Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 2 July 2015

The current date and time is 28 December 2024 T 04:40 UTC.

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.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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.

PR request

I'd like to invite you to comment at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. RO 16:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You are probably too busy to do this due to your ArbCom role but it was me who suggested that the article could do with being PR'd by someone with a decent understanding of archaeology. I'm sure Rationalobserver would be grateful if you were able to suggest someone. The talk page of the Archaeology project looks fairly quiet. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Rationalobserver, User:Sitush, many apologies. I just don't have time I'm afraid and haven't really done much PR of articles. I can't think of anyone offhand. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. RO 18:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Hello, excuse me but what exactly I need to se in the talk page? And it doesn't matters because it has no source, the "citation needed" was there a long time, therefore probably is an original research. if you have the source please add it. If not it must go (WP:OR). Rupert loup (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Rupert loup, no it is not OR and you really should have read my comments on the talk page, which included sources. Did you even look for sources? Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If it's not OR must have sources. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. See WP:OR, Unsourced material is against WP:NOT policy and it has no place in Misplaced Pages, you need to prove that is not original research with reliables sources WP:PROVEIT. Rupert loup (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is not the place to put the sources, it must be next to the text. Again if you have the source please add it. Rupert loup (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If sources are presented on the talk page, one must either explain how they are inadequate or else acquiesce that they support the statement. If one accepts that they support the statement, removing the material instead of citing the sources comes across as petty. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I don't care, It's not my problem, the "citation needed" was there for a time, you (the people that edit the article) should put the sources instead that wait that someone delete the text, in fact the person who should put the sources was who write the thing. I'm not an employe of Misplaced Pages and no ones pay me to put sources, so I don't care what you think is petty. Rupert loup (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: Unless someone has "WMF" at the end of their username, they are not an employee. By editing the article, you have as much responsibility for it as we do. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:And that means? I know that I have responsibilities for my edits, if I do something that it's against the norms there will be consequences, but I didn't. So I don't know what are you trying to bring. You should express better. If you want that something stays in Misplaced Pages you need reliable sources. If there is no sources it will not stay here. I don't have any obligation to do something that you want, if you want something you do it, don't expect that other do it for you, because certainly is not my job. Rupert loup (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Doug's contribution page indicates that he clearly had logged out shortly after commenting on the talk page, so that meant he was in no position to add the sources. I had no involvement before now. As such, you were the most invested editor. You knew that there were reliable sources available, but chose not to use them. You did not have to add the sources, but removing the information when it was just as easy to source it using existing citations was irresponsible and (assuming good faith) lazy. You then tried to shift the blame onto others as if they had more responsibility. How is that reasonable behavior? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: The blame of what? Responsibility for what? What are you talking about? What responsibility gives to me the number of my editions in the article? Please could you talk clearly and stop misrepresent me WP:TPNO. You seem don't understand that I don't care what do you think of me or my behavior. I don't have any responsibility to do something that you two want, to search for the sources o put the sources of things that I didn't write. If I do it is because I want to do it, I saw that Dougweller had the will to complain in the talk page and put the sources there, when he totally could have put the sources in the article, so I didn't want to waste my time in that and there is nothing in Misplaced Pages against it, If you think is irresponsible or lazy I don't really care, regards. Rupert loup (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't have the time and still don't have the time. Unsourced but sourceable material is definitely not what WP:NOR is about. Our editing policy is at Misplaced Pages:Editing policy - Rupert loup, you should read it. You shouldn't be deleting non-contentious and sourceable material. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Sorry but how do you don't have the time? You replied me here two times instead of add the sources, and you still have the time to respond me here and search and put a policy and you had the time to put the sources in the talk page, like said the Policy you show me said you don't need to add it perfectly, with a citation template. With throwing the links with the "ref" boxes was just enough. I don't like that attitude and I certainly didn't want and wont encourage it. If you want something don't expect that others do it for you, I said before, I not your employee and I don't have any obligation to do something that you want. And about Misplaced Pages:Editing policy, I considere more important and that will improve the project to not feed unhelpful behavior WP:IAR. Rupert loup (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Also Misplaced Pages is not a forum, so how there is nothing more to talk about the article and I don't care why you did what you did, it's irrelevant at these point, these conversation is over. Regards. Rupert loup (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

But I should clarify that I did not notice that you had put the sources after you post here, I did search in the talk page after read your summary but I thought that was an old discussion and didn't search in the bottom of the page, that's why I asked "what exactly I need to se in the talk page". To think that the sources weren't there, made me be more firmly with my position, I didn't want to search a second time but again it wasn't my obligation to do that, if you had the sources you should have put them in the article and not expect that I should do that for you. Rupert loup (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert Loup: Doug only replied here once before I added the sources. His edit history clearly shows that he logged out for some time shortly after making his first response here. You appear to be confusing either the order of events, or me with Doug. Many users have lives outside of Misplaced Pages, and it's up to them to decide how they balance those lives with Misplaced Pages, not you.

Doug is quite familiar with policy here, so I doubt he had to "search" for the policies he linked. That you assume he had to search for them is probably an indication that you know less about policy than he does. For the record, if I'll admit that he's one of the few users who could get me to stop doing anything on the site if he said it might be against policy until I hear out the explanation.

