User talk:Doug Weller: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:03, 23 January 2020 edit204.62.118.241 (talk) →Message to two good editors: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:50, 23 January 2020 edit undoKrakkos (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers23,569 edits →Germanic peoples: Andrew Lancaster continues to edit warNext edit →
Line 93:		Line 93:
	::Just quickly: ] is for content disputes only (according to the instructions). The highest priority question for ] is the '''Merge proposal''', for the new mirror article ]. But then the talk pages were swamped, with dumb stuff. So for me it is not really a content dispute, at least concerning the most urgent matter, or is DRN suitable for this type of discussion? Anyway, can we address the Merge somehow to get it closed soon without controversy? '''Vote is currently 2 versus 4 in favor of Merging.'''--] (]) 14:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)		::Just quickly: ] is for content disputes only (according to the instructions). The highest priority question for ] is the '''Merge proposal''', for the new mirror article ]. But then the talk pages were swamped, with dumb stuff. So for me it is not really a content dispute, at least concerning the most urgent matter, or is DRN suitable for this type of discussion? Anyway, can we address the Merge somehow to get it closed soon without controversy? '''Vote is currently 2 versus 4 in favor of Merging.'''--] (]) 14:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
	:::Update only. Krakkos has turned Germani back into a redirect, so the most awkward "urgent" problem is gone. We have time to keep working on the future of the old article (still frozen, which is appropriate I think). Wider range of feedback today from other editors also, and I have started a draft page for a new lead.--] (]) 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)		:::Update only. Krakkos has turned Germani back into a redirect, so the most awkward "urgent" problem is gone. We have time to keep working on the future of the old article (still frozen, which is appropriate I think). Wider range of feedback today from other editors also, and I have started a draft page for a new lead.--] (]) 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

			===] continues to edit war===
			{{Ping\|Fram}} - Last week Andrew Lancaster ] the ] rule, and ] (i received one too). The article ] was subsequently protected. Andrew Lancaster then resumed edit warring at ]. Dougweller then protected Germanic peoples, and warned Andrew Lancaster (and me) that additional edit warring might result in a block. Today i spent some time cleaning up the article ], while adding additional sources and content. Andrew Lancaster has now ] me to the Germania article, and resumed edit warring by reverting the key content that i added. ] (]) 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

	== Islamic Eschatology ==		== Islamic Eschatology ==

Revision as of 20:50, 23 January 2020

The current date and time is 6 January 2025 T 00:09 UTC.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:

post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
the Balkans or Eastern Europe
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
abortion
articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles
the Arab–Israeli conflict
climate change
the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour

He should not be given alerts for those areas.

You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise.

Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right; don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

D O U G W E L L E R

Durrani map

https://alchetron.com/Durrani-Empire#demo

This is the most perfect map with time line, dates and details. Can you uploud it please. thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:B88F:9C6D:8AEE:6A9F (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Mentioned in dispatches

I namechecked you on WP:ANI re Keith Johnston. Guy (help!) 19:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User insisting on citing Fringe author

Might you be able to offer a little assistance with this very stubborn supporter of including the Christ myth theory supporter Richard Carrier as showing the flaws in academic methodology at Historicity of Jesus? Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Richard Carrier.He keeps asking me for the policy defining Carrier as a fringe figure even though I've pointed him to wp:fringe and wp:rs multiple times. In fact, despite preventing me from removing Carrier, he even made me tell him what Carrier was being cited for!--Ermenrich (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I see it's protected so I guess nothing for me to do? Sorry to be so late replying, I did see it this morning and checked. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Did both of you notice this edit? Strange coincidence. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

hmm. Just the general mythicist internet or a case for SPI? And yeah Doug, he seems to have finally given up for the moment at least.—Ermenrich (talk)

Cluebot NG Response

I don’t believe I owe any editors an apology. One has finally come forward and posted a notice that the page I edited does appear to be a propaganda page. Perhaps this wasn’t known when this note was posted to my page?

