The current date and time is 8 May 2016 T 11:32 UTC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
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.
Contents
- 1 University of Kansas "Ancient Central America" course assignment
- 2 Dwapara Yuga / Yoekteshwar
- 3 Re: Jesus - Section on alleged violence
- 4 The Signpost: 2 May 2016
- 5 Notice
- 6 RE: Political Correctness
- 7 Today's Angry IP Editors
- 8 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences
- 9 Allah as Moon-god
- 10 Question about the necessity to merge histories (and help, if required)
- 11 You've got mail
- 12 Regarding article List of unaccredited institutions of higher education
- 13 Please comment on Talk:Glossary of video game terms
- 14 Ramesses
- 15 Gary Cziko
- 16 London School of Business and Finance
University of Kansas "Ancient Central America" course assignment
This is just a heads-up to let you know that I'm once again having students create Wikipedia entries for a course this semester. I've posted the information for them here:
Dwapara Yuga / Yoekteshwar
Hi Doug, I'm Robert ( RobCZ ) and I think the last correction must have been five years ago on the particular year we are in according to this interpretation of Yoekteshwar. Swami Yoekteshwar wrote his Holy Science in 194 Dwapara ( 1894 ), thus currently we are in 316 Dwapara. Kind regards Robert, Amsterdam, Holland
Re: Jesus - Section on alleged violence
Hi Doug,
I would like to add the following section to the Wikipedia article 'Jesus'. It is, of course, a sensitive subject and what I would like to add will not be to the liking of the majority of readers, even though it is historically correct. The article is quite understandably auto-protected, so I may not be able to get pas that anyway. Do you, and other members on this talk page, think this addition will be warranted?
The Signpost: 2 May 2016
- In the media: Wikipedia Zero piracy in Bangladesh; bureaucracy; chilling effects; too few cooks; translation gaps
- Traffic report: Purple
- Featured content: The best... from the past two weeks
Notice
Hello. I wanted to bring to you attention that a few hours after you left the discretionary sanctions template on the 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes article, the user Abbatai had twice[1][2] tried to force a POV statement that had been on the talk after the POV wording had previously been removed. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Oatitonimly thanks, but he's only reverted twice. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
RE: Political Correctness
Hi Doug.
I wanted to ask about your reversion of my edit to the Political Correctness article. Your revision summary said that lewrockwell.com fails reliable resource criteria, but according to WP:IRS, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."
The context was describing a right-wing theory; the only sources that can reliably describe such theories will, naturally, be right-leaning. Yate's article was among the most comprehensive. If you insist upon a secondary reference of the article, then perhaps this will do: https://books.google.com/books?id=uVwrAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA504&lpg=PA504&dq=steve+yates+understanding+the+culture+war&source=bl&ots=PqLQnLFg_q&sig=9OXDeyMLd7VNugb1yHBIF3DSu5g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX2qLp-brMAhWD5iYKHc7mBF8Q6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=steve%20yates%20understanding%20the%20culture%20war&f=false If not that, then perhaps the article from the Hoover Institution of Stanford University by John Fonte to which Yates referred: http://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war
If that was your only objection, I would ask that you restore the edit. The unedited article contains very loaded language that runs quite counter to WP:NPOV, and I made every effort to produce valid citations for an even-handed edit that acknowledged all sides of the issue.
Thank you,
Ruusanyc Verd (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) We don't take only the views of adherents when describing them. A proper academic source can describe ideas without being adherents of those ideas. A site that has a clearly stated agenda besides "trying to present neutral information" would fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE (which discourages sources such as "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist"). LewRockwell.com has been found multiple times to not be a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_186#Lewrockwell.com, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#lewrockwell.com, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#LewRockwell.com for a few examples.
- The other sources you cite don't actually demonstrate that the conspiracy theory is more than that. It would be WP:OR to suggest that what you cited is an example of said conspiracy theorism, but that's the closest potential application in this instance. See WP:No original research. You need tertiary mainstream academic sources (i.e. sources that demonstrate the mainstream academic consensus) that pretty much counter the material in the article in order to get rid of the "conspiracy theory" description.