WP:IAR is not to be used as a double standard to prevent one's actions from being held to scrutiny while attempting to condemn others with policy. It is a one-size-fits-all policy that says that one should focus on improving articles instead of rules. It is not a trump card to "win" any argument, nor an exception from accountability, and should not be cited out of laziness.

Two editors who collectively have about twelve more years Misplaced Pages experience (and 174,000 more edits) than you think you made a mistake. They do not think you need to be punished for it or harassed about it, but it does not make you look good at all when you look for any excuse to "win the argument" (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). You have the completely valid option of just leaving Doug alone and not responding to this further. You've had that option for a while, and it's only become a better option since sources were added.

I could see this discussion being useful and in good faith if you had not said that you don't care what others think but that's what you said. I could see this being useful and in good faith if you didn't disguise accusations as questions and then aim to have the last word (which is the only impression one can get from you asking questions about another editor's choices right before declaring the conversation to be over). Neither behavior is conducive to being a productive and cooperative editor, but instead toward becoming a drama queen. If you were asking questions in good faith, then you'll pay attention to responses instead of just looking for something else to argue over. If you truly believe this conversation is over, then you won't post here again over this issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:There were two times, one here and one in the article talk page, and I don't want to keep discussing these because is pointless. The text has his sources and thats what I care, discussing why we did what we did is irrelevant to this point, I didn't even want to discussing it in the first please, I keep argue because you misrepresent me and you were uncivilized saying that that what I did was across as petty and later call me irresponsible and lazy (and now calling me a drama queen)WP:UNCIVIL (and I don't know why Doug, being an admin, still allows it), you should read these WP:APR. Even if what I was doing was vandalic is not an exucese for such behavior WP:BNTV. And what I don't care is what others think of me and my behavior is related of what you think of me. You are misrepresenting me again, please stop doing it. Is what how do you see me what is unimportant to me, if you want to think that I'm lazy or a drama queen, I don't care. If would I care, I would have filed a complaint. Although I admit that is starting to bother me these responses. I will not considering these conversation over if you keep responde me in such manner. I said before that I don't want to know why he did what he did because I assume good faith and I will think that he surely has reasons, maybe try to make a point, but could be better that he asked me "hi, I don't have time, could you please add these sources " and I will do it. I don't have problem with that. I asked him if he could put the sources, there was no rush to his response, the text was not deleted of the internet, it was still in Misplaced Pages in the history of the article. And you came here making these big and look like if was something terrible, wich is not. It seems what I did was not the best neither, I was expecting a calm chat with Doug and try to solve the issue in a civilized manner, and it ended like these, I'm sure that wasn't Doug's intention neither. You are not trying to resolve the issue you are trying to make a fight, and to win these fight. You responded all my responses with unclear things, with irrelevant things like the years you have in Misplaced Pages or what is a Misplaced Pages's employee, and made ad hominem attacks and assume things about me. I don't know what you are trying to make of all of this, but it doesn't seem productive or cooperative. And it's funny because I was about to thank you for add the sources before I saw your comment here.

@Dougweller: What we did was wrong. I just read WP:POINT. I'm sorry for what I did, I saw what it seems that you were trying to make a point, and I did the same in response, I shouldn't enter in these game. I didn't thought that it will ended like these. In the future I will address these kind of issues directly. Regards. Rupert loup (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: Thank you. Although I do delete material that has been uncited for years at times, that's only when I can't find sources and the text is dubious. In this case I knew there was another related article about this and that the Protocols are still currently taken seriously in parts of the Arab world. I also think you are a bit overeager on citation needed tags, and certainly at times should consider just tagging a section or the article without multiple cite tags within the article unless you think that something is contentious or just plain wrong. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

And typing a reply is, at least for me, very quick. Proper sourcing needs more time and often requires rewriting. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I find it somewhat problematic that you as an administrator seem to say that proper sourcing is irrelevant as long as you personally know that somewhere out there sources exist. It is bad enough that WP is built on authority-based sources instead of evidence-based sources, but that administrators now vouch for sources is new. Over 8 months of a missing source in a problematic article is problematic, do you not agree? ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Never said that, not my position, and the text is sourced. Easily sourceable text should be sourced, not deleted. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

:)

Look, another good little Marxist. Bawlix (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, another Metapedia visitor about to be indeffed...·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been around this site much longer than you, just check my userpage history. I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade though. Trust me, you slimy fucks will all have your day. Bawlix (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Seaver and the pygmies

The problem with that section is that it's all made up. There's no argumentation for the thesis that makes the least bit of sense.

What does Homer and Alexander Ross have to do with the Vikings? Nothing. She might as well cite classical Chinese writers. That the Norse should have based "monster races" on Pliny is absurd. It's unlikely that any Norse ever read a single word of Pliny. She writes: "they were quick to label these new people as Pygmies". This is (I'm sorry, but there's no polite way to put it) bullshit. Where did they label the skrælings pygmies? Nowhere. To claim that "skræling" is a translation of "pygmaei" is ridiculous. Where is the connection? The Norse didn't speak Latin, none of the peoples they traded with spoke Latin, and "skræling" has never meant pygmy. So why make this claim? There are perfectly good explanations for the term already. What's the use of making one up out of nothing?