If my edits were wrong, then you need to correct the page covering the 2009 security breach at the White House. That page (thanks to others, not me) has these facts. And there has been no explanation as to why the bot claims to do routine/tedious edits, but has delved I to things that would require judgement as to if it is “loaded” or “negative” — things requiring human judgement.

Are there bots operated by PR companies? Can’t imagine they wouldn’t try such a thing.

And also, on the question “why would you expect a tool to talk to you” the answer is that if it did talk to me by sending me a message saying it undid my edit, and if it put the accusation in the edit line that the edit was vandalism, then it is reasonable for me to think it could explain itself to me when it posts to my page. Simult2018 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Simult2018 you still owe them an apology for showing such lack of good faith. Whether the article is good or not doesn't excuse your behaviour. But I can see that you can't be convinced and still think that a computer program can hold a discussion with you. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I did leave them a note about ClueBot, with instructions for viewing each edit. -- Deep fried okra 09:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone here showed good faith to me? No. Simult2018 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Simult2018 you started out with "I’m suspicious that this bot is actually working on behalf of the subject of the article." and then "I suspect both of the people that posted these replies are actually involved with the bot." You charged in showing a lack of good faith. Marking a major edit minor doesn't help either. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Another Fringe pusher

Hi Doug, Would you mind keeping an eye on User:Tympanus? He appears to be a single purpose account promoting the website of a single fringe author. See especially this post where he threatens to edit war over the inclusion of the website and its fringe views? I'll note that he also appears to be at the very least in contact with the fringe author, Rolf Badenhausen, as evidenced here , but given the nature of his contributions it seems possible there's actually a conflict of interest going on here, i.e. he might actually be Badenhausen (because who else would care whether his website saying that Dietrich von Bern is from Bonn was included?). --Ermenrich (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Germanic peoples

Hi Doug,

I don't know where to post it (ANI, EW, RPP?), but I think that Germanic peoples (>2000 views per day) needs admin attention. Two editors rip the page to pieces, and especially one of them plays a very unpleasant game (content forking and shifting the scope of the article under the guise of a size split), and becomes increasingly agressive and uncivil in his talk entries. The talk page is spammed with new topics every day, and I am not the only editor who holds back with comments, which likely will be drowned in the endless flood of exchanges by the two dominant and dominating editors. One of the warring editors already went to ANI which resulted in an admonition.

The scope of the article is disputed, and without consensus about the latter by the community, there should be no major changes from the last stable version (whatever it is in this case). Being relatively unexperienced in wikidrama (except for SPIs), I have no idea if this is achieved by full PP and/or other means directly involving the warring editors. –Austronesier (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I second Austronesier, things are really out of control there and I can’t even really figure out what it is they’re debating, the discussion has gotten so convoluted.—Ermenrich (talk)

I agree that the article Germanic peoples deserves attention from the rest the community, particularly administrators and people knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages policy and the subject in question. In order to save uninvolved editors the trouble of reading through the whole talk page, i would say there are two important sections.

The first important section is Talk:Germanic peoples#RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article?. This RfC was initiated by me, and i have already requested it to be closed.

The second important section is Talk:Germanic peoples#Merge proposal. Germani to be merged back to here (new split off article by Krakkos). It discusses whether Germani should be merged with Germanic peoples.

