day and night and go back and forth over examples of incivility here that was appropriately dealt with and other cases where the individual was given the benefit of a doubt for (enter your reason why here). What I was saying was more a generic statement for us to step out of our positions and into the position of others and try to understand why they would feel or see things the way they do. Maybe we can take steps to alleviate the concern, maybe not. I wasn't providing solutions, criticizing any particular decision or condemning any person involved. --

Wolf

19:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You assume we do not, but there comes a point when you have to accept that a person's attitudes or behavior are such that they are a net drain. This is why I said to them to step away from editing highly contentious pages, become a valued editor, and get some experience. We are more lenient towards people who have made 100 useful edits and one policy violation than we are towards users who have made 20 edits, 15 of them policy violations. Also, you make assumptions about "our positions", you do not know what any user's positions are. I will sign off now, I am sure Doug has better things to do than read my missives.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has contributed to its talk page, you may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I think you should adjust your block on Special:Contribs/2409:4052::/32. The duration seems excessive given its block log. More importantly, as a hard block, it probably has high collateral. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@JJMC89: ouch, I've never blocked anyone for 3 years, it was meant to be 3 months. Doug Weller talk 07:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for shorening the block. Does it need to be a hard block? — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@JJMC89: my feeling was that there was a very good likelihood that any accounts would edit in the same way and that much of the vandalism from accounts would be missed. And of course accounts can ask for an IP exemption, but if you think it shouldn't be I'll change it. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the size, location, and ISP, I think the block should be softened. Even a range like Special:Contribs/2607:fb90::/32, which does have extensive abuse, is not hard blocked. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@JJMC89: done. Thanks for your comments. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear

) 16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hallo, This article has just been "created" as a pure unacknowledged copy of other editors' work from Tuva. I notice that you deleted two earlier versions - you might like to check whether the current editor could be another incarnation of your sockpuppets there. Glimpsing quickly at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nittin_Das/Archive I see a description "Same interests as Nittin Das; military weapons, paramilitary organizations, religion in Asia/Asian religions,", which matches this one's edits. PamD 09:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@PamD: you're right, I just need to figure out how to label it, although I'm certain I've no recent CU results to check against. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that you added the BLP sources banner to The_Chosen_(TV_series) (diff) back around new years. Since this is an article about a TV serious and indeed not a Biography of a Living Person (BLP), that banner seemed inappropriate. I wanted to let you know that I removed this in case there is some misunderstanding. SkotyWA^T_C 01:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, maybe this revision should be deleted.-- 3knolls (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

• The
  standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion
  to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

Hi Doug. I'd appreciate your thoughts on

) 08:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Post-1932 US politics and closely related people

Good morning

This is in response to Important Notice that you placed on my Talk page, 20:03, 31 December 2020. I am now contributing to a lengthy discussion at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. That page has a notice mentioning that the article has been listed as a level-5 vital ('article Vital articles are lists of subjects for which the English Wikipedia should have corresponding featured-class articles') and has been rated as B-Class ('The article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards'), then lists numerous WikiProjects for which the article 'is of interest'.

My questions are

• do you participate in any of those WikiProjects?
• is there co-ordination among them, particularly in connection with,,,,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump

Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/American politics

WikiProject United States / District of Columbia / Government / History / Presidential elections

WikiProject U.S. Congress

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States

articles such as

Stealing America: Vote by Vote

2020 United States presidential election

Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

2020–21 United States election protests

1960 United States presidential election

1952 United States presidential election

List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote

Electoral fraud

Dominion Voting Systems

If you prefer, please answer on my Talk page. Qexigator (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Qexigator: I don't participate in those Wikiprojects so far as I can recall. So I can't answer the rest of your question, sorry. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. So, two more questions

Why did you put the notice on my page?

More important, where should I go for answers to the questions above? Qexigator (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Would Elagabalus, an article over which there are periodic edit-wars over gender pronouns, fall under the discretionary sanctions from the GamerGate arbitration case. I've wanted to ask this several times, but I'm neither capable of telling whether that DS is applicable nor what the effects would be if it did fall under that DS scope. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: yes, just as much as though Elagablus was a living person. The usual sanctions would apply. I'll put it under sanctions. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have seen similar notices on other people’s talk pages as well, but I don’t quite get what and when it is used for. I don’t really have an interest in those topics, but I was just instead responding to edit requests. Can you please clarify that for me? Thanks. 54nd60x (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Best regards Doug. A while ago a template was placed to an article I created [5], and the user who placed it is no longer active. We recently made many changes to it, so another opinion is needed. If you can take a look at it, I would greatly appreciate it. Have a nice day.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If they refuse to keep said location a secret, it is no longer a safe house it is a house. TheKing'sMongrelSon (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not remove edits that are factual and vandalize a page. Fedfan00001 20:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedfan0001 (talk • contribs)

Weird as I reinstated the original text. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

) 10:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

{{Doug, I cannot reach you any other way!}} User: Suzanne Olsson ([[ User talk: I hope you have got through this past year & pandemic OK. I worried about you. I am still working with local churches and agencies on emergency relief for my neighborhood. My web site crashed and now I am trying to squeeze in time to rebuild. Here's as far as I got: www.rozabal.com Thought you might enjoy it. If you need anything, let me know. Miss you. Stay safe and have a Happy Day! Sue]])

Hello, what is the correct procedure to finally get the Stations of the Exodus article deleted? ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:MERGE. Doug Weller talk

07:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

How is it notable on its own? Is is fiction. Also, it is just an arbitrary extraction from the text with almost no information on the individual locations beyond the name in the text. I had placed an

WP:AfD but it got reverted without discussion. Does a marker have to placed anywhere apart from the article? ♆ CUSH ♆

08:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You placed a

WP:AFDHOWTO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 09:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing

Mr. Weller, I do not understand. I thought the goal was to improve Wikipedia and I spent considerable time and energy to improve article content, only to have it completely erased such that I cannot even view the content I wrote? How is that "helping to create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." That article was tagged with requiring more information in the lead section and with requiring additional references, so I took it upon myself to do those things and make it better. I simply do not understand.Belain1737 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

We can't keep copyright violations in an article or the history. This is a legal issue from the point of view of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. Did you tread the links? Doug Weller talk 20:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I attempted to read them but they are highly technical and full of legalese. The majority of references used on that society page are from sources written far more recently than the books I cited. Since I cannot see what I wrote that may have been a copyright issue, could you please explain in layman's terms what specifically was a violation? This makes no sense to me.Belain1737 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not involved and just came here because I had recently added the Society to my watchlist, saw the strikeouts, and got curious. There's a learning curve for Wikipedia. Though I probably read the deleted material a few days ago, I don't remember what may have been deleted. But it sounds to me as if some (or much) of the labor put in by Mr. Belain might be salvageable, so I hope that the record of his work can somehow or other be made available to him. And that he can be given guidance to properly navigate potentially complex legal issues (since the dates at which books go out of copyright may vary - and it may be legit to use material from some older books, but this too must be done properly). Thank you to all who contribute to Wikipedia, which includes both Doug Weller and Belain. Best -Presearch (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:RS as well.[9] No complex legal issues involved fortunately. Doug Weller talk

09:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Presearch: for your comments. I added significant information and improvements to the article, increasing the references from the current 27 to almost 70. Out of the 40 plus references I added, Mr. Weller has called out 4, yet erased everything I added to the article. Three of the four references he calls out are for citations from the Society's own websites, yet prior to my editing there were already citations from their website used as references in the article, all of which still remain by the way (see current notes 22-24 for example). The rest of the references I added were from sources like the National Park Service, newspapers and books written in 1929 and 1938, publicly available in the library. Instead of summarily dismissing the hard work put in to improving an article, I would suggest that a senior admin like Mr. Weller should provide an editor appropriate time to remove what are supposedly unacceptable references and replace them with viable ones. Respectfully request my edits be restored and that I be permitted to remove the 4 references Mr. Weller has called out.Belain1737 (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Belain1737, I hope you don't mind me butting in here, I just want to reiterate the point that Doug has already made - our policy is very clear on this point, we must not host copyright violations anywhere on the site (including draft and user space), they are to be removed as soon as they are discovered. It is too much to expect us to weed out copyvios from other material, we are volunteers too, and we would be derelict in the responsibilities we have taken on if we were to leave it in place in the hopes that someone else will deal with it. Doug has done what any admin would have done.

The

WP:COPYVIO policy is arguably one of the more complicated ones, but you can avoid having to understand the nuances of it by following one simple rule: don't copy text (or images) from any source, write everything in your own words. Personally, when I'm writing articles, I try to find at least two sources covering the information I want to include, I make notes about what they say, and I then put them away while I'm writing my prose. Don't be tempted to copy and paste and then just change a few words - that can lead to close paraphrasing which is also prohibited. Write it entirely yourself in your own words and all will be well. Best GirthSummit _(blether)

15:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll just add that I haven't read through every edit you made to the article, but I did check the one from the 29th of January at 03:48, which contains substantial chunks of text which have been copied from this website, with just a few words changed here or there, and some entire sentences copied with no changes. That is a clear violation, and needed to be reverted and hidden from public view without delay. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps if Mr. Belain's email were made available (maybe it already is), the now-deleted version of the page could be emailed to him, to ease his task of regenerating the material (but this time in line with copyright laws)? --Presearch (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So is it appropriate for me to rewrite and add back all of the references and verbiage I previously published to the article, minus the 4 cited by Mr. Weller?Belain1737 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOV in particular. The Society is a fine source for its structure and officers, not so much for its history, that needs independent sources. Doug Weller talk

17:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the majority of the references I added were from two books already listed in the article's bibliography list.Belain1737 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you seem to be well versed in the policies, I could not locate a definition for "family" in Wikipedia's guidance. Is there a defined degree to which someone is related that Wikipedia uses when determining whether an editor can edit a distant relative's article? When you go back far enough, many of us are related in some fashion. If left to an editor's discretion, I would define "family" as a living, immediate family member. Thanks.Belain1737 (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have edited an article about my first cousin, once removed. Someone else started the article after he died. I posted some material on the talk page for inclusion in the article. After it sat there for months with no comment, I finally added it to the article myself. I regarded the material as non-controversial, and no one has ever objected to it. In general, though, I would say to avoid directly editing any article about a relative who is closer than 2nd cousin, or closer than great-great-grandparent for direct ancestors, especially if the material might be at all controversial. Instead, post the material you would like to see in the article in an edit request on the talk page. If in any doubt at all, use an edit request. - Donald Albury 22:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

{re|Donald Albury}} thanks, but I think that's being overcautious. I don't see a problem here with someone long dead. Doug Weller talk 08:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you for the guidance Mr. Weller. Another editor previously advised that I should avoid all family of any kind, no matter the degree of relationship, which I thought was extreme and why I posed the question.Belain1737 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ali, Sharif Aydarus (1955). Bughya Al-Amal fi Tarikh as-Sumaal. p. 107.

Here is the source book is in Arabic tho Ibn Jaziira (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I just deleted this recent spree of outright historic revisionism by a new user named "Moskerhus".[10]-[11] He is pressing ancient, historic sites as "Kurdish", including

) 09:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: you're in a better situation to warn him and I see nothing on his talk page. I don't want to block without clear evidence this is going to continue. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Left a (level 1) warning. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug, can anything be done about this IP at Hyksos 147.236.50.70? He's edit warring there about sourced information and has also posted some somewhat offensive edit summaries elsewhere, e.g. [12], [13]. Seems to have an anti-Arab POV.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

IP User:85.144.218.248 left me a talk page message that I believe violates BLP, diff=008313604. Apparently the block you had previously applied expired a few days ago. Would you be willing to hide/delete that message, and apply whatever sanction or warning that is appropriate? ...or let me know where else I should report it? Many thanks for the work you do. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to bother you, but I am not sure what to do, and any help is greatly appreciated. There is an IP editor (a range of IPs, two so far, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.125.250.97 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.125.250.56) persistently adding highly tendentious edits and original research to the

].) It continues to stand because I wish to avoid edit warring and they have not yet replied to my latest response.

They also added similar addition on the Haplogroup DE and Haplogroup D-M174 pages, but fortunately have stopped edit warring there. (The pattern of this current IP, like that of earlier users of which they remind me, seems to be to push the POV that haplogroups DE and originated in Asia, and periodically use sources misleadingly to do so.)

Now the IP (which has now shifted) has added a substantial amount of even more egregious

]

I thought to contact

WP:CANVASSING

. Though I do not know what their biases are if any, and they did create the page). But I fear this may perhaps need the attention of an administrator.

This new IP range also reminds me somewhat of User:AsadalEditor (who was a sock of User:WorldCreaterFighter), who persistently made very similar tendentious OR/misleading edits to the Haplogroup DE and similar pages (and with whom I engaged in discussion there in 2019), and also of various IPs at the time who made similar edits (and some of which I believe were socks of AsadalEditor/WorldCreaterFighter if I am not mistaken - some were blocked at the same time that he was, and whose seeming POVs and tendencies appeared very similar to his) with whom I also engaged (in the last three talk discussions. numbers 7, 8, and 9 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_DE).

Perhaps significantly, both those earlier IPs (such as these: [[16]],[[17]], [[18]], [[19]]) and the current IP range geolocate to Austria. Any attention to this matter is very much appreciated. As mentioned, this user is persistent and not very predisposed to listen, and at the risk of not assuming good faith, seems to be showing a pattern, which seems to me possibly to rise to the level of disruptive editing. Skllagyook (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:BEANS I don't want to discuss this here. You can email me if you're willing. If it's disruptive editing, ANI might be the best place. I dislike our genetic articles because I disagree with what is and is not an acceptable source. I see 46. is engaging in discussion. Doug Weller talk

13:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:DUE place as a compromise, which I did (along with removing some undue and misleading material). So far, the IP has not responded but fortunately (for the time being) has not continued to edit war. Skllagyook (talk

) 02:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I've had my eye on User:78.150.38.110 as a sock of indeffed User:Cassandrathesceptic, whose campaign was largely waged with numerous IP socks in the same broad geolocation (Yorkshire/Lancashire/Greater Manchester).

