Reverted 2 edits by Saifullah.vguj (talk): Please use preview to see how your edits come out before publishing. You're telling Doug Weller he has been blocked. Ridiculous. |
→User 021120x: new section |
||
Line 110:
#ad3737;">N</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:PruneCron|talk]]</sup> 15:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
:{{re|PruneCron}} I'll have to look again tomorrow, I certainly some some mentions. They held a meeting with the [[National Alliance]][https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/mark-weber] and that was mentioned in one. Also[https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/legal-and-political-magazines/institute-historical-review][https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lTOhDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA152&dq=%22Institute+for+Historical+review%22.++neo-Nazi+organizations.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFqLOMlajsAhVfaRUIHR0OCmsQ6AEwAHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Institute%20for%20Historical%20review%22.%20%20neo-Nazi%20organizations.&f=false][https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=T4LQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA162&dq=%22Institute+for+Historical+review%22.++neo-Nazi+organizations.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFqLOMlajsAhVfaRUIHR0OCmsQ6AEwAnoECBMQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Institute%20for%20Historical%20review%22.%20%20neo-Nazi%20organizations.&f=false] Another source on a slightly separate issue that could be used for the article is [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hZJU6wJvJBIC&pg=PA92&dq=%22Institute+for+Historical+review%22.++neo-Nazi+organizations.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFqLOMlajsAhVfaRUIHR0OCmsQ6AEwBHoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Institute%20for%20Historical%20review%22.%20%20neo-Nazi%20organizations.&f=false this]. If you want to discuss further, please use the article talk page. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
== User 021120x ==
I've noticed your comment on the ANI raised by this individual, and you also appear on his Talkpage; I don't think he knows what 'ad hominem' means :)
Just advice really; I'm confident the ANI has no merit and he's simply unused to not being able to bully people. He's now provided an 'explanation' which (after I'd managed to decipher it) is a pretty simple lie - should I just leave it? I don't want to make life more complicated for the administrator handling this, so is it best to just let it take its course? [[User:Robinvp11|Robinvp11]] ([[User talk:Robinvp11|talk]]) 18:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 18:25, 10 October 2020
The current date and time is 17 June 2024 T 05:42 UTC.
Discretionary sanctions alerts
|
---|
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.
Site Map |
Edits |
Email | ||||
Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia. If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click 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, , 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. |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Paul Staines
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.
Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.
We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
- Overall winner
- 1st - $500
- 2nd - $200
- 3rd - $100
- Diversity winner - $100
- Gender-gap fillers - $100
- Language Winners - up to $100*
We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
Can I report a single-purpose account to WP:ANI?
- Special:Contributions/Eastontraveler
All of this user's edits are just on Talk:Tajiks from 15 to 26 June. He/She was inactive for 3 months. Then just appeared on 4 October again. How we should deal with him/her? Zero contributions to other articles/namespaces. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Wario-Man: I don't think so - they do seem to be discussing the article. Or have I missed something? They've had no warnings either. Unusual, yes. Blockable? I don't see it yet. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's unusual without a doubt and looks very trollish in my opinion. It's better to read his opened section again; both his comments and other users' replies. Why is a so-called tourist obsessed with an ethnic group? What kind of tourist comes to WP and spams a talk page with racial and genetic stuff?! What kind of normal user edits only one specific talk page?! I sense nationalistic agenda/quest in this case. Also There is a chance that he may be just another sock account of Tirgil34 or WorldCreaterFighter. Me and other involved users don't feed that guy anymore. And he has become active just because of a comment by a problematic user.[1] --Wario-Man (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Wario-Man: go ahead and go to ANI, post the link on the article talk page as well as notifying him. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Wario-Man: If I may be so bold as a lurking stalker of Doug's talk page because he is such a fascinating subject to follow, I see your point about the editor in question being disruptive. I so wanted to interject into the conversation that we don't claim that modern American's originated from Mongolia because 30,000 years ago a group crossed the Bering Strait land bridge. We don't even claim that within the American Indian community. American's have a wide diversity of ethnic origins yet the origins of America are largely attributed to European (British, Spanish, French) and American Indian beginnings because those were the predominant forces present when the history was written. Other races came later and some are included because of their in-depth contribution to the country, historically, but not all.