The whole thing is just a hodgepodge of insinuations, every single one of which is deeply unlikely. So this whole section is just noise. It adds no value whatsoever, and is, quite frankly, an embarrassment.

If you seriously believe this adds value to the page I would really like to know why.LarsMarius (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

: I'll look at Seaver tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
: : Any progress? --LarsMarius (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed

Oh dear oh dear! That answers my question as to whether I should buy an iPad! :-)))) --Phil Copperman (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Phil Copperman fingers are too clumsy to reliably use on a watchlist. I should have been using a stylus. As an aside, my next table will probably be Android. Using a PC is much more efficient as I can hover over a diff and see the first bit if I'm using popups. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Racial bias

Hi Dougweller. You may be interested in this. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Richard La Ruina

I'm not sure whom to direct this complaint to. Perhaps you can advise? (Still a novice at editing wiki pages).

The entry on "Richard La Ruina" is nothing but self-advertising and should, I believe, be entirely removed. Although this is not stated in the wikipedia article, I suspect it might be linked to a somewhat questionable web operation called "Stealth Attraction" http://getherwetwithwords.com/videobc2 /video-bc2.php. Sjjvdberg (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sjjvdberg, As Richard La Ruina is a biography of a living person, you could take your concerns to WP:BLPN. I think it meets our criteria for what we call notability - see WP:BIO, but it may be unbalanced and too promotional. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

• From the editor: Your voice is needed: strategic voting in the WMF election

• In focus: The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts

• Traffic report: Inner Core

• News and notes: A dark side of comedy: the Misplaced Pages volunteers cleaning up behind John Oliver's fowl jokes

• Featured content: Puppets, fungi, and waterfalls

• In the media: Jimmy Wales accepts Dan David Prize

• WikiProject report: Cell-ebrating Molecular Biology

• Arbitration report: Editor conduct the subject of multiple cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Edit warring"

Hi Doug. I only have one question: was this message computer-generated, or is somebody with some editing experience reading the actual edits? I have little to add to what I've put into my edits. Once somebody takes the time to read what the definitions are, all else becomes redundant. If one insists to call the day dark and the night bright, just because democracy allows you to and two votes are twice as many as one, this might indeed lead to "edit warring" :) I'm so out of here... Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Unless an edit is vandalism or a BLP violation, the content is immaterial, and obviously other editors don't agree with your content. That's why you were blocked. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Happy Namechange Day!

Cheers! Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I always thought his name was D. Ougweller. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about LB case

Hi Doug, I'm concerned that Hell in a Bucket is posting to the workshop about LB, despite their IBAN, which was long overdue when it was imposed. I see that IBANs were lifted for the evidence phase. Does this extend to the workshop too? Sarah (SV) 17:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes this has been covered. I am not directly responding to her or engaging her on other pages. Are you saying there is something problematic in what I've posted? I'll be happy to refactor anything that you can reasonably explain as offensive. I feel that I'm being fair and civil and quite in line with the guidelines specifically 1,2 and 4. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin did you actually read the template? Because a lot of this confusion on your part may have been avoided had you done that. Specifically number four which I alluded to above here's the link ] might take thirty or so seconds to read but if you take that 30 seconds I'm sure it will clear up the momentary confusion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin Yes, the Workshop pages are treated the same as the evidence pages in respect to IBans. Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Doug, is there a way to appeal that decision? HIAB's behaviour toward LB has been somewhat intense for a long time, and to see it resurface is a concern. I can sort of understand it re: evidence, but when it comes to the workshop I can't see how it benefits either party or the committee, and it must be extremely disconcerting for LB to have this start up again.

It's worth noting that I haven't discussed this with her. My concern is a general one about the position of women editors during dispute resolution. Sarah (SV) 17:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Again is there anything that I've posted is in anyway offensive or uncivil? Has there been anything at all in my comments that have been problematic at this case? I guess I'm also curious are you somehow inferring I'm a danger to woman editors? I'd surely appreciate you spelling out your issues with me here and now especially given the claims you are wanting to make. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller I have left a talk page template for a response on User:SlimVirgin page. I've asked for a clarification of her comments "position of women editors during dispute resolution" which I feel may be targeting me. It may not be at all and I would only like what the complaint with me is discussed and I will refactor anything that was inappropriate. If she chooses to ignore that will you please remove the last comment as an oversight as grossly degrading offensive or misleading. I am not a danger to any editors on this site and I find it highly offensive to be connected to that. I am prepared to wait a reasonable amount of time for her response but short of that clarification of her meaning I'd appreciate action in the form of a revdel or suppression. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• HIAB has asked me to clarify. HIAB, the main point is that you really need to stop talking about LB in her, your and the community's interests. And if the IBAN has been relaxed for the workshop, that doesn't extend to user talk pages. As for my general point about women and DR, that wasn't a reference to HIAB, but a general one. Sarah (SV) 19:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin Thank you for clearing that up but if you are going to discuss me and it involves arbitration or adminstration with that IBAN that is an allowed exemption per WP:BANEX which states "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum" This apparently is the forum that is appropriate as it has been chosen by you, an admin, and therefore I would consider a legitimate dispute resolution attempt, one that you decided to notify me about. If I understand correctly you are further stating that I have not added anything inappropriate to this discussion on this case, so where's the beef? Don't you think that you should've assumed good faith until I stepped over the line (assuming that I would in your view). So now your objection extends to me defending myself here with all of those facts? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, yes, welcome. I hope you decide to stick around for a while! :) --NeilN 12:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail from Technical 13!