I notice you've encountered their views on terms for Native Americans here and here, which echoes your historical encounter with them here (the multitude of IPs informally signing as "Cassandra", unusually for them in a multitude of geolocations, though the last one (Bradford) is typical).

Other shared interests are the term Makar, cf. this with historical posts on the talk page here (this IP also being one of the Native Americans talk contributors) and here (fairly rarely, using the master account itself).

An interest in lynching, cf [20] with [21], [22], [23], [24] and [25].

Strong views on what constitutes Scotland (cf.

).

List of Scottish monarchs, cf. [26], [27], [28] and [29].

Hillsborough disaster, cf. [30], [31] and [32]

The absence of signing of posts is also characteristic.

FWIW, I note you've also encountered them at the end of this thread. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

To the matches of articles add the talk page of The Brus, cf. [33] with [34], [35] and [36]. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Likely sock/ban evader

Noticed this user suddenly pop pup to add content (with obvious experience) to

14:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@

Thewolfchild: - after checking I found that another editor started an SPI - I've confirmed this one and discovered another and blocked them. Thanks. Doug Weller talk

14:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

And thank you -

wolf

14:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Problems with getting reverted on Mormonism pages

Hello Doug Weller. I’ve been having some trouble getting what I think is objective information onto various pages dealing with Mormonism. To keep things simple, I will restrict this to one locus, the page King Follett discourse. As you may know, this was a sermon delivered by Joseph Smith Jr., the Mormon prophet, at the funeral of someone named King Follett in 1844. In the sermon Smith presented the doctrine that God was once a man just like us, and that there are an untold number of gods in the universe. Although he had apparently hinted at this earlier, this funeral sermon is where he spelled it all out. From the viewpoint of a historian, the sermon is significant because it changed the theology and direction of the LDS movement. Prior to that, Smith said that the doctrine of his movement was all based on the Book of Mormon: “Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is or religion? We have none . . . I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion . . .” The Follett discourse fundamentally changed this because new doctrines were introduced contradicting the Book of Mormon’s doctrine of God and other teachings; all authority for doctrine was now in the hands of the acting president. From either a historical or theological view, this was a fundamental change that has every right to be presented in a Wikipedia page devoted to the Follett sermon. When I did this, however, User:FyzixFighter, who admits on his user page that he is a Mormon, deleted everything I had entered, using the usual claims about violating NPOV, etc., replacing it with some weak statements about “humanities premortal existence and divine potential.” If he was really interested in objectivity, then the proper course of action would have been to improve what I entered with better wording, etc. But to delete it entirely, apparently because the changes mentioned implicitly show that the LDS Church really doesn’t trust the Book of Mormon, seems to imply a violation of NPOV on his part. Sorry if the issue is a little complicated, but if FyzikFighter continues to have his way, a lot of objectivity in Wikipedia pages devoted to Mormonism will be lost. Thanks for considering this, Chronic2 (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see where he says he's a Mormon. Anyway, I'd ask User:Epachamo. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's here: User_talk:FyzixFighter#Are_you_mormon?. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: thanks, I looked at his user page only. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Tamils

Any thoughts on the last two sections at Talk:Tamils - the ones concerning the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Indrapala source. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Balance keepers and truth sayers

Is it better to live in blissful ignorance or to set the mind the free ? Bruce lee you see was just like me but he had no idea when to take the chips and forgot heroes have a darker side. Nash was just plain pathetic I mean come on man, had it not been for a car park in vienna I would of simply have had have written him off as a failed attempt enmtirely to be honest.These parascientific types arent all ,ade equal but NEO knew his place in it all and brokered a truce like a true hero does but one where all sides win and happiness prevails for a while. Tzan zu has tuaght me well and game theory both non and vooperativer help one manage th esecrets contained with in the music and the mathamatics and one would find there head fast after watch Richard Feynamn deliver messages full of ancient whispers. This would be in part due to the proud line of brothers and sisters behind me and to my sides and peripherals. Ther professor would see whimsy in turning sword to water and poison to cure would hen not Sir Weller of THE Knights of the ROund UUSr Feinsteinium77 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Feinsteinium77 indef blocked for flights of fanciful writing. David notMD (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. However, would you still not say that lack of neutrality should be argued? After all, this is what Oxford states about Asante. He has strong criticisms yes, but he also has strong praise from scholars as well, particularly African (Toyin Falola, Ndlovu-Gatsheni, etc.) and African diaspora scholars and even some Asian (like Yoshitaka Miike). Would the fact that only Oxford is listed in this section have Wikipedia playing more towards Eurocentric perspective? Which is at the heart of Asante's various analyses to begin with. Just a suggestion. I don't necessary disagree with that Oxford quote being there; but it being the sole outside perspective on the topic is disingenuous don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Africologist (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Apologies. Will sign in the future. Africologist (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk

16:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Understood. I will honor that. Oh and just for point of clarity. Though the two terms are often confused with each other because of the historical overalaps between people and events, Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism are not the same. Africologist (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Africologist: you need to discuss that at Talk:Afrocentrism. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you. I will. Africologist (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A
  subcriterion a
  , which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A
  request for comment
  asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a
  protection
  .

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with
  just block the /64
  range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at
  WP:RfPP
  , and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been
  Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322
  ).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

Hi Doug. Just wanted to thank you for your message. It is much appreciated. If this continues I will use the talk page to attempt to build consensus on the issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Africologist (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice yow.... Sierra Mae (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

First round of discussion about 'Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?' in relation to Wikipedia article titles has been initiated at some article talk pages, including @ Talk:List of former Muslims#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?

You are being informed of the discussion, since its seems you have edited related topic previously.

Please do join in discussions, Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Doug, I need to bother you again with user:Stefan_Verlag, whom you had temporarily blocked for disruptive editing at the end of January. After one more warning on February 1, he remained inactive until day before yesterday. Since then he started his edits in the same vein across a number of pages. This morning I warned him sternly about this on his talk page, but now, a few hours later, he did this edit, where he basically replaced the existing Ethnologue source with a source using the Ethnologue edition from 1996, because it better suits his purposes. Most of his other edits over the last few days did similar things - deleting or replacing good sources, or citing sources that actually don't support his claims. He doesn't seem to care about the warnings I give him in the edit summaries and on his talk page. Thanks! Landroving Linguist (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: a fortnight block from the most recent articles, allowing use of the article talk pages. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Our old friend R. Martiello is at it again, this time at Latins. I've reverted some of their changes, but I want to forestall another edit-war. Would you mind taking a look? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I've given a final warning. You should probably put something on the talk page about your synthesis concerns, maybe theirs. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Your warning seems to have calmed things down. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

AntoineHound (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

With respect to this: a quick glance through this editor's history shows that they're much more interested in using Wikipedia talk pages as a forum or blog than they are in making improvements. (I've warned them about their user page before, which is why I saw your comment.) The few times they have ventured into article space, they get reverted, they switch to edit-warring, and eventually they move on. I haven't had the energy to put together a

