The current date and time is 2 July 2022 T 18:56 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.
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 {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. (replace reason with why you think you should not be blocked.) I watch the talk pages of everyone I block, so I will almost definitely see you make your request. If I am making edits (check Special:Contributions/Doug Weller) and I do not answer your request soon, or you cannot edit your talk page for some reason, you can try sending me an email. Please note, however, that I rarely check my email more than a few times a day, so it may be a couple of hours before I respond. 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 | |
I don't use irc often, but my account name on Libera is DougWeller.
Hopeless
Re this, Iām not sure thereās any point. Heās seems too disengaged with reality. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @DeCausa amazingly so. But I guess we can let him rant on this talk page, he's only proving why the block is necessary. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi folks. One thing that puzzles me is that if he has great difficulty with non-verbal communication, as he has said numerous times when trying to get people to talk to him by phone... what does he think Wikipedia is? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Only one thing that puzzles? I think thereās just too much about that situation that canāt be figured out in a medium like Wikipedia. I have a suspicion itās in his own best interest not to be here. DeCausa (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely, yes - he's not good for Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not good for him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee@DeCausa Iām not sure what heās actually published. (Redacted) Doug Weller talk 17:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely, yes - he's not good for Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not good for him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Only one thing that puzzles? I think thereās just too much about that situation that canāt be figured out in a medium like Wikipedia. I have a suspicion itās in his own best interest not to be here. DeCausa (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just swung by this talk page to check you out @Doug Weller after our interaction over at the "Islam in Sweden" talk page. Ended up going to the link at the top and reading through nearly all of that user's talk page... what a doozy. Especially the parts where they say you and @DeCausa "set them up". I don't intend to be mean but... deluded and self-absorbed rants make for entertaining reads. Though not entertaining to deal with, I'm sure. MeadeIndeed (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @MeadeIndeed Yes, they can be entertaining, I can't deny that. Not fun to deal with though as you say. I almost feel sorry for the poor guy. I suggested blanking and blocking him and others from his talk page, and that was done. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Removing archive information from citations
Please stop removing archive information from citations, as you did here and here. See WP:DEADREF for further explanation. āLocke Cole ā¢ t ā¢ c 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole So even when the link is live, not dead, it should still have an archive? I disagree. Did I miss where it says that you should keep archives for live links? Doug Weller talk 15:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole This wasn't the case here, but I'd also argue that if an organisation has removed an article we shouldn't use it in any case, archive or no. There may be exceptions of course, there usually are. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's a separate discussion, and there may already be a guideline or policy on it that I just haven't found yet. Regardless, I suspect the distinction here is important: was it removed or was it simply stale/old (site is down, or organization is defunct and the website was no longer maintained). The archive is proof that the site did say something at that point in time. āLocke Cole ā¢ t ā¢ c 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- And just to flesh that out more, I suspect there likely isn't any guideline on archived sources being used in live articles. I expect it's context dependent to some extent, if we're using it in a history section of an article to note that a topic was covered a certain way during a certain point in time, I would expect an archived source to be acceptable. If it's documenting something a website eventually retracted or corrected would be another such acceptable case for an archive URL to be allowable. Basically, it's very likely a case-by-case basis depending on what the archive citation is being used to source. āLocke Cole ā¢ t ā¢ c 15:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's a separate discussion, and there may already be a guideline or policy on it that I just haven't found yet. Regardless, I suspect the distinction here is important: was it removed or was it simply stale/old (site is down, or organization is defunct and the website was no longer maintained). The archive is proof that the site did say something at that point in time. āLocke Cole ā¢ t ā¢ c 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- First paragraph of WP:DEADREF (edited for clarity)
To help prevent dead links, persistent identifiers are available for some sources. ... [C]onsider archiving the referenced document when writing the article; on-demand web archiving services such as the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/save) or archive.today (https://archive.today) are fairly easy to use (see pre-emptive archiving).
āLocke Cole ā¢ t ā¢ c 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)- @Locke Cole missed that. My example about not using archives is an article where the ADL revised an article on the OK gesture 3 times. There'd have to be a good reason not to use only the current version, eg another reliable source commenting on it. Saying that in x yr they said this, then change it to this other thing, and now they say x would look like a commentary.
