This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jgriffy98 (talk | contribs) at 02:24, 6 June 2019 (→Bias and Misinformation on The Exodus Article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:24, 6 June 2019 by Jgriffy98 (talk | contribs) (→Bias and Misinformation on The Exodus Article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)The current date and time is 12 January 2025 T 12:44 UTC. 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.
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| home |
Talk Page |
Workshop |
Site Map |
Userboxes |
Edits |
Email |
|
Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first... |
Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, or I'm slow to reply, feel free to approach me here.
| Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Misplaced Pages. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia. If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click here to start a new topic.
|
| First, please remember that I am not trying to attack you, demean you, or hurt you in any way. I am only trying to protect the integrity of this project. If I did something wrong, let me know, but remember that I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please keep your comments civil. If you vandalize this page or swear at me, you will not only decrease the likelihood of a response, your edits could get you blocked. (see WP:NPA) When posting, do not assume I know which article you are talking about. If you leave a message saying "Why did you revert me?", I will not know what you mean. If you want a response consisting of something other than "What are you talking about", please include links and, if possible, diffs in your message. At the very least, mention the name of the article or user you are concerned with. If you are blocked from editing, you cannot post here, but your talk page is most likely open for you to edit. To request a review of your block, add Administrators: If you see me do something that you think is wrong, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo my actions. I would, however, appreciate it if you let me know what I did wrong, so that I can avoid doing it in the future. |
User talk:103.93.201.2
My Dear Sir, i am praying you the God of the Deo Sun Temple article Write and update articles because I do not know much English. So please update on Misplaced Pages Deo Sun Temple By updating article by yourself, which will make us very happy. please i am personally requesting you please it is my really really Best sun temple and famous temple in world.
Hi Doug Weller
Sorry, on the page "Mica Jovanovic", you misunderstood the correction and were probably not informed about the regulations. Equivalent means just "equivalent" but it does not mean to have a power to be used in a foreign country without original qualification. Would you please examine my comment below, consider putting back my changes and remove your warning addressed to me. One of the "Professors" was senior lecturer in UK. Radeljic was Senior lecturer in UK. The other were not, but they also claimed to be "Professors". Yet even if some title may be equivalent, this does not mean it could be used publically in other country and the law forbids to use the titles that are not recognised by some official body (University or similar) of the country where they are used. For example, in Germany:
Using foreign university degrees, titles, or positions in Berlin is regulated in Sec. 34a of the Berlin Higher Education Act (Berliner Hochschulgesetz, BerlHG). It is prohibited to use a degree, title, or position in a way that deviates from the provisions in Sec. 34a BerlHG and can even have criminal consequences (Sec. 132a German Criminal Code, StGB). University degrees and titles that were purchased may not be used. According to Sec. 34a(1) BerlHG, a foreign university degree, title, or position may be used regularly • only in the original form, that is, precisely the form in which it was awarded, • with the inclusion of the university that awarded the degree (known as the “origin information”). Reference: Senatskanzlei Berlin, Berliner Rathaus, Jüdenstr. 1, 10178 Berlin: https://www.berlin.de/sen/wissenschaft/en/university-studies/artikel.711552.en.php
In EU the rules are similar: "If your profession is regulated in the EU country where you want to practice, you may need to apply to get your professional qualification recognized there." (reference: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/professional-qualifications/regulated-professions/index_en.htm)Sorbonneparis (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Sorbonneparis: I don't have time tonight to respond. It would be useful if you showed me where they "falsely" claimed to be professors. In any case Misplaced Pages cannot say that any of "the claims against Jovanović were probably false. In addition, they were made by the researchers who falsely presented themselves as "Professors", while they were lecturers or senior lecturers in UK (Uglješa Grušić, Branislav Radeljic, Marko Milanovic). Pavlovic also demonstrated that the analysis of the procedure involved, was unprofessional and did not demonstrate misconduct of Jovanovic." in its own voice. I don't know what qualifies Pavlovic to even make such comments, but these are very serious allegations and we must have much more than a paper on Research.Gate to represent Pavlovic. I'm speaking as someone with over 200,000 edits here and . Doug Weller talk 19:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I think that I gave enough proofs that the text that I proposed should be accepted. It is hard to understand your method and the reasons behind your resistance to accept the text that I proposed. Here below are other elements that will help you make your decision.