) 14:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearly

WP:NONAZIS. When confronted with McDonald's own words about Jews destroying white power and America as a white country, they replied, He clearly has misgivings, but that does not make one an anti-semite. If declaring that Jews are destroying America doesn't make one an anti-semite, I'm not sure what does. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 16:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Ok I went ahead and started a thread at ANI. You are invited to add your thoughts. --JBL (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug, thanks for editing into 'the gympie pyramid'. It feels good that finally someone Wiki experienced had a look and it. Most of the changes I can understand, but some surprise me. In 2015 someone complained about his addition of Anthony Wheelers info to article. I guess you deleted that section.. Now you kept that one but deleted the other 2 arguments, Brett Green and Elaine Brown. I know, in particular Brett Green ( with is books) is questionable, but as he and his Grand father are investigating into the site for so long, I find they should be mentioned in 'history'. Also Elaine Browns survey into the the people who leased the land in the early days... very interesting. Just wondering whats your thoughts are to not include them? Wheelers article I find less informative ... who thought because its called pyramid it must be Egyptian, then the next smart idea, there are steps, so it got to be an Inca step pyramid... This is why I thought the article should be changed in the first place.

I am requesting sources from the Kabi elders at the moment in regards to the 40 year fight and the grooves, which I photographed myself.Someone added a photo apparently, this are the grooves I mentioned. I don't know this person and was told my own photos not to upload, because it would be 'my own investigation'.

To add a link citation for the 'A further survey by the Department of Transport ' section, I find only a google link to tmr.qld.gov.au PDF document, which is interesting to see how govs sees the history. How can I add this link? google seem to be black listed and on the tmr webpage I could not find this pdf. thank you for your time! Wikigetsme123 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings Doug. It's been awhile since i have made any edits.. I have found something new to add and needed your input o determine it it can be added. The source is a copy of the Supreme Court appeal from RAMAPOUGH MOUNTAIN INDIANS VS GALE A. NORTON – MAY 16TH, 2002, Docket 01-011703. The significance of this is the BIA failed to recognize us publically but in court they admitted they do. Last paragraph of Page 11.

^[1]Cert of Writ

This changes the reason of why we were denied. Please advise your opinion. Ramapoughnative (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug, thanks for editing into 'the gympie pyramid'. It feels good that finally someone Wiki experienced had a look and it. Most of the changes I can understand, but some surprise me. In 2015 someone complained about his addition of Anthony Wheelers info to article. I guess you deleted that section.. Now you kept that one but deleted the other 2 arguments, Brett Green and Elaine Brown. I know, in particular Brett Green ( with is books) is questionable, but as he and his Grand father are investigating into the site for so long, I find they should be mentioned in 'history'. Also Elaine Browns survey into the the people who leased the land in the early days... very interesting. Just wondering whats your thoughts are to not include them? Wheelers article I find less informative ... who thought because its called pyramid it must be Egyptian, then the next smart idea, there are steps, so it got to be an Inca step pyramid... This is why I thought the article should be changed in the first place.

I am requesting sources from the Kabi elders at the moment in regards to the 40 year fight and the grooves, which I photographed myself.Someone added a photo apparently, this are the grooves I mentioned. I don't know this person and was told my own photos not to upload, because it would be 'my own investigation'.

To add a link citation for the 'A further survey by the Department of Transport ' section, I find only a google link to tmr.qld.gov.au PDF document, which is interesting to see how govs sees the history. How can I add this link? google seem to be black listed and on the tmr webpage I could not find this pdf. thank you for your time! Wikigetsme123 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug. We've previously worked together on

) 05:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Snuish: sure, see the RSN discussion on Mashable as an example. At the top of RSN it says use the {{rfc|prop}} template. You'll have to start and defend it though, right now I've got projects at home taking up a lot of time. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very useful! I'll start a discussion within the next week or two. Snuish (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug, 'Gympie Pyramid' gets vandalized by some idiots. Could you please reverse it to your last edit. I will copy the text and reverse every time I see them vandalizing. How can I report a profile to be deleted? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug, the shape of those or design of the wall is clearly polygonal. I walked around it in Gympie, made photos. Those stones are all of different shape and set together without use of mortar. The wall is part of the history there and simply unexplained.

Please have a look at a video 'Pyramid Polygano Wall Gympie Queensland' at youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings Doug. It's been awhile since i have made any edits.. I have found something new to add and needed your input o determine it it can be added. The source is a copy of the Supreme Court appeal from RAMAPOUGH MOUNTAIN INDIANS VS GALE A. NORTON – MAY 16TH, 2002, Docket 01-011703. The significance of this is the BIA failed to recognize us publically but in court they admitted they do. Last paragraph of Page 11.

^[1]Cert of Writ

This changes the reason of why we were denied. Please advise your opinion. Ramapoughnative (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:RSN#Ramapough Mountain Indians and a report on an oral court argument. Doug Weller talk

13:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the ball rolling. Ramapoughnative (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

I am inquiring about your recent edits to the

article. My contributions at the end of the article's introduction were removed, citing unattributed, "dubious" sources. This will be corrected. However, the preceding sentence uses little-known, local sources (Milwaukee Magazine and Rhode Island Future, respectively). I am seeking further clarity on this. How are the aforementioned sources considered reliable, especially compared to well-known, national publications, and shouldn't the statement be appropriately attributed in-text regardless? Loltardo (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(

WP:CONSENSUS, —PaleoNeonate

– 05:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a
  subcriterion a
  has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A
  discretionary sanctions procedure
  is open until April 25.

---

Hi Doug, I started

) 08:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: yes, ANI. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks,

WP:ANI#User:Bob_drobbs_flooding_discussions. --Rsk6400 (talk

) 18:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Dabhoi

Can you undelete Battle of Dabhoi? It was deleted in 2012 due to creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. The subject is a notable event. I want to work on it. Undeletion might be helpful. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: - done. Please fix the citations so that they should title, author, etc - including relevant page numbers. 09:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You blocked BritishSniper55 in Oct 2020 for sockpuppetry. I'm pretty sure the user Ukww1[39] is a sockpuppet, see identical editing style here:[40]

) 01:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@

Snooganssnoogans: went to look at it, Floq got there first. Doug Weller talk

09:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(Possibly) stale page restrictions

Hi, I was recently doing a review of all the page restrictions I've placed or taken ownership of over the years, and I noticed that a majority of the pages were no longer battlegrounds and didn't require restrictions anymore. I was looking backwards a couple of months on the article history and talk page looking for major diputes, and for the most part things were pretty quiet. I've removed the BRD restrictions from about 70% of the articles that I had put them on, and the 1RR restrictions from probably 90% of pages.

I figured while I was at it I might as well try to track down the other pages with active sanctions and see if the admins who placed them might also be interested in doing a similar review. The following list might not be complete, but it's the best I could come up with by tracking usages of the American Politics AE template. (Perhaps you can compare it to whatever system you have for tracking your active sanctions.) For convenience I'll put links to the edit notice page and the talk page.