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tsistunagiska: The point is genetics and DNA do not determine identity and culture of an ethnic group or a specific groups. That user tries to add Mongolian or whatever to the essential parts of the article just because Tajiks have East Eurasian admixture. Modern Tajiks and their ancient/medieval ancestors have nothing to do with Mongols. It's like forcing someone to identify as Black just because he/she has some Sub-Saharan Africans admixture. Or many other similar cases. I will report that user if he tries to disrupt the article itself. Hey @Doug Weller: Last question and the end of discussion: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account is just an essay and I don't know what policy/rule is the best for reporting a case like this. Your advice? Thanks! --Wario-Man (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Wario-Man: If I may be so bold as a lurking stalker of Doug's talk page because he is such a fascinating subject to follow, I see your point about the editor in question being disruptive. I so wanted to interject into the conversation that we don't claim that modern American's originated from Mongolia because 30,000 years ago a group crossed the Bering Strait land bridge. We don't even claim that within the American Indian community. American's have a wide diversity of ethnic origins yet the origins of America are largely attributed to European (British, Spanish, French) and American Indian beginnings because those were the predominant forces present when the history was written. Other races came later and some are included because of their in-depth contribution to the country, historically, but not all.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Wario-Man: go ahead and go to ANI, post the link on the article talk page as well as notifying him. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's unusual without a doubt and looks very trollish in my opinion. It's better to read his opened section again; both his comments and other users' replies. Why is a so-called tourist obsessed with an ethnic group? What kind of tourist comes to WP and spams a talk page with racial and genetic stuff?! What kind of normal user edits only one specific talk page?! I sense nationalistic agenda/quest in this case. Also There is a chance that he may be just another sock account of Tirgil34 or WorldCreaterFighter. Me and other involved users don't feed that guy anymore. And he has become active just because of a comment by a problematic user.[1] --Wario-Man (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
West Eurasians
Hi, I am returning to Wikipedia after a couple of months of distancing from it. I have noticed that the entirety of the article I had written on West Eurasians was deleted by user Rsk6400 after what appears to be an inherent tirade against the information exposed there. While I personally perceive this enaction as vandalism and POV editing. He made some arguments that I would like to inquire about, as they don't seem entirely unjust to me.
1.Most of editing, or in other words his main argument, is that genetic studies of ANY KIND do not represent valid sources to be used in Wikipedia at all, given that they are "primary sources" rather than "secondary sources". Now, I understand why in some fields this distinction is very important, but population genetics in general is a natural science field with a high degree of replicability and there are many, many Wikipedia articles written exclusively, or almost entirely, using papers on genetic studies which are published on journals and peer reviewed (secondary sources, yes?). These papers have mentions and are part of a non-contradicting scholarly canon. Wikipedia's guidelines themselves specify that primary sources might be proper sources under some cases and perfectly usable, and doesn't outright describe primary sources as non-valid, but rather that they should exist in assistance of secondary sources, which the article did have. What would be the best way to approach this directive to de-legitimize these sources or what can be done around it?
2.He deleted enormous chunks of the article based of "no long form of source given", even for what were direct textual quotes. I understand that a non-long quote provided isn't a valid reason to delete it, but he did nonetheless over actually helping the article by adding the sensible quote himself. This to me appears to be entirely destructive in nature and born out of bad will over a true intent to elevate the standard of Wikipedia.
3. As soon as this user found the article, he added extremely arbitrary maintenance tags, particularly describing the concept of West Eurasian as "fringe", and "not based on enough reliable sources". What's the users authority to enforce these tags, specially without any kind of supported consensus? Isn't over 30 different studies on the field enough to validate an article? Ive seen featured articles with a lesser number of quotations (not that it makes them bad articles). What's up with such arbitrary manipulation of the guidelines? He also called the terminology of West Eurasian itself fringe, despite dozens of studies textually describing it or its alternative "Western Eurasian".
5. One of the more bothersome ones is his obtuse enforcement of "academic consistency". For example when quoting different studies which are talking about the same exact remains (for example, MA1), he deletes the quotations due to them applying different nomenclature despite being about the same exact subject and with the same exact conclusions (i.e being called ancient north eurasian in one and "siberian hunter gatherer" in another). Is this a valid practice? And, how would one be able to circumvent it?
4. The chart I utilized at first that was produced by Lazaridis was referred as non-primary and I agree. I provided a similar chart from another actually published study but he deleted it by referring to it as "similar to the previously used one", how is this valid at all? The image was ultimately deleted as it was directly taken from the study, but were I to replicate it and reference to it what would stop him from applied this logic again?
This user's motivations appear to me to be based around his dislike towards racism 19th century academic racism which he adamantly professes on his Wikipedia page. While I understand the motivations and everyone is free to produce contributions (in this case, destructive and possibly vandalic ones) based around personal interests and biases, whats the point at which POV starts being enforced at a meta-literary level. Because what it appears to me is that in an attempt to sanitize Wikipedia from such (possibly) dangerous concepts, he goes to the extent of deleting anything that even partially resembles it over a very specific worldview and system of beliefs this new information conflicts with.