— {{U|Technical 13}} 21:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

• News and notes: WMF releases quarterly reports, annual plans

• In the media: Scrubbing Parliamentary biographies; Misplaced Pages's invisible history

• Discussion report: A relic from the past that needs to be updated

• Featured content: When music was confined to a ribbon of rust

• Recent research: Drug articles accurate and largely complete; women "slightly overrepresented"; talking like an admin

• Traffic report: Summer, summer, summertime

• Technology report: MediaWiki blows up printers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your signature

Hey Doug, your signature appears to be broken right now. Could you take a look? Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed I hope, struggling but I think I've got it now! Doug Weller (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement on Microwave Ovens in 'How they are made'

Hi Doug,

I've changed my proposed amendment on the Misplaced Pages 'crop circle' page to the following:

“Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon claims its possible to replicate the same patterns of crop damage found in certain circles using a hand-held version of a magnetron which are commonly available in microwave ovens."

This will correct the wrong information currently in the 'How They Are Made' section.

I've put this information on the 'Talk' section for the last few days and no one's objected to this change. Is it ok for me to do this change on the main Misplaced Pages page now?

ThanksCardiff2015 (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

• News and notes: Three new community-elected trustees announced, incumbents out

• Blog: How Misplaced Pages covered Caitlyn Jenner’s transition

• Discussion report: The deprecation of Persondata; RfA – A broken process; Complaints from users on Swedish Misplaced Pages

• Featured content: It's not over till the fat man sings

• Technology report: Things are getting SPDYier

• Special report: Towards "Health Information for All": Medical content on Misplaced Pages received 6.5 billion page views in 2013

• In the media: Anonymous Australian editing targets football player, shooting victim

• Traffic report: A rather ordinary week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Uysyn

The article Uysyn has been created and largely copied from a suspicious website run by an editor who seems to have a close connection to Anatole Klyosov. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uysyn could benefit from your attention. Krakkos (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

artin Mehraban

if I violated something just delete it. If I created an article that is copy pasted and violates something. Then delete it. But do me a favor and do not delete the Median symbol. It appeared on the tomb of Cyaxares and though it's probably not a flag it's definitely a national , dynastic or Imperial symbol of some kind and she stay on the Medes empire article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artin Mehraban (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a Zoroastrian symbol. - none of these are decent sources, and searching for images in books is pretty much impossible. Doug Weller (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:No original research

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:No original research. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Seddik

Hello Doug Weller, a dynamic IP keeps adding the redlink Ahmed Seddik to the List of Egyptologists. As you can see here and here, the page Ahmed Seddik was deleted multiple times due to lack of notability and then salted in order to prevent its recreation. That was in 2009 though the deletion page has been vandalized recently. Today this Seddik does not seem to have increased his notability so much, so I'm keeping to revert the IP insertion in List of Egyptologists. Do you have any suggestion? Shall we protect this page, or maybe I am wrong and the guy deserves his article? Kind regards, Khruner (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

KhrunerNot sure if it's the same person due to the geolocations, but I added the AfDs for this tourist guide (studying Egyptology doesn't make you an Egyptologist) and added his AfDs to Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Social sciences. Also removed his name from 2 other articles. I can find some quotes from him but no discussion about him. Thanks for raising this, but I don't think protection is needed. The page is on my watchlist now. Doug Weller (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Library needs you!

The Misplaced Pages Library

The Misplaced Pages Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

• Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
• Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
• Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
• Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Delivered on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Political correctness" revert - June 11

@Doug Weller: In response to your welcomed & helpful comment -- "thanks, but without reliable sources linking his ideas to this concept, it's original research" -- concerning my edit(s) to the article on "Political Correctness", I have added citations to 3 sources which discuss the linking of Orwell's idea of "Newspeak" to the political correctness concept. Thanks much for your help. Appreciate it.Professor JR (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Doug Weller for coming onto your talk page, Professor JR I have also just reverted you, your text does NOT establish a connection between 1984 and PC. Clearly 'Newspeak' is a connected concept and we therefore link to it in the 'see also's. We also discuss an author who makes such a connection, however your text is about Orwell himself and his experience of 'thought censorship'. The connection to PC, no matter how obvious it may seem, is not being made by the source and is therefore OR (and slightly 'off-topic').Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This conversation continues here:my talk pagePincrete (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Huffington Post

I didn't appreciate your edit summary at Jason Colavito telling me to "search before deleting" when there was no citation attached , and you know very well that anything tagged for needing a citation, particular over a long period of time, can be deleted without discrimination, per WP:RS and WP:BLP. There is nothing in WP policy or guidelines demanding that editors do a search on the Internet before deleting something that has been tagged as needing a citation for so long. You also made your edits so sloppily, you didn't double check to correct your error in making your edit. Perhaps you should double check your edits or add sources to tagged items needing citations instead of condescending to other editors in your summaries. Laval (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Laval Sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intention. Yes, you can delete in such circumstances. Should you do it without checking to see if it can be easily sources? I don't think so. Is there nothing in policy that demands editors do a search? No, since you worded your question "demands", a word that you probably can't find in any policy. If you had said "recommends" then I'd say yes, there is, WP:Preserve. That says consider "Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" rather than just removing material. And when I have time I do add sources to tagged or even untagged material. I did yesterday in other articles. And yes, I should have checked my edit there. However, I didn't name you in my edit summary whereas you actually criticised me by name in yours - which I gather you think is fine while condemning my edit summary.