- If mainstream academic sources describe something as a conspiracy theory, WP:NPOV means that we can only follow. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- And Taylor's book doesn't mention political correctness. As for Yates,[3] sure some other right wing authors might mention him, but do they discuss political correctness? I see his last book on amazon.com, 11 years ago, is self-published, and he now seems to be doing mainly other work. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Of course we don't only take the views of adherents when describing them. There were already several other citations in place that ran an opposing view, and I did not remove them. But as for using only sources that purport to "present neutral information," I would point you to the above passage from WP:IRS. Presenting multiple opposing sources is considered legitimate.
-
-
-
- You're going to have to clarify your sentence, "It would be WP:OR to suggest that what you cited is an example of said conspiracy theorism, but that's the closest potential application in this instance." It sounds as if you're saying it would be WP:OR to suggest that my citations were conspiracy theorism - which would be agreeing with my edit - which you obviously do not.
-
-
-
- As for tertiary sources, certainly Fonte's article qualifies. He is clearly discussing the subject matter and the Hoover Institution offers no political agenda. If you want me to exchange Yate's for his, I am perfectly willing.Ruusanyc Verd (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- This really is an inappropriate place for this discussion as it should be decided on the article talk page as I wrote in my edit summary. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- As for tertiary sources, certainly Fonte's article qualifies. He is clearly discussing the subject matter and the Hoover Institution offers no political agenda. If you want me to exchange Yate's for his, I am perfectly willing.Ruusanyc Verd (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Today's Angry IP Editors
Diff:[4]. From the same sockdrawer as earlier? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Allah as Moon-god
Hey Doug :) It appears that a number of anonymous editors have been swinging the Allah as Moon-god article left right and center - straying far wide of a WP:NPOV. I thought I would just draw your attention to this and the fact I have recently had to revert the article to your last edit in order to clear up some clear bias and WP:VERIFY issues. Thanks again :) Olowe2011 Talk 16:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Olowe2011: Thank you. Probably easy enough to control, I should keep more of an eye on it. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Question about the necessity to merge histories (and help, if required)
Hello, Doug.
I've been unhappy for a while with this section: International Date Line#Judaism. Accordingly, I copied that section into my sandbox and rewrote it. My current version can be found here: User:StevenJ81/sandbox#International date line in halakha.
My feeling is that this is big enough to be an article on its own. (I would accordingly vastly shorten the section in the main article, hatnote it, etc.) But since I didn't start it on its own page, I can't easily copy the edit history involved. How important do you think that is? If it is, I can easily identify for you what edits are relevant; there are only two sequences of edits, albeit long sequences, involved.
Also, best to name new page "International date line in Judaism", "...in Jewish law", "... in halakha"?
Thanks for your advice/help. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- StevenJ81, I think that something on the talk page of the new article would probably be ok. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The section in the main article should be a short summary of the new, obviously. I like "International date line in Judaism" as giving more flexibility for content. But I don't like the lead. It seems to narrow the scope of the article and is essay like. I also don't like the last sentence as it gives readers advice. Have you thought of asking Wikiproject Judaism for advice? It's going to be rewritten anyway as that's what happens to articles, that could start now. You might want to submit it as a draft later also. I don't think I can be of much more help. If you think you do need to do more about the history, ask at WP:AN as there are Admins to who that sort of thing regularly, but I'm not one of them. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I've gotten some advice privately from some people already, but I can certainly open it up on the WikiProject.
- With respect to two specific comments of yours: (1) I'm guessing that what concerns you about the lead is that it focuses too much on the question of "How does this differ from the conventional IDL?" and doesn't suggest that anything else will be covered. Do I have that right? FWIW, as things stand now, that's just how the article is written. I was concerned that expanding too much more on technical halakhic issues of crossing the date line would turn this into even more of a halakhic discourse than it already is, and less of an encyclopedia article. I'll get advice from the WikiProject. But I do want to make sure I understand your concern. (2) The last sentence was meant to reflect the fact that source materials on the subject tend to strongly encourage people with such questions to study and ask authorities, not that I was doing so myself. I'll fix that, surely. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you can fix that. It was the first sentence of the lead that really didn't sit right with me. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding article List of unaccredited institutions of higher education
Hi Doug,
I'm contacting you as you seem to be a more experienced editor. I made an edit to the article mentioned above and this same editor keeps reverting the change. I had added this reference to the institution Atlantic Internation University
Has Accreditation by ASIC Accreditation Service for International Colleges , an accreditation agency recognized by the US Council for Higher Education Accreditation based in the UK.[1][2] However, this institution is not accredited by an agency recognized by the US[3]
I saw that other institutions on that list have notes explaining their non-accredited status, so why is this institution being inferior to the other institutions that have notes on this list? The same user keeps reverting it. I don't want to accuse an editor of being non-nuetral or having some sort of personal vendetta against this specific institution. Can you please add this note to the Atlantic International University? Further, please see the last 4 edits on this page. This would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully this editor will not revert your edit as you are an experience editor.