I would also note that the discussion at Talk:Germanic peoples#Two simple and fundamental questions for Andrew Lancaster and Talk:Germanic peoples#Proposal would benefit from input by an editor skilled in interpreting WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Krakkos (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Some key diffs .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Some additional key diffs for balance. Krakkos (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier, Krakkos, and Andrew Lancaster: I don't know the subject that well and frankly don't have time, but I have fully protected the page for 2 weeks which should give time to sort out the dispute. There's also DRN remember. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to glance at Germani I'm afraid, a new version or split off which is already frozen but comes up for new status tomorrow? One debate/concern is about what seems to be an unannounced plan to recreate bits of the old article there and create a new situation as a fait accompli without prediscussion. That is one of the events which triggered a lot of concern on my part. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: that's fully protected until tomorrow. If edit warring starts there I'll protect it, but you and User:Krakkos should probably stay away from that page, to my surprise and disappointment you seem to be both teetering on the edge of being blocked. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we've agreed to hang back more now, hopefully also on article talk pages, and see what others say . I would only note that I still would like to see an explanation by Krakkos on the Germanic peoples (talk) about what his "secret plan" has been in all these sudden actions, which he has made clear are part of a plan, without proposing any plan. Potentially, as I keep saying, that is all that was ever needed. I do get it that Krakkos is annoyed about the past of this article, and the fact that it is still not right (like everyone), but I think most of us would like nothing more than to consider an actual honest proposal instead of all the ambushes and surprise moves. I suspect other editors and watchers are like me quite open to consider ideas with two articles, but all past such discussions have tended to fade away when policy and sourcing concerns came up for discussion. User:Krakkos feel free to post any constructive ideas on my talk page perhaps while we are giving others a chance to absorb.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug! –Austronesier (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster - There is no secret plan. I have since the beginning openly expressed my dissatisfaction with the change of topic you performed in April 2019. This is because it has yet to be backed up by sources and because i consider it a fringe and ambiguous definition of the topic. Germani was created because i consider it a distinct and notable subject akin to Gaut and Theodiscus. You're idea of having two articles is intriguing. Florian Blaschke has now come forward with a similar suggested solution at my talk page. You, and everyone else interested, are more than welcome to participate in the discussion. Krakkos (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If there is/was no plan then suddenly deleting much of the article and creating a new article with the same topic, are very questionable acts. There was also the strange RFC launched by you at the same time with no reference to any other actions. The idea of having two articles, just to be clear, comes from actions you already took: you made two articles already, supposedly with no plan?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see any concrete proposals on your talk page, though if that discussion leads to concrete proposals that's great. But for now that discussion is being kept fuzzy. I should remark that Krakkos clearly does not see the lead or topic as "fringe", has never said that before and has shown that he knows it is not so. Also Krakkos made the new article based on the old one, as also shown by edsums which talk of moving material. The supposed concern about the sourcing of the opening line only started to be mentioned as a core issue not long before this talk page discussion. Krakkos needs to be more open and honest.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos has admitted that the new article has the same topic, for example here: . So the whole situation should be seen as a demand that the article topic is wrong. But Krakkos has refused to come to a point, and make a proposal for how to change without creating highly overlapping articles. Instead the frantic insertion of pointy footnotes and tags in the lead began, and the new talk page sections demanding that I answer important questions. Long term editors of the article such as User:Obenritter have always tended to argue against such a split also, so it is clear that making a good clear honest proposal is THE thing needed. This discussion perhaps shows it best.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please, start dispute resolution. There's been too much discussion now, WP:TLDR, while I don't doubt the good intentions of both of you. A volunteer may be able to help you out here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan that sounds fine but what kind of dispute resolution do you propose in concrete? The case is unusual in my opinion. Krakkos simply seems to like making massive controversial and un-thought-through changes without prediscussion. On my side I am not really pushing any particular result, but I can see Krakkos is working without plan or agreement - as always. Krakkos also refuses to propose any plan of action to check with others, which is the obvious way forward. Normally in such cases you can say please stop editing until you make a clear proposal and get some feedback. Krakkos won't (and I think can't) make a detailed practical proposal. (Have a look at the strange RFC which was in a sense apparently supposed to be playing that role.) Krakkos has had a long history of similar complaints and even at least one block, but I see no obvious sign that Krakkos cares/understands about this pattern of feedback from the community. (Examples starting with first archived talk page discussion , , ) So I am not sure what the best approach is. Honestly I have to say I think there is a competence issue here, not necessarily bad intentions. I believe it might be the first time I've said this about an editor after many years editing. It would be great to be proved wrong of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Just quickly: WP:DRN is for content disputes only (according to the instructions). The highest priority question for Germanic peoples is the Merge proposal, for the new mirror article Germani. But then the talk pages were swamped, with dumb stuff. So for me it is not really a content dispute, at least concerning the most urgent matter, or is DRN suitable for this type of discussion? Anyway, can we address the Merge somehow to get it closed soon without controversy? Vote is currently 2 versus 4 in favor of Merging.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Update only. Krakkos has turned Germani back into a redirect, so the most awkward "urgent" problem is gone. We have time to keep working on the future of the old article (still frozen, which is appropriate I think). Wider range of feedback today from other editors also, and I have started a draft page for a new lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster continues to edit war