- Anyway, sorry I missed that bit. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Consider archiving" means "Consider leaving Wikipedia and going to some other website to tell them to make a copy of the source you cited." It does not mean that these URLs are required.
- User:InternetArchiveBot adds archive URLs automatically. It also has a tendency to declare working websites to be dead. I believe its (paid) developers take the view that, in case of doubt, they should err on the side of adding as many links to their website as possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing thanks, again. Interesting and a bit concerning. Is the bot actually broken or are the errors unavoidable. @Locke Cole I may not often remove archive links but I shall certainly try to check when I can when the link is marked dead. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Both? They had some bugs (so "broken"), but I think some errors are unavoidable. Websites can detect some bots, and refuse to let them load the pages. Internet Archive in particular, and archiving sites in general, are blocked on some websites. And then there's just the usual problem of a website being unreachable for a moment, or unreachable from your country. If the bot is making a one-time check, and something goes wrong with its internet connection, it will mark the link as being permanently dead even when it's not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing thanks, again. Interesting and a bit concerning. Is the bot actually broken or are the errors unavoidable. @Locke Cole I may not often remove archive links but I shall certainly try to check when I can when the link is marked dead. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some people add archives with
|url-status=live
, see Special:Contributions/Rlink2 (Rlink2). A theory is that many URLs will become dead in the next few years so having a working archive link in advance is a good idea rather than relying on future gnomes to do the tedious work of finding a working archive link and adding it later. The problem with finding such an archive link is that if the site has, for example, been taken over by someone else, archives with the original information may be hard to locate. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)- @Johnuniq I only add archives when the link is dead, that does seem safer. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd argue it's actually better to archive before the link is dead so you can confirm the archive and the original are in agreement. As Johnuniq notes, sites can change ownership and if the site wasn't archived by a service, finding a replacement may be problematic. āLocke Cole ā¢ t ā¢ c 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd love "retrieved on X" to ideally link to an archive as of X. Some sites also change significantly without going offline. Perhaps this could be done on demand w/o including an explicit link in the citation? I think IA implemented Memento, though Wikipedia never did, so one could automatically URL-hack "the Wayback URL for this resource, if it exists, from the time closest to this timestamp". āĀ SJĀ + 00:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd argue it's actually better to archive before the link is dead so you can confirm the archive and the original are in agreement. As Johnuniq notes, sites can change ownership and if the site wasn't archived by a service, finding a replacement may be problematic. āLocke Cole ā¢ t ā¢ c 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq I only add archives when the link is dead, that does seem safer. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole This wasn't the case here, but I'd also argue that if an organisation has removed an article we shouldn't use it in any case, archive or no. There may be exceptions of course, there usually are. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Citoid has the capacity to make every link "born archived", but that's a policy question not a technical one. Meanwhile, IABOT is archiving whatever the Wayback Machine tells it is dead and nothing more or less. (Disclosure: I currently am a paid advisor to Internet Archive). Ocaasi t | c 01:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Oath keepers general dump
Could you please review the links you posted, source code and all? Maybe you posted the wrong one? This is what I see from my end: "How the far-right group āOath Enforcersā plans to harass political enemies" (2021). SamuelRiv (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SamuelRiv āAs for sovereign citizens, see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/06/far-right-group-oath-enforcers this.
- As an aside, interesting statement https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/04/american-civil-war-january-6-capitol/ here about Oath Keepers having "effectively infiltrated police forces and the Republican Party." Doug Weller talk 19:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Right. The article is about "Oath Enforcers", starring a completely different founder guy with completely different opinions in a different state, and formulated online. The word "keeper" never appears in the article. The "oath" they refer to is a different oath than that of OK. My hope was that you would review the link instead of just copy-and-pasting from Talk. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why? I was pointing out that the foreignpolicy.com article talks about the OK infiltrating. I was wrong about the Guardian article, that seems obvious and I didn't think I needed to point it out. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also address the FP article in the main thread. I neglected to mention that it's not an FP editorial piece but rather an excerpt from a 2022 book. I was curious what his basis was for claiming that OK had infiltrated, so I looked it up. In the book itself he only mentions OK once as a background item in a fictional anecdote, once in a list of far-right movements, and a couple times in a section where he explores a Prepper conference. The part about infiltration only talks about "hard right" groups (he uses that term instead of far-right for whatever reason) in general, and specifically in sourcing to interviews about white supremacists. In fact, when he discusses the potential problem of infiltration, he specifically says that the military is more reliable for institutional security because of their oaths. The same oaths that OK proclaims as their raison d'etre. So the FP article can't be used to support a claim of OK infiltration because it only mentions it in passing, and the book that it's based can't be used because it frankly doesn't support the idea that OK are infiltrating at all. I'm sure there's plenty of OK-types who are in the GOP and police, but that's an extreme claim that needs to be backed up with actual sourceable material. Are you beginning to see the problem that we're having with responsible sourcing in general?
