This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Doug Weller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The current date and time is 27 February 2020 T 10:25 UTC.

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.

D O U G W E L L E R
Witch cutout.png
             
User-invisible.svg
             
Nek-o-lantern.svg
       
Cat silhouette.svg
               
Skull & crossbones.svg
               
The death.svg
             
Spider.svg
Home               Talk Page               Contributions         My Stats                 Archives                 Subpages               Email
Happy Halloween!

User:Doug Weller
User talk:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Workshop
Special:Prefixindex/User:Doug Weller
User:Doug Weller/Userboxes
Special:Contributions/Doug Weller
Special:Emailuser/Doug Weller
home

Talk Page

Workshop

Site Map

Userboxes

Edits

Email

Notice Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...
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 here to start a new topic.
If I have not made any edits in a while, (check) you may get a faster response by posting your request in a more centralized place.



Socks[edit]

Hi. I notice you blocked User:Truth is this as a sock of User:Asadul rasel, but actually, I think they're both socks of User:Smatrah. PepperBeast (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast: why? Doug Weller talk 19:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a duck. All of the articles edited by those two were previously edited by Smatrah. The writing style is similar, as is the combattiveness. That's actually what I was thinking when I commented on User:Truth is this's page. PepperBeast (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pepperbeast: that seems quite possible, and I've asked another CU. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
How did that CU go? I see Smatrah has joined the edit war on Women in Islam. PepperBeast (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pepperbeast: they couldn't help. They couldn't recall the earlier case where they blocked him and there's not enough evidence for a CU. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
No worries; thanks for checking. PepperBeast (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar redirect[edit]

Hi, I have nominated a redirect of Ilhan Omar that implies that her father's name is the same as her ex-husband father's name. The name was made up by a conspiracy theorist right-wing blogs. It's defamatory and should be removed. However, I don't think editors here get how this fake name implies that, because they use a different naming system that make the first and the second name are the names of the same person and not his name and his father's name.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, regarding the MS-13 page[edit]

You're saying that adding text that is essentially a paraphrase of the same text that was shot down by the RfC is fine? And you're also saying that it's fine for you to come around to my talk page instead of discussing such a questionable addition on the talk page of the article? How are you an admin, exactly? PaganPanzer (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It was a short sentence summarising the material in the article - that's what the RfC suggested, but in fact I didn't see the RfC, the edit I made about 2 weeks ago, reverted in error and then restored by [[u|SummerPhDv2.0}} was my first edit to the article, so how about assuming good faith? I did not look at the bolded text at all. You haven't edited since last May and almost all of your edits with this account have been to this article. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hindustani language[edit]

Hi Doug! Can you consider to add a ds/talk notice-template to Talk:Hindustani language? The subject relates to India and Pakistan, so ACDS implicitly also apply to this topic. The scope of the page is debated, and one editor repeatedly resorts to quite odd assertions about the "motives" of other editors, which IMHO violates AGF (e.g. [1]). I know this can be reproachable even without ACDS, but lowering the threshold should help to stengthen awareness about proper conduct. –Austronesier (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: done. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Great, thank you! –Austronesier (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

IP and likely sock puppet recently added extensive original research to Negrito page.[edit]

The same IP (81.10.217.91) that had disruptively edited the Vedda page not too long ago (and has a history of adding WP:OR to Peopling of India and Andamanese), and also seems to be a suck puppet of previous similar IPs (and several blocked accounts), has just made a very extensive edit to Negrito. Though I could not investigate all of it immediately (there was a lot) I looked it over it and noticed the it included several inaccurate statements and instances of what appeared to be WP:OR as well a the removal of sourced material that seemed to contradict that claims added by the IP. I reverted it with explanation in the edit notes including a points. This seems to be persistent. Here is the edit history of the Negrito page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Negrito&action=history Hopefully something can be done. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

IP apparently just here on vandalism[edit]

Hi Doug,

Can something be done about IP 136.32.114.40. If you look at their contributions [2], all they do is delete/mangle article content leaving an edit summery of "≈≈≈".--Ermenrich (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Adolf Warski[edit]

I don’t know how to add a source to category. Can you look at my change when you get a chance? [3] Here is the source[4] GizzyCatBella🍁 10:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Islam and domestic violence[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Koreangauteng (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hounding and continued edit warring by Andrew Lancaster[edit]

Hi. As i'm sure you remember, Andrew Lancaster and myself had strong disagreements on the article Germanic peoples a few weeks ago. Edit warring occurred as a result, and we were warned both by Fram[[5] and yourself[6] that future edit warring would result in a block. I eventually refrained from further editing at Germanic peoples, and Andrew Lancaster exploited this opportunity to completely rewrite the article.[7][8] In the meantime, i have instead worked on improving the article Goths, which is currently under a GA review. Having rewritten Germanic peoples the way he wants it, Andrew Lancaster has now exported the edit warring to the article Goths, an article which he has never edited before,[9] thereby seriously inhibiting my work. This seems like violations of WP:HOUNDING and WP:BATTLE to me. Krakkos (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: Edit warring? This was posted after Krakkos started reverting publication date corrections I was making. I, in contrast, have not re-reverted, but posted on the talk page about this strange behaviour. [10] What are you trying to achieve here by complaining about such necessary corrections and the other remarks etc on the talk page? I note also that you are now constantly complaining about there being a GA review you started. Normally articles with content discussions on-going (and your own extensive re-writing shows the need for a lot of content work) are not proposed for GA review. It looks a bit like you started the process as a strategic act? Clearly what is really happening is POV pushing. On Germanic peoples you wrote about us having our own ("pet") parts of the article. Your parts were not allowed to mention anyone who agrees with Walter Goffart. As I pointed out, that is POV forking. I see you using a similar logic still in your complaints about me working on related articles, where you are trying to build up an censored anti Goffart block of articles (walled garden), by using older books, non-specialist works, and sometimes even re-dating them. Obviously that is not going to be something sustainable, so why not just work according to the accepted community norms?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Update is that Krakkos is now openly insisting on using supposed reprint dates as publication dates. I want to be clear: the post above is blatently dishonest, and not for the first time, and these edits are fraudulent. It just goes on and on. These are all systematically working to achieve a pattern of aims, over and over. I can't find any nice way to say it. This is not a competent editor of Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)