• Template:Editnotices/Page/David Malpass - Talk:David Malpass
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Executive Order 13768 - Talk:Executive Order 13768
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Ilhan Omar - Talk:Ilhan Omar
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Myron Ebell - Talk:Myron Ebell
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement - Talk:Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement

I'm hoping that removing some of these restrictions can help restore some sense of normalcy to the topic area. In any case I hope this list is helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Doug, I just happened to notice this article today. It is a complete mess. Actually it cannot really be edited seriously because this is just local newspaper yarning and gossip. I see now that I've done some fixes however, that you did a revert and stated that Marshall is not RS. True, but neither is Wheeler at skeptika com, etc. The fact is that there is only one source Archaeo/Brown that would pass snuff. Marshall is sheer provincial nonsense, reflecting a book by the son or grandson of an earlier Gympie resident who clearly fabricated a lot of nonsense, but since people obviously google for info, perhaps his synopsis of the BS should be used. I think actually that, if it is conserved, the article deserves just two paras, no more, stating where it is, the structure, settler viticulture, and the gossip stuff.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller. I'm not sure if you're aware of the current

) 15:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Advice please

Hi, Doug, a disagreement has arisen on this Talk page and I'd like to raise the question of proper interpretation of MOS guidance in a wider forum. You once advised me how to do this, but I've forgotten; could you refresh my memory, please? Thanks in advance. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:RfC. Doug Weller talk

08:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Category deletion

Hello, what would be the process for deleting the Category:Prehistoric dinosaurs as it is meaningless ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:CfD. Doug Weller talk

14:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Removed wrongly archived banners from your talk page archive

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that I removed some banners from /Archive 32 that were probably accidentally copied to the archive. They don't really make sense there. --rchard2scout (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Doug. I was reading through your archives of things written here while I was away. I am slowly trying to reacclimate myself back into Wikipedia, hopefully, in a more constructive manner than the way I left for Winter break. I only stopped by to wish you well and thank you for your contributions, whether we agreed or not. I happen to think you are an amazing admin that allows the conversations to be played out within your talk page with minimal interference with the exception being when personal attacks occur. Thanks again and if you need assistance with anything please let me know. I'd accept any guidance from veteran editors like yourself. Thanks again. --

17:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

• 212.139.168.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Five previous blocks, vandalizing again after the latest block expired. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: thanks, done. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Such a necessary and unappreciated effort having to watch for people doing this. If they actually contributed something constructive they might like it. :-( --

Wolf

15:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. You're doing a lot of arbitration work, maybe you're aware if there hasn't been some quotable ruling on the matter of era style re. ancient Israel and Judah. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Not an arbcom topic, nor should it be, but I think BCE is generally used in these articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: I agree with User:Johnbod. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@

Siege of Jerusalem (586 BC), but I'm sure examples are legion. Thanks, Arminden (talk

) 15:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@

MOS:ERA which mentions "The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." We get into endless debates about "existing", and MOS:ERA says discussions should use arguments related to the article. Some people insist that the original style should never be changed, but that's not in the guidelines. Doug Weller talk

15:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I once took part in a two-year discussion on the era question in which two other editors here also weighed in. I agreed then, and agree now, that "discussions should use arguments related to the article" which, in the case of "ancient Israel and Judah", would suggest that Common Era dating is more appropriate. Similar reasoning which (again) is not enshrined in editorial guidelines - so far as I know - usually dictates that UK English is used in articles on UK subjects, and US usage for US subjects, whoever initiates them. Appealing to common sense opens up too many cans of worms, but editorial consensus can usually be achieved via courtesy and flexibility. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it is "enshrined in editorial guidelines" -

WP:ENGVAR. Johnbod (talk

) 02:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I am not sure if the partial block of this user is configured properly. 13 minutes after the block, they again posted their anti-Ahmadi bits at Ahmadiyya, which they are supposed to be blocked from. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lol. You both guys are a joke Quantum1278 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

17:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you've seen it already, but this ("I'm Not Saying It Was Aliens": An Archaeological and Philosophical Analysis of a Conspiracy Theory) is very interesting and could be useful for ancient astronauts etc.:

[...] in addition to the explanatory work that one might expect of a conspiracy theory, ancient aliens narratives do a great deal of ideological heavy lifting—for example, they diminish the cultural achievements of non-European societies, and at the same time they offer reinterpretations of religious narratives that seem to retain much of the religious content while jettisoning the supernatural metaphysical commitments.

– Joe (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: - looks interesting, but even getting the chapter alone is expensive. I've posted it to the FB group Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame - maybe one of the academics there has it in their university library. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah. It doesn't seem to be in my library yet, but I managed to get just about the whole chapter on Google Books preview. – Joe (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that Samuel Collingsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be an old "friend". Guy (help! - typo?) 08:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: yep, CU blocked. Well spotted and thanks, I've been fairly absent these last few weeks. Doug Weller talk 09:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, you might want to remove TPA and revdel his last comment. Or you may wish to wear the scorn of Nazis as a badge of pride... Guy (help! - typo?) 13:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(

Tell me all about it.

13:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(

Wolf

14:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@

Tsistunagiska: very Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mikemikev, need to get around to the SPI. MP, great to see you back. Doug Weller talk

14:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, isn't "ethnomarxist" his catch-phrase? I've had a few run-ins with his socks, some confirmed by CU, others obvious ducks. I'm not surprised he's throwing fits, as he can't edit

Tell me all about it.

14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's one way to get your own Wikipedia page, albeit, not in main space. I'd be impressed if I didn't find the reasons for why they have it to be quite disgusting. --

Wolf

14:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, I assume that Angillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a legit alt, and not a bad hand sock or Mikemikev sock? Guy (help! - typo?

) 17:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@

Tell me all about it.

17:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've been thinking for some time about what "ethnocommunism" is supposed to mean, then I remembered File:Little Rock integration protest.jpg: "Race mixing is communism." --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. In that case I am so an "ethnocommunist" as opposed to what? An "ethnocapitalist" (whatever that could be)? Idk, but I am mixed race so I guess I have to believe in it since I'm here. Yay! I can be an "ethnocommunist" with you Doug. --

Wolf

18:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Jimmy Croquette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems nice. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That one doesn't just quack, it waddles on webbed feet, lives in a pond and has a fondness for bread.

Tell me all about it.

16:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@

MPants at work: magic CU dust confirms, blocked. Doug Weller talk

16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I'm. shocked. Shocked! Guy (help! - typo?) 16:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Awwww, it's a duck for sure. Waddle, waddle. I think Doug's part should be played by the mean little dog from the Nintendo days that laughed at you when you couldn't hit the flying ducks. ;-) --

Wolf

19:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev for an interesting comment by someone else. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Again, it's just a hunch. Generalrelative (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• Consensus was found in a previous RfC
  for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The
  discretionary sanctions procedure
  was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. This is Yuuyatails.

Months ago I had contacted you about a user whose username is Mini4WD, who doesn't like everyone else to touch the Mini 4WD article.