I obviously would like my article reinstated, but I feel it would be best to know how to address these concerns in order to have a robust position. In case we would be able to reach a conclusion, this user seems to be engrossed nontheless with the aforementioned fields and constantly edits them to their liking. While I don't mind him contributing to his field of "expertise", is there any way to inhibit people like this from "contributing" to axiomatically different fields which are based around more robust bodies of data?. Ever since he deleted the article he has been editing several other ones on archaeogenetics applying the same exact methodologies. He is ruining them with his enforcement biases. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Bathtub Barracuda: I remember carefully looking into each statement before deleting it and giving an explanatory edit summary for each of my many edits, explaining major concerns on the talk page. WP guidelines don't allow presenting fringe theories as mainstream science, and that's the motivation behind many of my edits. Doug, if you have any specific concerns, I'll be glad to answer. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would appreciate you not lying or at least addressing the points made directly, I checked unicode character by unicode character in order to give yo the benefit of the doubt, deleting entire pharagraphs due to typos, deleting intermediate statements made with the purpose of connecting two different sources into a single paragraph, enforcing completely arbitrary standards such as "to justify the inclusion of these and the exclusion of others we'd need a secondary source". Who gave you the authority to make such outlandish claim and delete 40% of the entire article on a whim? You didn't use the talk section at all to even attempt to mediate these changes instead just took an entire two days of campaigning to do whatever you wanted with the article, its all there on the edit logs and the talk section where you explicitly describe the article as a "scientific racism" agenda, and lastly on "I wasn't able to find the term West Eurasian". Its not my fault you cannot properly utilize the quotation system or are lacking in investigative methods, Western Eurasian or West Eurasian has been consistently utilized since at least 2013, several articles such as this one [1]. Either address the points directly, or dont bother replying to me at all, thanks.
- And to anyone even willing to mediate this, is it enough reasonable evidence of POV to introduce oneself into an article being tirelessly abrassive, then proceeding to nuke the entirety of it?. It should be duly noted. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Trevor Loudon
Do you think Trevor Loudon is notable? Google shows only two pages of hits, the sources are either affiliated or namechecks, and his books are self-published. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: yes, I'm afraid there are enough reliable sources actually discussing him, eg[2] which isn't used. But I'd remove the Glen Beck stuff as 2 cites to Beck aren't discussion in reliable sources of his participation, which is what we need. And the personal life section. Also probably material sourced to the National Observer about what he claimed. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Look how often he's used as a source[3] which includes at least one book of his in Bibliography of Barack Obama The Jeff Rense book is also self-published by his co-author.[4][5] Doug Weller talk 14:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, also several from Regnery. As with the news, the right have erected a parallel ecosystem where hatred and opinion masquerade as fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG I saw those but didn't mention them as I'm not sure we can remove them. I think the others can go. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, also several from Regnery. As with the news, the right have erected a parallel ecosystem where hatred and opinion masquerade as fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Look how often he's used as a source[3] which includes at least one book of his in Bibliography of Barack Obama The Jeff Rense book is also self-published by his co-author.[4][5] Doug Weller talk 14:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Basmala
I assume you dont know how to read the arabic calligraphy otherwise you would have kept the same word as it is Saifullah.vguj (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Saifullah.vguj: Observations from a talk page stalker: I am assuming good faith despite your past issues with vandalism of articles. You should listen to the other editors and get a consensus on the articles talk page before making the changes you want to make as it has been requested.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tsistunagiska: Well while being a stalker do you think you should edit? I dont think so Saifullah.vguj (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Saifullah.vguj: Talk page stalkers are helpful editors who watch other people's talk pages and help out. The advice is good. Use the talk page, show that you understand the article and the discussions above,, and show sources backing your argument. And learn to ping. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: I fixed it for him. Something tells me I won't get a thank you out of it but that's the perilous and edgy life of a talk page stalker. Meh, I thought it was good sound advice. I could have just said I didn't like the combative tone he was taking but I chose to be more casual this time, yuck, formalities and all that.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Saifullah.vguj: Talk page stalkers are helpful editors who watch other people's talk pages and help out. The advice is good. Use the talk page, show that you understand the article and the discussions above,, and show sources backing your argument. And learn to ping. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tsistunagiska: Well while being a stalker do you think you should edit? I dont think so Saifullah.vguj (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well the main source is arabic calligraphy itself which has two ل i.e.laam (pronounced L) so how english spelling turned into single L. Its like writing dog instead of doug. Hope it helps Saifullah.vguj (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Your recent revert (Institute for Historical Review)
Perhaps I missed it, but I checked all the linked sources and I couldn't find the source for this specific claim: "IHR . . . has links to neo-Nazi organizations." Would you mind pointing it out for me? PCRONtalk 15:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @PruneCron: I'll have to look again tomorrow, I certainly some some mentions. They held a meeting with the National Alliance[6] and that was mentioned in one. Also[7][8][9] Another source on a slightly separate issue that could be used for the article is this. If you want to discuss further, please use the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
User 021120x
I've noticed your comment on the ANI raised by this individual, and you also appear on his Talkpage; I don't think he knows what 'ad hominem' means :)
Just advice really; I'm confident the ANI has no merit and he's simply unused to not being able to bully people. He's now provided an 'explanation' which (after I'd managed to decipher it) is a pretty simple lie - should I just leave it? I don't want to make life more complicated for the administrator handling this, so is it best to just let it take its course? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)