- Why? I was pointing out that the foreignpolicy.com article talks about the OK infiltrating. I was wrong about the Guardian article, that seems obvious and I didn't think I needed to point it out. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Right. The article is about "Oath Enforcers", starring a completely different founder guy with completely different opinions in a different state, and formulated online. The word "keeper" never appears in the article. The "oath" they refer to is a different oath than that of OK. My hope was that you would review the link instead of just copy-and-pasting from Talk. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Incidentally, regarding fake news, that selective use of facts can be used to tell lies is no reason to reject the demand that all facts in (especially political) articles be verifiable. Lies can be used just as effectively to tell lies. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SamuelRiv No, I am not beginning to see the problem. That happened more than a decade ago. You know the old saying about grandmothers and eggs. I simply posted an interesting url to see if it was at all useful. Turns out it isn't and I've never argued that it is. But it is/was always possible that editors might see it and find more useful stuff than a one sentence statement. Have you looked? Doug Weller talk 09:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, what happened more than a decade ago?
- I dunno, in general when I browse WP and see a weak-ish-looking statement I check the citation, and sometimes it's OK, sometimes it's not. But in this case it was about as bad as it gets, and in the lead no less. I decided also to check some random citations in the article as well, and most of those were bad in some fashion too. So this brick wall that I hit immediately on removing unsourced content, is, actually tbf, to be expected as part of the overall dysfunction that has allowed this to happen. But I'm still frustrated. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It happens. Worse is when people have added stuff to a source that isn't in the source, sometimes completely changing it. Or the source has been moved away from the text it backs, that happens too often. All I meant is that I've been dealing with sources for well over a decade and have a pretty good idea what is reliable, what is UNDUE, etc. As I said, I didn't expect that to be enough to show that OK members infiltrated, although I'm sure they do. Or often don't have to as they are there anyway. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SamuelRiv No, I am not beginning to see the problem. That happened more than a decade ago. You know the old saying about grandmothers and eggs. I simply posted an interesting url to see if it was at all useful. Turns out it isn't and I've never argued that it is. But it is/was always possible that editors might see it and find more useful stuff than a one sentence statement. Have you looked? Doug Weller talk 09:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Incidentally, regarding fake news, that selective use of facts can be used to tell lies is no reason to reject the demand that all facts in (especially political) articles be verifiable. Lies can be used just as effectively to tell lies. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 June 2022
- News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks
- In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down
- Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?
- Discussion report: MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled, mass drafting bid pulled
- Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's action flick deemed brilliant prose
- Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed
- Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals
- Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter
Forum?
It's forum chat to point out the relevant consensus? Your dishonesty and bias is an absolute disgrace. Verena Boddenberg (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) it's called the talk page, and it isn't a forum. I also recommend not leaving personal attacks and aspersions on other, good faith editors talk pages unless you want to get blocked. PRAXIDICAEš 18:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae blocked by ToBeFree. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ahhh, so much more peaceful now. Now we can focus on the latest shitty Supreme Court ruling! PRAXIDICAEš 18:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae Did you see how Maine reacted to being told they had to give private schools money as well? Doug Weller talk 18:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
hopefully they just burned it all downOTOH, now a law should be passed prohibiting the 6 justices responsible for this and Roe being overturned from seeking medical care for any reason. It's God's Will. They can just pray. PRAXIDICAEš 19:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)- @Praxidicae Lol. Anyway, Maine was told they had to include private schools in their funding. So they said ok, so long as they don't discriminate against lgbtq or gender neutral. The two schools involved said we don't want funds from you. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae who you think this is? Clearly a sock, but I wonder what they are referring to in particular. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Stalker, sort of, here. I'm so very depressed and dissapointed about that ruling, even though I am across the pond from it. It just seems to be such a backwards step for the U.S., and sadly, the world. Much of what has happened over there in the last few years in legal, journalistic and political arenas has the same feel about it. Mind you, there is Boris Johnson and his cronies over here. My best to you, Doug. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 11:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Roxy the dog Thanks. Half way through chemo and feeling better than I have in weeks. Which means I expect my consultant to tell me tomorrow he's upping my dosage to 90 or 100%. Dark times ahead in the US I think. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm happy to hear that you are feeling so much better! Good!