I give below the citations and the links to the sources where the mentioned authors were falsely represented as "professors". As you can see, sometimes the British title was also given, which was correct, but stating the Serbian "equivalent" was false; it should have been stated that this is not the title but the eavivalent. In the Serbian press the British title was always ignored and the title misrepresented; and the authors never presented a correction. There were hundreds of such misrepresentations in the Serbian press. On the contrary, Mica Jovanovic mentioned just one single time that he defended PhD at LSE and did not claim that he obtained a diploma! Yet he was attacked for misrepresenting his qualifications. (see in the book "Ethics of scientific texts"). AUTHORS misrepresentations (examples): "Autori: dr Uglješa Grušić (docent / lecturer, Univerzitet u Notingemu), dr Branislav Radeljić (vanredni profesor / senior lecturer, Univerzitet Istočni London) i Slobodan Tomić (doktorand, Londonska škola ekonomije i političkih nauka)" IN: https://pescanik.net/kako-do-doktorata-lako-slucaj-ministra-stefanovica/
"By Dr Uglješa Grušić (lecturer, University of Nottingham), Dr Branislav Radeljić (senior lecturer, University of East London) and Slobodan Tomić (PhD candidate, London School of Economics and Political Science)" IN: https://pescanik.net/getting-a-phd-in-serbia-the-case-of-minister-stefanovic/
"Dr Marko Milanović is a lecturer (and from August this year associate professor) at the University of Nottingham School of Law. Peščanik.net, 07.06.2014."
In fact it is stated in Serbian also: Dr Marko Milanović je docent (a od avgusta ove godine vanredni profesor) na Pravnom fakultetu Univerziteta u Notingemu. IN: https://pescanik.net/rector-mica-baron-von-munchhausen-or-how-the-ministers-supervisor-misplaced-his-own-doctorate/ "Autor je vanredni profesor Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Notingemu." Peščanik.net, 27.12.2016." https://pescanik.net/lazni-doktorati-u-tihom-mulju/ ____________________________________________________
Who is DR: PAVLOVIC: Dr. Pavlovic is apparently a scientist with considerable reputation: https://dal.academia.edu/DraganPavlovic His CV and publications may be seen here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303370465_CV-Doctoral_students-List_of_Publications or here: https://www.academia.edu/5284534/My_links_my_CV_my_homepage_DIALOGUE_homepage or here https://www.academia.edu/23804137/Nasilje_nad_Filozofijom_autori_D._Pavlovi%C4%87_i_S._%C5%BDunji%C4%87_-_Full_text_PDF_from_2016_in_Serbian
The mentioned book "Ethics of scientific text" is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297739842_Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_the_first_chapter_in_English Or here: https://www.academia.edu/23129099/Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_First_chapter_in_English
Or at Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Etika-naucnog-teksta-Dragan-Pavlovic/dp/8653101861
Finally, the claim that Mica Jovanovic left Serbia is just false. He is in Serbia, rector of Megatrend university that is the second best private university in Serbia at this time!! Sorbonneparis (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- User:Sorbonneparis I think this needs to be discussed at our BLP noticeboard, would you like to just copy this to WP:BLPN? Doug Weller talk 15:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Fine I did this
But: My intervention is based on Dr. Pavlovic book Ethics of scientific text: https://www.amazon.com/Etika-naucnog-teksta-Dragan-Pavlovic/dp/8653101861 It appears that Dr. Pavlovic is serious scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lpBAhP0AAAAJ&hl=en
What concerns your argument, let me repeat: The article on Misplaced Pages only describes and does not make any particular claim about truth or falsehood of the exposed facts. Some facts are "against" Mica Jovanovic (main article), the other facts are in defence of Mica Jovanovic (addition of mine). The first claims seem to me to be false (and as such may be defamatory) since Mr. Jovanovic was accused of misrepresentation - to have claimed to possess a PhD from LSE. Apparently he did not claim this at all (as Pavlovic demonstrated) but only to have defended a thesis at LSE (odbranio je = defended it, see below). This was also stated by the Professor Wood who was even cited in the accusatory article! http://www.istinomer.rs/stav/analize/ovako-je-govorio-mica-jovanovic/
The second claim seems to me to be right, because the accusatory(s) of Mr. Jovanovic falsely represented their titles in Serbia. Their titles could have been equivalent to the claimed titles in Serbia, but they were not officially recognised as such, so they formally misrepresented their titles in Serbia (see above). Professor Wood claims that Dr. M. Jovanovic presented his thesis (see below).( Most probably he was demanded to introduce some amendments - I guess).