Right now, he's resorting to remove everything from it, effectively vandalize the article. I tried to revert the vandal edit, but this guy keeps removing contents and also resorting to showing hostile message against me in a edit summary, said he owns what he write and not everyone else.

Please do something about it.

Yuuyatails (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug - for the record, the user is claiming that he revokes his license to use content he wrote and an image he supplied. I reverted his edit[41], citing

WP:NOREVOKE, but he has now reverted that revision and renamed the page. Butlerblog (talk

) 16:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yuuyatails and Butlerblog: I've blocked him from editing the article and told him to go to Commons about his claims, which are dubious. I'm not touching the article. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is your logic... “Coca Cola can delete all information on Wikipedia pages entitled, “soda pop”, “soft drink” and “cola”... and somehow Yuuyatails can wantonly delete massive amounts of content without any penalties... Wow... just Wow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini4WD (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Wolf

18:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Coca-Cola would be blocked on the spot anyway. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Wolf

18:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I need a hug from User:Nap, but I'm in the waiting room of an orthodontist. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug, you CSDed Chengallur_Ranganathan. However it was a bad-faith tagging by a now-blocked sock. (see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Are_these_articles_eligible_for_deletion for more nominated, which were de-tagged). Would you be willing to undelete as there are some established editors who don't believe these are clear G5s. Thanks either way. StarM 18:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Just for any TPSers, Doug and I addressed this at the teahouse so it's all handled. StarM 20:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug, in the history of Racism in the United States I see a dozen or so versions have been made invisible, starting with the one by Theurbanturban, and including nine of mine, but also some of other editors. Since you just edited User_talk:Theurbanturban, I suppose that they were hidden by you and maybe you hid more than you wanted to. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(

rev-del

revisions, they have to include every revision which contained the text they're deleting (usually copyvios or blatantly obvious libel, but all sorts of stuff which WP doesn't want on it's servers, including doxxing and the like), which means every edit until someone reverted the problematic text. So it's normal to see good edits immediately following a rev-del to be rev-del'd themselves.

There's often a revert at the end, where the offending material was removed by whomever spotted it, but the non-offending material left in place. If your actual contributions were removed, you are usually free to re-add them without worry.

Tell me all about it.

13:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but in this case the problematic edit was reverted immediately, and none of the later versions contained the problematic text. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: good catch, I don't know how I managed to do that. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thanks, but what's the anniversary? Doug Weller talk 08:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a link, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: doh! I clicked on the image, should have clicked on the "8 years". My eyes are getting old. :) Doug Weller talk 09:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I should troll you, Doug, just for missing the link, but I'll be a good talk page stalker and go find something useful to edit. Happy Anniversary, though!! ;P --

Wolf

14:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Doug,

Will you just look in on this and make sure I am not doing anything that seems inappropriate from Wikipedia standards. I know I have reverted edits put in the article but I've tried staying objective as I have no connection, whatsoever, to the subject or regional conflict in question. As this is a BLP I am simply trying to keep eyes on it. I do not want to breach Wikipedia guidelines in the effort to do so. I just would like your perspective. Thanks, --

17:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea and don't get involved in this area. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

No need to say sorry. I understand completely. ;) --

Wolf

18:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Doug Weller,

Thank you for participating in the recent

.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanx for the partial block for User:Tracsstaff. Note, even if they were willing to follow the rules on the article, I believe their username is problematic. If you have any suggestions on how I could have handled the reverts, the edit summaries and what I wrote on the user's page, please let me know. Note, they did respond. It doesn't indicate that they understand/read any more about Wikipedia, but they did respond. I will take a look at the staff changes that the user tried to make for the infobox and if they are reflected in the webpage for TRACS, I'll make them.Naraht (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, it appears you may have blocked them from editing the redirect page

) 20:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Naraht: thanks, I've fixed that. I think what you said was ok. Do make the staff changes. Their use of the talk page so far as been less than constructive but I've given them links they need to read and told them they need to stop their personal attacks. You might want to start a section on the article talk page for them to make suggestions and point out what you've done. Maybe they can become a constructive COI editor. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I pinged you, but just dropping a courtesy notification that you are tangentially mentioned in this ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pc031985 casting aspersions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Judging from the edits to the Arthur Posnansky article and comments posted to the article's talk section, I strongly suspect that User 150.195.97.43, User 2604:2D80:6812:A500:F452:8713:6D39:8C57, User 2604:2D80:6812:A500:DAE:BD48:F031:8C2F, and User 2604:2D80:6812:A500:C95B:5084:2DA7:9F6E are all the same person. Recently, the same change and a variation of "discredited" to "disputed" have repeatedly from these IP addresses. Most recently, the same change as occurred at, 11:45, 23 May 2021, 11:25, 24 May 2021, AND 15:26, 24 May 2021, every time a different editors have changed it from "disputed" to "discredited". How does one deal with this weird mixture of edit warring and apparent sock puppetry? Paul H. (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC) OK, the 2604 addresses are the same range, and all the addresses geolocate to the same area. I've semi-protected the article for 3 months leaving he/her to use the talk page. If they continue to use IP addresses that make them look like separate editors, I may do more. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Seems I noticed some possible block evasion from Korvex (talk · contribs), this his sock Editshmedt (talk · contribs) as I understand blocked by you, have similar topics and edits with those IPs 142.116.103.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.116.0.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.127.171.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.127.154.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 142.120.69.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) especially about Biblical numerology, Gematria, Muhammad and the Bible, Gabriel's Revelation, European wars of religion. So much similar edits and at article Biblical numerology restored edit of sock Editshmedt (talk · contribs) and at European wars of religion article too by listed IPs, 25 February 2021 and 8 March 2021. So I suspect to it is all the same user. Would be good if you check, seems to that user could be one obsessive sock editor. 109.92.10.14 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm convinced. Blocked the latest one, all the edits by the addresses above can be reverted as sock edits. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sarakhanjunglee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added sources in a random fashion to leave political statements such as:

• Zionists want us killed[42] in Paracetamol
• Palestinians are failures. Mahmoud Abbas is not even a Muslim, he's a Baha'i. Wake up Muslims[43] in Palestine 194
• Sufi erdogan freemason only barking like dogs. All staged drama[44] in Islam in Palestine
• No leader will tolerate khawarij extremists. Long live Widodo. What he's doing is right[45] Joko Widodo

The sources are not or only remotely connected to the text to which they are attached. Quite strange is the addition of Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East to the see also-section of Apocrypha. The addition of a note with a Hadith text after the first word in the lead of Pleurisy is less randomish, but betrays a CIR issue.