To recap. I am sorry that I offended you. I admit to having a "thing" about easily source-able material being removed. And thanks for your comments at WP:Talk:Baghdad Battery. Doug Weller (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Cavalierman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:Cavalierman. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Anglo Pyramidologist/BookWorm44/Goblin Face

Anglo_Pyramidologist is Goblin Face, just recently banned on a major sock farm. There are his banned socks logged under the same name such as Anglo Pyramidologist Returns. He's been revisiting the British Israelism entry under different socks for years, and even speaking to you. The only difference is that he is now anti-BI, and people don't recognize this. Some of his socks that edited the BI entry: AncientScribal, PhiloSemiticGeek, HerodotusReader. Note he was also on the Chronicles of Eri as IrishBookofInvasons and on Laurence Waddell on WaddellSumerian, OldScrolls etc, as well as re-editing his old AngloP contributions such as Ethel Bristowe. As far as I'm aware no one has picked up on this, and not filed it under Anglo Pyramidologist. When this AngloP is banned he always uses the same excuse the socks are his brothers or sisters in his house. Its obvious though this is all one individual based on the edit history overlap. Also, between the Goblin Face and Anglo Pyramidologist sock archives, was another sock farm owned by AngloP: BookWorm44. If you look at edits, and account names they are connected. The only 'missing year' for AngloP is 2013. However it turns out at the start of that year he went to Metapedia, and became a sysop there for a short while (until Dec. 2013). On Goblin Face, various of his blocked socks have tried to remove the mention of "Atlantid" on the Metapedia entry here, including a sock called Atlantid. All the socks on the race talk page are the same person, i.e. AngloP (blocked under Goblin Face or "Quack Hunter" filed as a checkuser sock of Goblin) e.g. Ralph Roadrash, Palaeoresearcher, etc. Note Atlantid/AngloP's enemy is Mikemikev (formerly also) from Metapedia who he was debating on the race talk Misplaced Pages entry. In October 2014, it was AngloP on his sock FossilMad who reported and banned Mikemikev again for sockpuppetry. Atlantid/Anglo_Pyramidologist are confirmed to be the same editor off Misplaced Pages, but I won't link to anything. This though can easly be confirmed by running google checks on both names. JohnJons (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And another sock blocked. JohnJons is Goblin Face. Doug Weller (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Cro-Magnon edit

Hi Doug, thanks for your recent thanks! It was important for me to ascertain the accurate date of the migration of anatomically correct humans into both Europe and North Asia - both around 45,000 BC. Shortly after, around 40,000 BC, the Taymyr wolf (from north asia)/Gray wolf/dog diverged from a now extinct ancestor. No fossil of the ancestor has yet been found. I do not subscribe to the idea that humans were responsible for this divergence, but they now do appear to be well placed to take advantage of the newly-diverged dog! Regards, William Harris • talk • 07:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

• News and notes: Chapter financial trends analyzed, news in brief

• Traffic report: Two households, both alike in dignity

• In the media: Arbitration case attracts media coverage; Misplaced Pages in Israel

• Featured content: Just the bear facts, ma'am

• Technology report: Wikimedia sites are going HTTPS only

• Blog: Making Misplaced Pages’s medical articles accessible in Chinese

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RE: Nubia oldest Monarchy edit

I will study how to properly cite refrences & how to edit in the proper fashion but I must state that your inference that my references are some how invalid due to the fact I cited a New York Times article dated from1979 is wrong. Your dating of Nubia is rooted in research done in the early to mid 20th century. The refrence is dated to 1979 becuase the discovery was made near that period of time I emphasized in my edit that the artifacts were found in the "area" of Nubia. Perhaps i should have emphasized these artifacts date to the A culture of Nubia. These artifacts prove not only did Nubia have the institution of Kingship before Egypt but that the Egyptians were influenced by this & used similar symbolism in there early seals of Kingship. Again this was achieved by the A group which you write about later in your wiki article on Nubia. Ive presented information about Nubia that has been overlooked for decades. In the interest of historical truth i hope you see fit to allow this information once ive presented it in the proper format. For now here are links to the University of Chicago's Nubia Salvage project brochures from 1987 (i hope this is not to old for you) https://oi.uchicago.edu/museum-exhibits/special-exhibits/nubia-salvage-project-1 (see figure 1-which is an image of the symbol of Kingship dated to 330 b.c.)

