| Revision as of 11:34, 31 August 2014 editTechnophant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,780 edits →QuackGuru/SkepticalRaptor/Yobol: found ban← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:46, 31 August 2014 edit undoTechnophant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,780 edits Putting SPI aside for now, need action on ISIS disruptionsNext edit → | ||
| Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
| Thank you very much for bringing to my notice Timeline of human prehistory and Timeline of computing hardware 2400 BC–1949. I removed mentions of the Lembobo bone added referenced information about two notched rib pieces dated to 80,000 BP found in the Apollo 11 Cave (and added the information to that article). I also suitably modified mention of the Lembobo bone in History of mathematics.] (]) 23:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | Thank you very much for bringing to my notice Timeline of human prehistory and Timeline of computing hardware 2400 BC–1949. I removed mentions of the Lembobo bone added referenced information about two notched rib pieces dated to 80,000 BP found in the Apollo 11 Cave (and added the information to that article). I also suitably modified mention of the Lembobo bone in History of mathematics.] (]) 23:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Problem with ISIS editor == | |||
| == QuackGuru/SkepticalRaptor/Yobol == | |||
| My first interaction with this user was and it was needlessly rough and abusive considering AGF and how polite I was. I recently put up a notice and request on Worldedixor's talk page which he removed without comment . When I last left off editing this page over a month ago there was a wonderful sense of cooperation between editors. Now there's needless bickering and edit warring. I think this user needs to be page/topic banned. ~] <small>(])</small> 13:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| First of all, I have a topic ban for alt-med articles so please let me know if this inquiry violates this. In my past dealings with SkepticalRaptor and more recent dealings with QuackGuru I've have felt like I was dealing with the same user. They both can be very tenacious and both have a complete contempt for Userpage norms. I've looked into it and found some more evidence to support the connection. | |||
| * was created 2006-12 and had a fairly consistent monthly edit count until 2011-08 where there's a near stop in editing. | |||
| * was created Feb 6, 2012 and has a similar monthly edit account until 2013-01 where editing drops off below 50 edits a month. | |||
| *2013-10 QG resumes editing at previous monthly edit rates until present. | |||
| *Most tellingly the Time Card for both users are very similar. | |||
| *Overlap: shows that top 10 intersecting edits all have to do with pseudoscience topics. shows that until a few days ago there was a minimum of 323 days between editing common pages. Two days ago there was a break in this pattern, where GC performed a minor edit on the page ]] 5 hours after SR and after a 3 year hiatus from editing this page. | |||
| This on 24 July, 2010 says QuackGuru was "banned from pseudoscience and chiropractic for one year". This could explain why one account went inactive while the other picked up. There's an editing gap between Feb. 2013 and Oct. 2013 where neither account was editing. I suspect there may be a third account that matches these patterns that fills this timespace. I think this may be enough to start a SPI. Thoughts? ~] <small>(])</small> 09:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I've found a third user who matches the profile of having a deleted Userpage, interest in pseudoscience, and has a monthly summary that fills in the gaps of the other two editors: . The 3-way shows a high degree of simultaneous editing of mutual pages. The Time Card matches the other two. I haven't looked into how these users interact (like voting the same on polls) however it looks like a possible lead. ~] <small>(])</small> 10:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 27 August 2014 == | == ''The Signpost'': 27 August 2014 == | ||
Revision as of 13:46, 31 August 2014
 | 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. |
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.
Jordan Belfort
I've left a question for you on the Jordan Belfort talkpage. --67.40.215.84 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've replied to you on Talk:Jordan Belfort. --JB18Aug2014 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Article Hala l' Badr
Hello, Doug.
I received an email from you today regarding the edits that I did on the article . You deleted my edits and you said they may be/were a conflict of interest. It is true that I edited the wiki page and I am the author of the paper linked; my article on this subject was published in a peer reviewed journal (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament), and I am working on this topic for my thesis/dissertation. I didn't think that the details I added on the wiki page were unnecessarily biased. Perhaps I shouldn't have linked my academia.edu page, but that could have easily been erased. I didn't say anywhere in the article that the views I was presenting were right or better than the preceding theories; I was adding new evidence. I find it disturbing that you deleted/reverted my edits and did not include me on the people who have advocated for this theory. It seems to me that you have a biased approach to the subject, since the spin of the article is now negative towards the connection of Sinai with Badr. You spend much more time and focus in the article on views that argue against the evidence presented by people such as Beke, Humphreys, and of course you deleted my edits/article dealing with the subject in full. My article and edits to the wiki page also dealt with geological data from Badr, something which many previous studies do not.