Judging from previous warnings about similar behavior, I get the impression this user is not here to built an ecyclopedia (

) 12:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: yes. You could go to AE but I think ANI might be better. I did consider a topic ban but I'm not convinced it would make a difference and he'd end up blocked anyway. Doug Weller talk

Thanks, done! –Austronesier (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Doug, could some admin look at the shenanigans at this Khazar page? It might look like a content dispute. But two editors, one with just 600 edits who seems basically to be interested in the Austrian school of economics, the other with 50 (over 9 years) are teaming ("we") there to disrupt an article that has been fairly stable in this particular definition they contest. I don't think, since it comes under Arbpia, that the chap with just 50 edits to his name should be barging into the I/P area (500 required). All this was triggered by some itsy-bitsy Times of Israel paragraph long article by a tyro that a Qatari journalist jumped on the Khazars as Ashkenazi nonsense, to state it was a conspiracy theory. Well, it has been used that way by anti-Semites and the usual fringe lunatic crowd, but far too many historical books treatingd the theory, wrong as it almost certainly is, haven't described it as a conspiracy (rightly so, since many Jewish scholars have explored it seriously in the past). I expounded at some length on the groups that have hijacked it for those polemical-paranoid ends in the Khazars article and here, but it is fringe. Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I've given the 50 edit editor an alert and told them not to edit the article. I had to read von Mises at Yale, that gave me a good inoculation. I try hard not to get involved with that stuff. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Hm, a 3 month block for edit-warring[46] - he'd better not try that again. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh hell, Shrike has just pointed out the DS notice says portion and says that pseudoscience bit isn't relevant. The editor agrees. I'm not sure what is. I'm not going to be active for about 18 hours now however. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Like I said earlier I don't have strong feelings about it. Just let make it clear change the notice and ECP that page if you think it belong I am not going to dispute it Shrike (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, and sorry for the bother. I prefer to handle these things on my own, but that situation was absurd. I know we must protect every editor's rights, Shrike. But we often forget that protecting the readers' rights to precise texts that do not mislead is equally important.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday I edited the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradwife on the paragraph that defines the term by removing the sentence “submitting to male leadership” because that sentence is an opinion (even the citation reference https://web.archive.org/web/20200122154237/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/opinion/sunday/tradwives-women-alt-right.html states itself as an opinion article). Defining something based on an opinion is essentially creating a strawman fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (and also is against the wikipedia's guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion Even if it is not the opinion of the wikipedia's author, defining based on NYTime's author's opinion, is writing an opinion).

The idea that Tradwife are being "submitting themselves to male leadership" should be address on the next paragraph that talks about controversies (since controversies are opinions), not on the definition.

You reverted my contribution and sent me a Notice on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fcolecumberri stating that I “have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies” (which I am not, I am only splitting opinions from definitions). On the paragraph you insinuated that I didn't “follow Wikipedia's policies” or “the page-specific restrictions” but you didn't specify which policy I am not following (If I am not following one, please tell me which. Do not only send me the link to the policies).

Fcolecumberri (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here... You waited almost five years before actually editing Wikipedia after registering your username, and you broke your silence to remove some words that were very well supported by the cited source, which was even quoted to show the supporting sentence. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I created this account 5 years ago and then I remember to login before editing. I have edited on the past without remembering to log in (Actually part of me is regretting having log in because suddenly a discussion about the article is becoming a discussion about me as an Ad-Hominem fallacy). About the cited source; I don't know how an opinion on an opinion article is a “very well supported” way to define the meaning of a concept. Again, I am not saying that classifying “Tradwife” as “submissive” shouldn't be mentioned on the article. I am saying that that classification is an opinion and should not be on the sentence that defines the term. Fcolecumberri (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Fcolecumberri, the correct place to have this discussion is on the article's talk page, not an individual user's talk page. FWIW though, the first three decentish sources I found by Googling the word (it wasn't one I'd come across before) all define the word in similar terms (Guardian, This Conversation, the Beeb). I doesn't seem like a particularly controversial description. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Ok, I should have gone to the discussion page instead, that's true and I will continue the discussion there. About your internet search,you may find as many opinion articles as you want stating the same opinion, that doesn't mean that is not an opinion (the nature of the statement, that's an opinionated statement). Fcolecumberri (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Best regards. Some time ago someone marked an article with the stub template [47], and now, this user is blocked. I would appreciate if you could review it, to see if the template is still needed. Thank you.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:STUB. It was about 110 words, 750 characters, 4 sentences. Remember we tag articles as stubs to encourage others to improve them, and this one certainly needs improvement. Doug Weller talk

09:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I disagree with you, because the article is actually over 500 words long. However, I respect your opinion, and you made me see that the fact that it is marked is an invitation to improve it. Thank you very much.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco: I was looking at the linked version, which of course is an old one, sorry. I agree with the stub removal. I don't like the first sentence in each paragraph of the recognitions section, they read as hype, eg "Skehan had the respect and friendship of his students and colleagues" which is unneeded, give facts, not commentary on the facts. The editorial work needs secondary sources also. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a
  Reliable Sources Noticeboard
  to discuss disputed sources.

---

Hi Doug Weller, How are you doing? Coming to the point, I saw the homepage of

) 06:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@MRRaja001: I guess I say why me? I don't know anything about this and I spent five minutes trying to find out something and failed. Was there a discussion? Are you sure it's blacklisted? Doug Weller talk 09:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@

Hubpages article i saw this issue (saying hubpages.com is blacklisted. As far as I know, Hubpages is a very good website. They take copyright issues very seriously and won't even publish content if there is any plagiarism. I think we should resolve this issue. - MRRaja001 ^(talk

) 11:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@MRRaja001: a lot of its niche domains were deleted here.[48] I'll ping the nominator and deleter. @Graywalls and JzG: There have been various attempts to delist it, eg[49]. @Beetstra:, you've been involved with this before. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hubpages that was implemented as http://www.hubpages.com/index.php (I am not sure that it the best, but well), and executed in the external links section (I have duplicated it to the infobox). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

12:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Thanks for that! - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 13:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't combed through this recently but de-listing requests for HubPages have been made a handful of times and at least once by an executive officer of the company (as self-disclosed by the requester) and they've been denied every time IIRC. HubPages is a monetized article writing where there's basically no editorial oversight. The publication criteria is based on aesthetics, moderator opinion and traffic, not content accuracy. The articles are specifically designed to create money for the author and as such, if allowed, it encourages

WP:CITESPAM on Wikipedia. I strongly oppose blanket white listing of HubPages or any of its niche domain. Graywalls (talk

) 21:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@

Hubpages. Since both of these websites are of similar nature. - MRRaja001 ^(talk

) 09:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Kindly help

Hello Doug, I hope that you and your family are well. I need your help with a certain user and his edits on certain pages on the South Indian state of Kerala. It seems he has been warned prior to this for a similar activity (but the same objective) by another admin. The User:Kambliyil constantly puts in the terms "North Malabar" and "South Malabar" in pages on the villages towns and other places of the Northern districts in the state of Kerala. The administrative setup of India is Country-> State-> District. However he keeps putting in the aforementioned terms for no reason in the pages for districts and places in those districts of the state making it look like they exist officially.