here are links to the original New York Times article

New York Times article Nubia oldest Monarchy

New York Times article Nubia oldest Monarchy pt2

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughCipher (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A quick search turned up this article: Bruce Williams, “The Lost Pharaohs of Nubia”, Archaeology, Vol. 33, No. 5 (September/October 1980), pp.12–21. I haven’t followed up on this work’s reception or how it’s regarded at present.—Odysseus1479 00:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Some back-and-forth: William Y. Adams, “Doubts about the ‘Lost Pharaohs’”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp.185–192; Bruce Williams, “Forebears of Menes in Nubia: Myth or Reality?”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp.15–26.—Odysseus1479 01:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

User:HughCipher, thanks to the clues offered by User:Odysseus1479 I found Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History by Susan E. Alcock, published by Cambridge University Press. She says "The radical hypothesis of Bruce Williams (1980) - that the pharaonic monarchy first appeared in Nubia during this period - has been rejected by the majority of both Egyptologists and Nubian archaeologists. There is now more material from Abvdos that predates the Nubian material Williams worked with. Indeed, the archaeological material from Abydos, Hicrakonpolis, and other sites further north is forcing a complete reevaluation of the emergence of the pharaonic state. Nevertheless, Williams was certainly justified in revising the earlier model that saw A-Group society as non-hicrarchical. It is clear that during the period of state formation in Egypt, Nubia was undergoing a similar process. This was probably due in large part to increased economic contacts between the two regions. By the time of the unification of Egypt there were three principal powers in Lower Nubia - and they may have been united into one state based at Qustul. However, we have no documentary evidence to illuminate this, and the evidence at present is derived from the cemetery sites of Scyala (H. S. Smith 1994) and Qustul (B. B. Williams 1986, 1992)."

This is an example of how fast archaeological conclusions can change with new discoveries, and why we should always look at the latest research. Doug Weller (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And "At the time of Williams’ argument, the Qustul cemetery and the ‘royal’ iconography found there was dated to the Naqada IIIA period, thus antedating royal cemeteries in Egypt of the Naqada IIIB phase. New evidence from Abydos, however, particularly the excavation of Cemetery U and the tome U-j, dating to Naqada IIIA has shown that this iconography appears earlier in Egypt." Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

University of America California

I moved the following post from the top of the page and added the above title.—Odysseus1479 00:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr Doug , The name University of America california is not fit to be listed as un accredited institution : 1 because the individual who listed it has no single reliable source quoted to support the black - listing of this institution. 2. This institution is an international institution and have a membership in UN as international institution , because it is an international institution , it has receive three international accreditations , first with ASIC U.K , a U.K government recognised and Misplaced Pages listed agency and with the NBTE Nigeria in west africa , another regional accrediting government agency as well as by EBMA , a QAA trusted status agency , so singling this institution out anong all it united states ASIC counterparts, without following any Misplaced Pages stated rules , is being dishonest and unfair and inviting unecessary trouble for wikipedia.

I therefore ask you remove this institution from this list of unaccredited institutions because it is an accredited international institution having accreditation recognised by two legitimate governments and international status recognised by the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philsoter1 (talk • contribs)

ASIC does not seem to be a legitimate accreditation agency in the UK. There is nothing indicating that they are a legitimate accreditation agency on their website: http://www.asicuk.com/about-us/ They list membership with CHEA International Quality Group, which doesn't indicate accreditation: http://www.cheainternational.org/ And of course, the UN doesn't accredit anything. jfeise (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

More info on "ASIC International Accreditation" not being legitimate accreditation: http://www.asicuk.com/university-accreditation/ "ASIC Accreditation for the university education sector is a voluntary, 'non-governmental process that gives recognition to institutions that meet established quality standards." jfeise (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Further, this institution is not even registered with the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education: https://app.dca.ca.gov/bppe/view-voc-names.asp?schlname=university+of+america&Submit=Search They are registered as High School with the CA Department of Education: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/details.asp?cds=33752006142293&public=N in the Murietta Unified School District. Since this list is about unaccredited institutions of higher education, not about high schools, it belongs in the list. jfeise (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to emphasize the difference of locations, the BPPE registered "World University of America", which shows up in a search for the term "University of America" on the BPPE website, is located in Ojai, CA, northwest of Los Angeles in Ventura Country, whereas the High School "University of America" is located in Murietta, CA, southeast of Los Angeles, in Riverside Country. These are obviously two different entities. jfeise (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Need help with Race (Human Classification)

Greetings, there is an aggressive editor, Captain JT Verity, who is constantly changing the Race (Human Classifications) article without regard to WP's policies (e.g., consensus, reliable sources, etc). Given that you have interacted with this page in the past, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a gander and adjudicate. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the page - you're lucky you edited last after I read this. Wait, I expect other editors will come along. Doug Weller (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate it. I really didn't want to engage in any edit conflicts but to engage in discussion until a consensus is reached. And I am hopeful that other editors will chime in. Again, thanks for being responsive. danielkueh (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: As you might already know, the discussion on the Talk: Race (human classification) page has become heated again, with editors having very different views on what the lead definition should be. I have tried really hard to reach out to another longtime editor but I have not been successful. I'm not claiming that the views of one editor trumps another. But I do want to express my concern that once the protection status of that page has been lifted, there might be potential edit conflicts. I really don't think this is productive and I really believe consensus is important so that any major edit would be lasting. My view on the matter is that at a minimum, there should be an RfC or similar, and that no edits should be done until consensus is reached. Ideally, more editors should be involved in the discussions. I welcome any advice you might have on this matter. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