Secondly, there are several problems with the article as it now stands: First of all, it's Mount Baghir, not Birghir (as you have now added this to the article). I suggest you also research Jean Koenig more, who is only mentioned in passing in this article. He wrote a book (Le Site all Jaws dans l'ancien pays de Madian) which is cited, but nothing from it is discussed. Again, this article really only presents views against the theory, not for it.
I welcome you to write back.
Best Jacob (Israelite Historian)
al-Jazari
According to M. Aga-Oglu, al-Jazari is referred to as an Arabian scholar. I found Aga-Oglu was an Associate Professor of the History of Islamic Art. What do you think? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- User:Kansas Bear - anyone else discuss Aga-Oglu's paper? If not, doesn't look significant enough to use unless he's got a really good reputation. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Arnlodg
This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. They keep inserting personal remarks in articles and posting long idiosyncratic essays on talk-pages since May 2013 despite repeated attempts to explain policy to them. You can check their talk-page. These are their latest article edits. (Some older ones .) Every single edit they have made so far had to be reverted as patent nonsense. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Should I take this to ANI? --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Omnipaedista, no, don't take it there, unnecessary. Look at the talkback message below from MatthewVanitas (or rather look at his response). Tired now but will think about it and do something. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ISIS
Something strange has happened to the View History pages since I did my revert for the day at around 4 pm 16.00 UTC. I have been completely reverted (I made several changes in different parts of the article) but there is absoutely no record of this second revert on the View History page! Has this ever happened before? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have reported it to the VP Technical Help Desk. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have had this message from them. . I'm not sure we can sort out this knotty problem ourselves. Do you know anyone who can? --P123ct1 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Reply
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
"IPs are never bots"
Is that literally true? Presumably it's possible to write some macro-type script that makes browser edits without ever touching the API, if the API requires a named account. User:62.25.109.197's edits seem unhelpfully botlike (opening pages with image-request tags in alphabetical order, pulling up an image from commons that matches the article title even if it's not what the tag asked for or is already on the page with different cropping, adding that image to the top of the article with whatever commons description it happens to have). I assume it was an inattentively-applied script, given that they silently switched to simpler botlike category edits when questioned about problematic images. --McGeddon (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Unexplained edits
Please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history#Unexplained edits -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Your biased, Politically-motivated edits at Arthur Kemp
I place on record my strongest objections to:
1. Your continuous, blatant, politically motivated edits at Arthur Kemp, in which you post up all manner of completely unsubstantiated allegations, and then deliberately delete any evidence--backed up by solid documentary and referenced sources, which completely refute the allegations you have posted up.
2. Your continuous abuse as an administrator in getting me blocked whenever I correct any of your blatantly biased edits.
3. Your unfounded lie that I then tried to abuse the system by logging in from another IP address. You have absolutely no evidence to prove this allegation which you have deliberately put up on my profile page in an attempt to damage my standing on Misplaced Pages.
In a nutshell, you are a disgrace to the standards of Misplaced Pages, and I am giving you formal notice that I am reporting you at the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFallenCrowd (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, Doug. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lies.2C_Bias_and_Abuse_of_Position:_User_DougWeller. *sigh* Location (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP proposal
Might you revisit your opinion about whether a living person is a better source for his own political beliefs or whether a political source is a better source for categorizing that living person's political beliefs? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
why deletion
i reword the news of 2014 event in Isis and dont copy it if you comapre it..its source is authentic namely al arabiyyah..--m,sharaf (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- when I refrerred to the page it was no problem. even many news agencies covered this news.if you google it you can find them easily. both al arabiyyah and Daily mail existed here:
- http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2014/08/14/Pro-ISIS-leaflets-target-shoppers-on-London-s-Oxford-St-.html
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2723703/The-dawn-new-era-begun-ISIS-supporters-hand-leaflets-Oxford-Street-encouraging-people-newly-proclaimed-Islamic-State.html
I dint know how you cant find them.--m,sharaf (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- m,sharaf It all depends on the search terms. I've posted to the talk page stating I've found some now. But your date was wrong and your edit was copyvio. And there are far better sources than the Daily Mail. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Dougweller , this news dated in 14th of August namely the very date I mention it. there is no copyvio because I reword it other way. where is the problem. I Didn't mention the news just the same as source. I dint think that if we mention daily mail as source then it was wrong..there is difference between it is wrong and it is better, as to latter there is no problem.--m,sharaf (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- which text do you mean I have to copy?--m,sharaf (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Danube Valley Cultures
Hello :)
I can promise you that from now on there will be no more copyvio or bare urls. From now on i will make sure to follow Misplaced Pages rules. I know this is not the place to bring it up, but i need so make it clear that i am disabled and therefore i have difficulties when it comes to do the same thing as "normal" people.