Thank you so much LRappaport (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
ASIC seems pretty useless as an international accreditation agency as it seems to be a family business but obviously much more august bodies say otherwise. You really need to discuss this on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Please comment on Talk:Glossary of video game terms
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Glossary of video game terms. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Ramesses
I am very curious - why did you undo my edit to the Ramesses page under the headline regarding his legacy? It has been proven that his DNA exists in millions of Africans in East, Cental and Southern Africa today, right now, this very minute. Isn't that a part of Ramesses the Second's legacy?
- (stalker comment) No, not if the sources are correctly used. See Doug's comments in the article's editing history, at Talk:Ramesses III#Genetics, and at Talk:Ramesses III#haplogroup predominantly found in Sub-Saharan Africa, - original research. The claim amounts to WP:OR, as far as I can tell. Editors can't use sources to deduce, draw conclusions or make generalisations not claimed by the sources themselves. Haploidavey (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Looks like we may all be descendants of him and anyone whose family line wasn't cut off.[5] So no, not part of his legacy. And Haploidavey is correct. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Gary Cziko
Hi Doug Weller. In my rewriting of the Gary Cziko article I've become very confused as to the issues/concerns brought up in the AfD regarding this academic (who is a leader in his field) as it applies to WP guidelines and could really use some expert guidance going forward. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- PicomtnBarrelproof is right about "What we need are citations to independent sources that are reliable that discuss Cziko and do so in substantial detail and indicate that he is notable in some clearly identified way" - did you read WP:PROF? Doug Weller talk 16:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi Doug Weller. Yes, but here's the critical point I'm positing, if you delete this article about one of the academic leaders of Perceptual Control Theory then you must, by both your logic and stated WP policies, delete the article of William T. Powers too (which has no referenced sources). Then, and with both of them gone, the Perceptual Control Theory article must be deleted following this couse of logic. Do you understand the dilemma being created here? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi Doug Weller. I forgot to add, and, again, yes, I did read WP:PROF and believe both this articles subject and his research topic are to be considered significant, interesting, and unusual enough to be worthy of notice. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- You can take Powers to AfD after of course doing the appropriate searches, but you know about that. That doesn't automatically mean PCT should be deleted. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Doug Weller I believe you know that I would never do that, and, sadly, after devoting my entire day trying to save this poor article I've got no energy, or eyesight left, to even contemplate Powers. And before going, thank you, again, for your kind assistance and guidance, but I really believe that WP should keep these types of articles, even if one does have to hang their hat, so speak, on a more expansive definition of the words significant and interesting in order to do so. After all, every piece to a puzzle is important, no matter how small. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Picomtn, this AfD just began yesterday and hasn't received widespread participation yet. I'd look into Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators which would bring this discussion to a larger editor pool who might participate in the discussion. For what it's worth, I think considering we have an article on every athlete whoever played one game in a professional league anywhere in the world, I think Wikipedia's notability bar for academics is far too high.
- Another suggestion is to post a very neutral announcement about the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Doug Weller I believe you know that I would never do that, and, sadly, after devoting my entire day trying to save this poor article I've got no energy, or eyesight left, to even contemplate Powers. And before going, thank you, again, for your kind assistance and guidance, but I really believe that WP should keep these types of articles, even if one does have to hang their hat, so speak, on a more expansive definition of the words significant and interesting in order to do so. After all, every piece to a puzzle is important, no matter how small. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- You can take Powers to AfD after of course doing the appropriate searches, but you know about that. That doesn't automatically mean PCT should be deleted. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
London School of Business and Finance
Hi Doug. This is a heads-up as you have been involved in monitoring this article and its associated suite. I have begun clean up of this article following a discussion at Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts. The details are at Talk:London School of Business and Finance. As I imagine my revisions will not escape the notice of the owner's brand managers, you might want to put it on watch. In the end, I also created a separate article on the owner, Global University Systems, which you might also want to put on watch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)