• In the media: Misplaced Pages wins Asturias Prize; printing out Misplaced Pages; HTTPS switch

• Arbitration report: An election has consequences

• In focus: Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

• Op-ed: Making a difference in Misplaced Pages, one GA at a time

• Technology report: HTTPS-only rollout completed; proposal to enable VisualEditor for new accounts

• Interview: A veteran’s Misplaced Pages edits help him understand the brutality behind Yugoslavia’s wars

• News and notes: Labs outage kills tools, self; news in brief

• Featured content: Great Dane hits 150

• Discussion report: A quick way of becoming an admin

• WikiProject report: Western Australia speaks – we are back

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As you noticed.

Doug,

I noticed that you have been talking to User:Artin Mehraban several times now as well both through edit summaries and on his talk page that he needs to cease this OR nonsene. I have left him several times as well a note both on talk pages (including his own) and through multiple edit summaries that he should cease adding self-created maps to articles, self-fabricated theories to articles, apart from adding info without attribution. I believe he's just sincerely interested in this stuff, but its really annoying for other people, as we have to revert his edits and tell the same thing over and over (e.g please stop spreading WP:OR info/maps, etc.etc.). Even after your message of yesterday he just won't stop as he created another self-made production without any reference or any source. As he has not ceded to do so, despite a message by you yesterday and me respectively yesterday and today, I was on the brink to bring it to ANI, but decided not to just in case they'll treat him too harsh. This stuff anyway has to stop right now, I mean we can't mention to him over and over that his activities violate many WP's, most notably WP:OR. Maybe a last final warning by you could solve this? If he still continues spreading OR and self-created nonsensical maps after that, well I guess some blocks are needed really. I just reverted several of his OR edits again.

Edit; ok, its completely out of hand now. He still continues with that habit of setting up self-created OR thoughts into articles. ] I've just created a section on WP:ANI.

- LouisAragon (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Good that you could leave a prompt reply on the ANI page. I had left him the ANI notice throughout my sentences on his page, , but I believe that a separate section with the notification added again is perhaps more helpful. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like he has responded and said he's sorry. But I'd feel better if he'd offer to delete his bad files. Liz 19:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

He's been sorry and saying over and over and promising over and over that he won't do it again. As we speak, he just did it again I have no objections against a block now. He just uploaded again another pic from Pinterest without any references and sources and claims it to be representing a historical figure. He just doesn't grasp it with normal explanations. Apart from giving other people extra nuisance, I don't see any usage of such edits which are textbook WP:OR violations to the max, over and over again.

- LouisAragon (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Seems to be using a Pinterest account to ‘launder‘ or obscure the source of this image. See here: very unlikely to be own-work as claimed.—Odysseus1479 23:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

He's been adding another washlist of copy-vio violating pictures as well as violating WP:OR through edits in the last few hours. Honestly, how many times have we asked him now to read the policies? To consult the Teahouse? To understand that he's to cease this? I've just reverted another spree of his nonsensical edits, and people are busy already deleting his uploaded pics, once again. Honestly, he has to get a block. Not just to protect Wiki's integrity and from it getting infested with more OR violating/copy-vio material and articles, but also that he might perhaps understand that he's been busy doing blatantly wrong stuff. Perhaps he will really change after he gets back from a short-term block, cause I do think he's not a bad "editor". Just this has been going on for a while now. A while too long I believe. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, and he goes on and on.... - LouisAragon (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom

Can you tell me anything about TheRedPenOfDoom? I ask because I see your name on the user page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

He may be along soon to tell you himself. A very experienced editor, does some work cleaning up fringe and BLP articles, upsets people at times. Of course I do all those things too. Doug Weller (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds about right. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Red link

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Red link. Legobot (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Kennewick man as ancestor to all living humans

Why did you delete the reference to the National Geographic article where it is stated that skeletons as old as Kennewick man (but he is not mentioned particularly) is the ancestor of all humans alive today. The point is that either Kennewick has no descendants today or everybody on earth are his descendants. This is an important point to include in this article due to controversy about the rights to the skeleton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.15.134 (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It didn't mention Kennewick man. 2. It's nonsense - it and similar sources assume that there are no groups that have been completely isolated for long periods of time. The National Geographic is not always a reliable source by our criteria. And it's trivia. If he is so is everyone else who lived at that time. Doug Weller (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is not nonsense. Here you have another article: RECENT COMMON ANCESTORS OF ALL PRESENT-DAY INDIVIDUALS, Joseph T. Chang, Department of Statistics, Yale University. The issue here is that most people (you included?) do not grasp the great implications of only a few people moving within a generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.15.134 (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