@Fram: - Last week Andrew Lancaster flagrantly broke the 3RR rule, and received a warning (i received one too). The article Germani was subsequently protected. Andrew Lancaster then resumed edit warring at Germanic peoples. Dougweller then protected Germanic peoples, and warned Andrew Lancaster (and me) that additional edit warring might result in a block. Today i spent some time cleaning up the article Germania, while adding additional sources and content. Andrew Lancaster has now followed me to the Germania article, and resumed edit warring by reverting the key content that i added. Krakkos (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Islamic Eschatology

Hello Doug,

My additions to the Islamic eschatology page are not unfounded. Also, I received this:

Discretionary sanctions notice for post-1932 American politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict Commons-emblem-notice.svg This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Commons-emblem-notice.svg This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

In my recollection, I do not recall editing any pages that have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict or American Politics. So I am confused by this. If sanctions are imposed on my editing they are completely unwarranted considering I have added is at all irrelevant or inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Answered on editor's talk page, the article is Clarion Project. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Russian fascists and others

Hello, days ago I made some edits that were reverted on Category:Russian fascists, and other categories, and also on the Anti-capitalism article, my edits were considered disruptive. I asked the user who reverted why that is the case, and he said I can refer to the reasons they were previously reverted by you, so I just came here to ask, what exactly is wrong with those edits? -- 177.159.25.172 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hard to be sure as you aren't pointing to specific edits and of course your IP hasn't edited anything but this page, but I'm guessing this which looking at the category would make Khrushchev and Gorbachev fascists. There's clearly no consensus for this and it appears to be original research which we don't allow. Doug Weller talk

Well it isn't original research, Fascism was opposed to both Capitalism and Communism, and presented itself as an alternative to both, this was a core tenet of Fascist ideology, and it isn't hard to find information about this at all, even on Misplaced Pages's articles related to Fascism you can easily find sources about this, I don't know how you got the idea that I was calling Gorbachev or Khruschev, or any other Communist a Fascist though, I simply added the category because, since there was a specific category for Russian anti-capitalists, and given that Category:Russian communists was added as a subcategory to it, I thought it would be appropriate to add Russian fascists as a subcategory for it as well, sorry for this misunderstanding though. -- 177.159.25.172 (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI thread

You appear not to have been notified, despite being named in this ANI thread. I suspect you may want to respond: 86.134.74.102 (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Message to two good editors

Could you and @Drmies: perhaps have a look at this article? As a non-logging editor, I am hesitant to do the sorts of bold edits that I had historically, and so call attention regarding the very major issues to you both. At the article Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys, the lead is largely unsourced material, and the opening 2 sections, the second a very long one (Production), are completely devoid of supporting citations—not a one, over 8 paragraphs and 4000 characters. The sections that follow fare only a little better, with 10-20% of content sourced in some sections following. I personally feel that such gross tracts that violate WP:OR and WP:VERIFY should simply be removed. But it takes a consensus of logging editors to accomplish this, so I leave it with you. Cheers. 204.62.118.241 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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