Therefore the accusations were in fact not stating the trut so they were potentially difamatory. My citing the claims of Dr. Pavlovic are neutral, but the claims of Dr. Pavlovic are obviously true (the British Doctors obviously misrepresented their titles in Serbia). I would be grateful if you would examine the case again, remove warning on my TALK and put back my text in the article on Mica Jovanovic. You may remove this comment of course.Sorbonneparis (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Strange article
I don't know how much interest you have in languages, but I was led through an edit on Taino to Modern Eyeri, which appears to be a modern attempt to revive Kalinga. The sourcing in the article bothers me. Most of the references seem to be to books on the history of the Taino with no connection to any modern revival of a language, but some references are to off-line books in Spanish and French, which I don't have access to. I did remove one reference to a Misplaced Pages article, which, as it happens, doesn't mention Eyeri. I am uncomfortable with my inability to verify the contents. I have asked about this over at Wikiproject Languages, but I don't know if anyone there can help. It does look like it is connected to the modern Taino survival/revival movement. So, if you have time and the interest, I would be interested in what you think. - Donald Albury 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Donald Albury: I don't have a lot of interest or expertise in languages I'm afraid, sorry. And right now I'm struggling to understand the complaint above! Doug Weller talk 14:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, anyway. - Donald Albury 17:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think User:Kwamikagami would be a good bet for languages. I also saw the recent language problem mentioned above and was wondering about it. Heiro 15:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a single source for the claim of a "Modern Eyeri" language. All the refs are for peripheral info that duplicates other articles. I suspect that this is either a hoax, wishful thinking or bullshit (in the formal sense of saying whatever sounds good with disregard for whether it has any connection to reality). Perhaps someone has claimed to have revived it, but a personal project or a cultural club is not a language. I'm going to rd it to Igneri. I suggest the rd should probably be deleted, unless there's some evidence I've overlooked that it actually exists? — kwami (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami: Per this blog/forum post, it looks like a personal project, which I elsewhere called an "invented language". Thanks for dealing with that, and apologies to Doug for taking up space on his talk page. - Donald Albury 11:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Donald Albury: not a problem, and thanks to Kwamikagami. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The writer of that article made edits on similar topics elsewhere, some of which seem legit, some not, and some I can't tell. (Like claiming Colin Powell is Arawakan, again with no ref, at Yamaye.) I wonder whether the 'inventor' of the language speaks Garifuna, or if it's just based on dictionaries. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- The claim seems to be that he spent years learning Garifuna, but there is no indication he lived with them. I cannot find any other mention in Google of the either the inventor or the man he learned Garifuna from. It looks like a pretty obscure corner of the Arawakan revival. - Donald Albury 23:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2019
- From the editors: Picture that
- News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections
- In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball
- Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages
- Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead
- Technology report: Lots of Bots
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Misplaced Pages in Turkey
- Essay: Paid editing
- From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
RevisionDelete requests
Hi, as you are in the CAT:REVDEL I wonder if you could hide this edit summary. Having lost two family members to Alzheimer's, the assumptions in the edit are not only completely wrong, but I find them personally very hurtful. Also, the edit summary accuses me of edit warring, which is not true. Thanks for your help - Epinoia (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Epinoia: I sympathise entirely but I don't see it was falling under the criteria at WP:CFRD, even the second one. It's a potentially reasonable argument and the accusation against you would definitely not qualify. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- - ok, thanks - Epinoia (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Clean start
Just a note, in case it's important, I noticed edits at Trump derangement syndrome that I think are from the editor who was involved here. Unsure if a proper cleanstart or not, etc... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Pakistan supporting ISIS
Search this link in google
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QVM1FHzamSg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eUxKaia1YIA&t=1008s
Black tusk division (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Predatory publishers
Hi, I recall you having familiarity with issues relating to predatory publishers. There are some at Wilfred Reilly. What is the procedure for handling them? Please note that the article has been raised at BLPN by me and an anon (separate sections) and that there is some stuff on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Bias and Misinformation on The Exodus Article
@Doug Weller: Allow me to restate my concern for The Exodus article and its sourcing. There is a claim, which is frequently repeated throughout the article, that there is a "universal consensus" among scholars that The Exodus story is purely mythological and has no historical basis. The citations given for that claim are very misleading. In the sources themselves, the authors make the claim that there is a consensus on the matter, but do not cite any evidence to back that claim. The response I have been getting is "Well, if they are a scholar, that means all of their claims should be taken at face-value. Intelligent scholars have no reason to actually do research and cite scientific surveys or polls. Their word is Gospel. We should just believe everything they say." There are many Biblical scholars and historians who believe that The Exodus may have actually occurred in real life. If I were to cite a paper by a religious scholar that says "All smart people agree that God exists. All scholars agree that Christianity is the one true religion", that would immediately be taken down. Citing such an article would draw a lot of criticism from other Misplaced Pages editors, especially from the more anti-theistic types. Jgriffy98 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