One of the official Government(Kerala)-sites https://kerala.gov.in/districts lists the names of the districts at the administrative level. Another is http://districts.nic.in/districts.php?sid=KL From both its clear that there is the State and then of course the District. The "Region" is something that is completely amiss not just in India but most countries AFAIK and on Wiki too that I think holds. Also here is the "Region" list of India [[50]]

Please look at Kannur/Kannur district/Wayanad district/Kasaragod district/Kasaragod/Kozhikode district/Kozhikode/Malappuram district/Malappuram/Palakkad district/Palakkad. And I suspect User:Boschanot might be a sock0puppet if this user. I am no one to pass judgments but he around this same time is making these same kind of edits (among others).

Since time immemorial, the southwestern part of India, covering entire Kerala State was known as "Malabar" or "Malabar Coast". The entire west coast of the ancient polity of Tamilakam - which was present-day Kerala - was also called Malabar. From the early 1800s or so, when India was colonized, the British named the Northern part of the state as "Malabar district" before Malabar was always used (as were other terms) to mean entire Kerala with adjoining areas. It was only for the next 150 years or so till the formation of the state of Kerala that there was a place called "Malabar" (district). Since the 1950s, after Kerala's formation, there has never been at any level whatsoever, a formal or official term called Malabar (or North Malabar or South Malabar), in any sense. The entire state speaks the language of Malayalam in majority. Cultural differences are far more along the lines of religion and then caste than along district. In fact the main royal family in the Northern part of the state traces its origin to the primary royal family in the South of the state (as well as originates there) and the two have been in a tradition of mutual adoption of heirs for centuries.

I hope you do the needful and put this user in his place. As an admin you can ascertain whatever I have written to be correct. Hope you help. Regards.117.194.225.139 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Also apologies for any seeming disruption of your Talk page my post may have caused. It was obviously 100% unintended. I can only edit by mobile right now and am not very conversant with it.117.194.232.198 (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)117.194.233.24 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I've asked around as I really don't know enough about this, the suggestion I got was to ask at the Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Sorry to be so slow, and I hope that you and yours are well. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Doug, I don't understand what the big box on my user page is. Can you please explain? Is it a warning, a flagging for being unruly or something else? Iskube (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Iskube: read it carefully again, it's just a standard alert about sanctions in a particular area. I've given myself similar notices showing that I'm aware of those areas. It means that we expect editors to be extra careful in those areas, and it also allows sanctions such as being banned from an area or being blocked so you can't edit at all being imposed by Administrators such as myself. Your talk page edits might be ok on a web forum but they are unacceptable on Wikipedia. Now you've been alerted in general and by me specifically for those talk page edits, what you need to do now is read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and follow them carefully. The same goes for edit summaries of course. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that pointing out likely intelligence shills is not wanted on wikipedia? As I'm sure you admins are aware of the problem, may I ask why your strategy is to act super nice instead of confrontation? Iskube (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:ANI is the place to complain about a specific editor. With some sort of evidence, not speculation. Speculation on the talk page like that isn't helpful, issues with the article based on guidelines and policies are. Doug Weller talk

14:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't a complaint. I'm just curious what policies are in place to prevent wikipedia from allowing Western intelligence services to have their way in cases where this differs from objective truth. Iskube (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOV for a start. Doug Weller talk

19:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a start, but all of those are easily gamed even with a fair amount of resources. I just don't think it's coincidental that all my favourite journalists are under attack as "not notable journalist" in the talk pages these days. Someone is clearly on a crusade against alternative media. I'll keep doing mine, within the rules of wikipedia. Have a good one sir. Iskube (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Despite F&F warning him to stop describing a famed scholar of medieval South Asia in deplorable (and might I say, childish) terms, White Horserider seems to be not learning any lesson.

1 - Your love for Cynthia is surely one for the ages.

2 his work is promoted by Cynthia just because it fits her narrative. BTW, Cynthia never came to India so how on earth she can examine inscriptions is beyond me

3 Lmao... You are obviously in love with Tablot's work.

4 Tablot travelled India only once and What about scholars who spent hours and hourse working on primmary evidences ???? ... And, No Cynthia seems fine to me this is first name of author.

Some stern warning might be necessary. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This may also be relevant. Ravensfire (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

And White Horserider has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Showbiz826. Ravensfire (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@

Ravensfire: great. I've been busy with personal issues but was planning to look at the SPI. Doug Weller talk

11:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug, can you do something about the IP who keeps making unsourced changes to numbers at Battle of the Catalaunian Plains? Thanks.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected for three days. Might need more attempts to interact with the person later. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• WP:REFUND
  even after the namespace is removed.
• An
  TFAs
  .

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised
  COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion
  at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

Shem HaMephorash has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I made an edit on

).

• A few hours later, the edit was undone by an IP user (72.34.94.194).
• I tried to start a conversation on the
  WP:AVOIDEDITWAR
  ).
• After a month with no reply, I reverted it back (with minor changes, and link to my post on the talk page in the summary).
• 2 days later edit was again undone by another IP user (12.18.28.106), with no reason given.
• A few minutes later, a 3rd IP user (2600:1004:b02f:ba9f...) did a rollback, restoring my edit.
• 2 days later this was undone by a 4th IP user (2600:387:f:4b34::4) (with no other edits).

In addition to reporting anomalous activity, I would like to get this edit (which I worked hard on) resolved. Thanks. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to get started on Libera, and the admin channel is invitation-only (as it was on Freenode). I saw you on the list of confirmed Libera accounts on meta, and have posted a diff for confirmation at #wikimedia-auth; do you know how long it usually takes? (IRC is not my strong suit.) I'd really appreciate an invitation to the admin channel. Don't know if it has to be real-time; I'm UTC−4/5, but flexible. My status is here. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: ha. I see you were on that channel. I asked there, no answer. I have no idea what's going on. I'll ask on the Functionaries list. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I see your account is on the -en-admins access list already, and as per this it looks like you should have had access for a few weeks now. You may need to /msg ChanServ invite #wikipedia-en-admins as it doesn't look like you've got a Wikimedia cloak at the moment.

@Miniapolis: I don't see your account on the access list for -en-admins; would you mind making adding a request to Wikipedia:IRC/Access requests and someone with the ability to add you should do so? Same thing about the Wikimedia cloak though, you'll likely need to /msg ChanServ invite #wikipedia-en-admins until you get a Wikimedia cloak.

Wikimedia cloaks can be requested per the instructions here, though there is a bit of a backlog at the moment. stwalkerster (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster: replied on irc but I'm not sure where to put /msg wmopbot cloak - and I filled out a form months ago. Never mind, I seem to have stumbled onto en-Admins just now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Stwalkerster and Doug Weller. Doug, if you can would you invite me to #wikipedia-en-admins while I get cloaked here? (I'm cloaked on Libera.) All the best, Miniapolis 19:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I posted it at Libera. A wmopbot tab popped up; I clicked on it, answered a few questions and submitted it. They say it takes a little while. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 19:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry if I am not citing my source correctly. Please advise how I can add this new source of the Raleigh Minerva from Aug 10th, 1809? This is an earlier reference than the 1819 newspaper. I also have sources of some handwritten notes in the NC archives from a relative that talks about this and points out the Raleigh Minerva as well. Thank you very much, -mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjohnson362 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)