See Human Y chromosome much older than previously thought: "our results suggest that there are pockets of genetically isolated communities that together preserve a great deal of human diversity." All of these studies are based upon the assumption that there are no genetically isolated populations, eg Human populations are tightly interwoven "Rohde's simulation aims to include everyone alive today, and therefore relies on the assumption that no population has remained completely isolated for any significant length of time. Rohde is confident that this is the case; even Tasmania, once thought to be isolated by choppy seas, contains no people with purely Tasmanian blood." That paper says about 1500 BC. T

Not that it matters, as I've said, it would be trivial if it were true for a huge number of people. Doug Weller (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

• From the editor: The Signpost tagging initiative

• Op-ed: Content Translation beta is coming to the English Misplaced Pages

• Special report: Small impact of the large Google Translation Project on Telugu Misplaced Pages

• Featured content: One eye when begun, two when it's done

• Recent research: How Misplaced Pages built governance capability; readability of plastic surgery articles

• Technology report: 2015 MediaWiki architecture focus and Multimedia roadmap announced

• News and notes: Board of Trustees propose bylaw amendments

• In the media: Turkish Misplaced Pages censorship; "Can Misplaced Pages survive?"; PR editing

• Blog: 7,473 volumes at 700 pages each: meet Print Misplaced Pages

• Arbitration report: Politics by other means: The American politics 2 arbitration

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Odia alphabet

Hi, Odia is now the preferred term as per this decision. After the move, I also moved Oriya alphabet to Odia alphabet. Kwamikagami, one of those who opposed the (Oriya->Odia) move, reverted this move and also added an edit to the page, preventing me from reverting his revert. The consensus/agreement on the use of Odia has already been reached. Thank you. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk)

Missed that. There have been undiscussed attempts before, good to see this was done properly. Doug Weller (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you like me to make another CSD request? Or will you be able to take care of this without one? Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Cpt.a.haddock Sorry, I'm otherwise occupied. Many apologies. Doug Weller (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

message to Doug!!!

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Gratuitous bias, defamation and the private demons of Doug Weller.

Doug, you can revert my edit about David Duke if you like. After all, you're the "administrator" here, right? (Imagine the power!) But that doesn't change the fact that what you are doing in this instance is defamation, not the neutral presentation of information which should be the goal of any true encyclopedia. And I don't mean defamation in some narrowly technical sense, where it might be shown that, yes, David Duke has indeed said things in support of various individuals charged with "Holocaust denial" in the past and that therefore a case might be made that it is not defamatory to say that he may (!) in some way be a "Holocaust denier" himself. No, what is defamatory about it (in a broad sense) is just the way it seeks to prejudice the reader against Collins Piper and Duke by calling them silly names, rather than simply presenting information about them in a neutral manner and letting the reader make up his or her own mind. You know, the way a real encyclopedia would.

I'm used to the bias of Wikipedos (hah! there, how do you like it?) and I mostly ignore it when I see it, but the gratuitous nature of the slander here was simply too glaring. The article is about Michael Collins Piper, not David Duke; the article itself goes on to deal with the question of Piper's own publications on the subject (which is a perfectly legitimate line of enquiry in this instance), and anyone following the link to the article on David Duke can also discover the (much flimsier and tendentious) accusations of "Holocaust denial" which have been leveled at him. So the bases are covered really, and the only reason I can see for throwing "Holocaust denier" at Duke into that introductory paragraph is that someone has an axe to grind.

Would that someone be you, Doug? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky Starfish (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, pretty sure I didn't add that to the Piper article. Yes, anyone can go to Duke's page and find out about his anti-Semitic, white separatist, views. It wasn't slander, and if I were going to give Duke an adjective I probably would have picked a better one. On another note, our role is not to present a neutral presentation of information, read WP:NPOV more carefully. And WP:NPA. Doug Weller (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Gog and Magog

On Gog and Magog, an anon ISP insists on adding material from a non RS that doesn't appear in any RS I've come across. If you agree, could you consider making the page registered editors only. Thanks PiCo (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. René Guénon's "The Reign of Quantity and The Sign of Times" is a reliable source, translated in many languages, internationally reknown, and which has a full chapter on the subject of "Gog and Magog". Just have a look of the results done by a simple google search on the title, or a search with the keywords "The Reign of Quantity and The Sign of Times Gog and Magog". And the Misplaced Pages page on René Guénon acknowledges the reliability of the source. 193.50.110.189 (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hallo Doug, I need your advice about recent edits on the Armenia article. Can I put on his talk page the advice about the existence of discretionary sanctions for this article, or this has to be done by an admin? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can do it, Alex, anybody can. You need to use the official template, {{subst:alert|a-a}}. Bishonen | talk 08:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks! I am slowly getting superpowers... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ethiopia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette

In my appeal to ArbCom titled Talk Page Etiquette, you mention that you are noting that this should not have been brought to ArbCom. I will just mention that i had asked the closing Admin at ANI on his talk page as to whether there was any other mechanism for appealing his decision. Had he mentioned Dispute Resolution i would have surely gone there instead of ArbCom, but he did not mention Dispute Resolution. This is the relevant diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Philg88&diff=669598778&oldid=669598601 I thought it appropriate to mention this to you because i do not want you to hold my action of bringing up this matter in ArbCom against me in future. Soham321 (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC) @Soham321: No problem, it was an error of inexperience. I won't hold it against you. Doug Weller (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)