My point is that it's entirely possible for some scholarly sources to be biased. Just like there are many religious scholars who have published biased works that favor Christianity, there are anti-theistic scholars who have published biased works that favor atheism and secularism. Do you see why calling a source reliable just because it was written by a person of authority does not necessarily mean that it's a good source? Jgriffy98 (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The claim being made is that there is a "universal consensus" among scholars on The Exodus. That being said, Misplaced Pages defines "reliable sources" very differently from how the academic community defines it. The response I have been receiving is "Misplaced Pages says it's okay to cite biased sources, as long as they were written by smart people. We have to obey the flawed definition of 'reliable source' that Misplaced Pages gives us." Jgriffy98 (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
"Same reason as before, we don't expect surveys, etc. although we could attribute it"
I don't really care what "we" thinks. I am not obligated to follow the rules that "we" decides upon. You are citing misinformation. You are citing an unreliable source. Misplaced Pages's policy that these qualify as reliable sources is factually incorrect. Please stop citing misinformation and pushing an ideological narrative. Again, Misplaced Pages's standard for what constitutes a "reliable source" is incorrect, and it only serves to mislead people who visit the website. It is not right for you to justify the spread of misinformation with an incorrect notion of what constitutes truth, just because of a bogus policy guideline that is only in place to be used as a pathetic justification. I find it very ironic that you are citing sources from the academic community (which you claim to be "reliable"), but are using a completely different definition for "truth" and "reliability" than the academic community uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgriffy98 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jgriffy98: You have to obey our WP:RULES, like any other Misplaced Pages editor. You have assented to follow our rules by assenting to the Terms of Use. So your choice is: obey our WP:RULES or get blocked and eventually banned. I am telling it as it is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Let's stick to one page to have a discussion. This one will do. Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jgriffy98: You have to obey the rules of Misplaced Pages because Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTFREESPEECH, it is the private property of Wikimedia Foundation and the community decides what is allowed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Do you work for Misplaced Pages? Why are you spreading misinformation and anti-religious narratives? Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jgriffy98: We are biased for WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. We try to tell it as Ivy Plus tells it. That's all. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why are you dodging me? I have raised several concerns and have given you reasons for why the citations on the Exodus article are misleading. I have given you reasons why the article is biased in favor of an anti-religious narrative. Please address some of these criticisms and stop sending me policy guidelines. Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jgriffy98: That we are biased for Ivy Plus and WP:CHOPSY is not part of WP:PAGs, but it is a wisdom learned the hard way. The difference is that Ivy Plus keep people like you out of their faculties, or at least contained where their biblical literalism does no damage to science/scholarship. So, yes, it is true, we are quite biased for mainstream Bible scholars. As a fundamentalist said, "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go." Misplaced Pages does not pander to piety. Neither does that Ivy Plus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- You have completely demonstrated your idiocy and ignorance. Why do you continue to post in such a robotic and formal tone? You clearly are not very intelligent and have absolutely no interest in the truth, so please cut the act. You're not fooling anybody. You don't work for Misplaced Pages. You do not use facts. "People like you" That is such an ignorant statement to make. You don't even know if I'm religious or not. What you just said was nothing but straw men and ignorant assumptions about a person you don't even know. Where is your evidence that I am doing this out of "piety"? Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jgriffy98: For me truth is what WP:CHOPSY says it's true. As simple as that. If you are not an evangelical/fundamentalist, then you do your best to sound like one. Since that's generally the people who object that Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEUTRAL in respect to religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- C'mon, Jgriffy98 and Tgeorgescu, I'm pretty sure that Doug Weller would not appreciate a fight breaking out on his talk page before he has had a chance to address Jgriffy98's initial query. Can you retreat to opposing corners until he has returned and is able to respond to all of this? Remember, comment on the contribution, not the contributors. And cool it with the personal attacks. Liz 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu: I am not an evangelical/fundamentalist, and do not appreciate being called out as one. Saying things like "Ivy Plus keep people like you out of their faculties" displays an extremely high level of ignorance. I have not said a single thing that would imply that I have a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, or any other holy books. I would very much be interested in discussing why I think the citations on the Exodus article are misleading. There has been a lot of ad hominem thrown around, but we should proceed with a little more civility. Jgriffy98 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- C'mon, Jgriffy98 and Tgeorgescu, I'm pretty sure that Doug Weller would not appreciate a fight breaking out on his talk page before he has had a chance to address Jgriffy98's initial query. Can you retreat to opposing corners until he has returned and is able to respond to all of this? Remember, comment on the contribution, not the contributors. And cool it with the personal attacks. Liz 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jgriffy98: For me truth is what WP:CHOPSY says it's true. As simple as that. If you are not an evangelical/fundamentalist, then you do your best to sound like one. Since that's generally the people who object that Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEUTRAL in respect to religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)