Editing on Misplaced Pages is one of the things that brings joy to my life, i feel that i can contribute i some small way to the society. So when i edit in Misplaced Pages it takes a lot of strenght and therefore i have a tendency to copyvio or make bare urls because i will take me very long time to write the edit i my own words. But from now on i will only make edits with the help from one of my family members so it will be done correctly. i promise to go back in my edits and remove copyvio and write the articles in my own words. I also promise to remove bare urls and make sure that the correct information about the linked page. This will take some time but slowly i will make it correct. Have a nice day. :) Lactasamir (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
First Earth Battalion Update - References Added
I've added the references as requested to the page concerning the Battalion. Please confirm that it meets the Misplaced Pages requirements or instruct further to complete. https://en.wikipedia.org/First_Earth_Battalion
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritEko (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hinckley Past & Present
Should this website be considered a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Kansas Bear: No, it's user generated. Nice that they are doing this but not for Misplaced Pages. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lorenzo de' Medici, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robin Maxwell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: TheFallenCrowd
I figured a block was a step up from that. And a block does not exclude a topic ban being imposed if he comes back. Is a clarification needed? -- llywrch (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hm, not sure. A block would be because the behavior was unacceptable, a ban because we don't think he can edit that article constructively. At worst it should be something about the topic ban to be imposed if the same behavior continues. But blocks and bans aren't exclusive. By the way, are you still semi-retired? Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see. I guess I will never get the hang of this power. As for my semi-retirement, I'm trying hard for that, but between a slow-down at work (& concern about other things affecting the future of Misplaced Pages), I'm getting dragged back in. Maybe someone should demand I give up my often misapplied Admin bit, which might goad me into trying even harder. ;-) llywrch (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: It would be nice if you could amend your closure with a statement regarding the topic ban. Cheers! Armbrust 16:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see. I guess I will never get the hang of this power. As for my semi-retirement, I'm trying hard for that, but between a slow-down at work (& concern about other things affecting the future of Misplaced Pages), I'm getting dragged back in. Maybe someone should demand I give up my often misapplied Admin bit, which might goad me into trying even harder. ;-) llywrch (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Citation tags
I asked Bbb23 a few days ago here about how long a "citation needed" tag should be left in place before removing it along with the text (if no citation has been provided in that time) but he has not answered. Can I have some guidance, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- @P123ct1: Guidance is at WP:NOCITE. What a "reasonable time" is will vary according to the circumstances. 24 hours would rarely be reasonable although there could be times when it is, eg if the editor who added the text added it very recently and is very actively editing the article - you could then even go to their talk page about it. There can be no hard and fast rule about this. I normally leave a few weeks but not always. Always try to find a source of course. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: I presume you've seen
Message added --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidercs 10:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Message added --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidercs 10:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Message added --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidercs 17:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Lembobo Bone
Thank you very much for bringing to my notice Timeline of human prehistory and Timeline of computing hardware 2400 BC–1949. I removed mentions of the Lembobo bone added referenced information about two notched rib pieces dated to 80,000 BP found in the Apollo 11 Cave (and added the information to that article). I also suitably modified mention of the Lembobo bone in History of mathematics.Neurolinguist (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem with ISIS editor
My first interaction with this user was this and it was needlessly rough and abusive considering AGF and how polite I was. I recently put up a notice and request on Worldedixor's talk page which he removed without comment here. When I last left off editing this page over a month ago there was a wonderful sense of cooperation between editors. Now there's needless bickering and edit warring. I think this user needs to be page/topic banned. ~Technophant (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 August 2014
- In the media: Plagiarism and vandalism dominate Misplaced Pages news
- News and notes: Media Viewer—Wikimedia's emotional roller-coaster
- Traffic report: Viral
- Featured content: Cheats at Featured Pictures!