- I've been watching this discussion and I'll add myself to the list of those disgusted with the US Supreme Court these days. (Although I'm pleased with the rats jumping ship from Trump-land at the January 6 hearings.) There are so many recent court rulings that are appalling that I can hardly focus on just one. But among those is the one that says it's just fine for a public high school football (American football, that is) coach to lead an on-field Christian prayer at games. I'm waiting to see what happens when a coach who is Islamic leads a prayer, and I suspect the justices will find a way to disallow that while claiming that it isn't the government favoring one religion over another. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a little too optimistic and positive, idk. I'm also admittedly apolitical because politics from every direction don't really affect where I am and almost never for any good regardless but maybe this can turn into a good thing and the world will fall somewhere in the middle of dark times and bright sunny days. At any rate, I kind of like dark rainbows (Shout out to Dio) myself so if it is to be the end then I prefer to go out listening to or making music. --ARoseWolf 18:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Roxy the dog Thanks. Half way through chemo and feeling better than I have in weeks. Which means I expect my consultant to tell me tomorrow he's upping my dosage to 90 or 100%. Dark times ahead in the US I think. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Stalker, sort of, here. I'm so very depressed and dissapointed about that ruling, even though I am across the pond from it. It just seems to be such a backwards step for the U.S., and sadly, the world. Much of what has happened over there in the last few years in legal, journalistic and political arenas has the same feel about it. Mind you, there is Boris Johnson and his cronies over here. My best to you, Doug. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 11:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae who you think this is? Clearly a sock, but I wonder what they are referring to in particular. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae Lol. Anyway, Maine was told they had to include private schools in their funding. So they said ok, so long as they don't discriminate against lgbtq or gender neutral. The two schools involved said we don't want funds from you. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae Did you see how Maine reacted to being told they had to give private schools money as well? Doug Weller talk 18:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ahhh, so much more peaceful now. Now we can focus on the latest shitty Supreme Court ruling! PRAXIDICAEš 18:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae blocked by ToBeFree. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Question
Hi, according to the bet.el. genetic study from 2010, the Ethiopan Jews are close related to the Semitic speaking Ethiopians rather than the chusite speaking. So why it in not mentioned here? David8374 (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @David8374 what article? Doug Weller talk 12:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Question 2
Hi, did you read the link that I sent you? David8374 (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @David8374 I haven't seen a link, what do you meant sent it to me? Doug Weller talk 13:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
D. James Kennedy Ministries edits
Hello,
I recognize I overstepped editorial bounds in characterizing the SPLC as a Left-of-center organization, though that label is easily verified by looking at their issues stance. However, the wholesale reversion you made overwrote much that is needed to make this entry current: 1) the reference to current leadership: Robert J. Pacienza is now President & CEO 2) the lawsuit has been denied a hearing by the Supreme Court. the last judgment is not from the U.S. Circuit court of Appeals 3) the current version is dated in references to SPLC founder (actually co-founder) Morris Dees and SPLC "President" Richard Cohen. Both left in 2019. I had made edits to that effect which were overwritten. 4) the treatment of the SPLC's allegations needs detail.
a) I cited the modest and dated basis for the hate group charge, which is pertinent and belongs. b) the SPLC's status as a controversial organization is of note, I would think, given their recent troubled history. It is addressed at the SPLC's own entry. Why not here? c) The "hate group charge" is incendiary but also highly contestable. It does not merit a second sentence mention in the entry. Rather, it belongs in the section addressing the lawsuit where it can be presented with qualifying information.
I will make a few of the above remedial edits and look forward to your responds.
thanks, Wikieditorjpa (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Wikieditorjpa leadership, ok. Put the rest on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI
Hello DW. I wanted to let you know about this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting User who made false accusations against another User Hopefully it will be closed or even removed by the time you see this. Best regards and have a nice weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 20:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's been removed as block evasion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)