User talk:Doug Weller - Wikipedia
2 people in discussion
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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.
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.
- If you need to get a repeat vandal blocked, you can report them to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism.
- If you need a page to be protected from editing, try Requests for page protection.
- If you would like to request rollback rights or account creator rights, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions is, well, that way... :)
- If your problem does not fit into any of the above criteria, and your issue is urgent, you can:
- Make a post on the Administrators' noticeboard, the Incidents noticeboard, or one of the other noticeboards.
- Ask another administrator for help. Here is a complete List of Wikipedia Administrators.
- If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add
{{helpme}}before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.
Did I delete your page, block you, or do something else that I should not have done?
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.
Also, if you sign your post (by typing four tildes - ~~~~ - at the end of your message), I will respond faster, and I will tend to be in a better mood, because unsigned comments are one of my pet peeves.
If you are blocked from editing, you cannot post here, but your talk page is most likely open for you to edit. To request a review of your block, add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. (replace reason with why you think you should not be blocked.) I watch the talk pages of everyone I block, so I will almost definitely see you make your request. If I am making edits (check Special:Contributions/Doug Weller) and I do not answer your request soon, or you cannot edit your talk page for some reason, you can try sending me an email. Please note, however, that I rarely check my email more than a few times a day, so it may be a couple of hours before I respond.
Administrators: If you see me do something that you think is wrong, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo my actions. I would, however, appreciate it if you let me know what I did wrong, so that I can avoid doing it in the future.
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 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.
My apologies. I deleted that prematurely without finding the proper sources to refute. NJMauthor (talk)
Doug,
Just delete the entire article. I would rather not have an article listed if there is no control over the lies that were added about me with no citiations. Thanks for all your help.
David Ryon 614-890-1362
Dear Mr Dougweller, the Cretan diet article is a translation from the greek wikipedia Κρητική Διατροφή. It has references and bibliography, as the Greek translation. I have already send an e-mail to Greek wikipedia explaining all these. This article about Cretan Diet is written from a phd scientist and it is verified from its resources. The article you have added has no resources, no links at all. Could we replace it with the original translation about Cretan diet?
Thanx in Advace
symfono_gram 11:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I've moved this to Talk:Cretan diet so others can take part. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Regarding this and this, can you please explain why you believe Sabawoon or AfghanPedia doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source? And, how is a reliable source determined in Wikipedia? I want to know this from you because you asserted that Sabawoon and AfghanPedia are not reliable.Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Read WP:RS. If you disagree, start a discussion at WP:RSN - reliability is not the default, if it's not obvious then you have to demonstrate it. In any case, you claim there are other sources, if none of them are clearly reliable you have a serious problem, if some are, then use them. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I've read WP:RS before. I have links to primary as well as secondary sources, and according to the rules of Wikipedia secondary sources are preferable over primary. I want you to briefly explain why you found Sabawoon as an unreliable source? Is it because it's work done by Afghans? Is it because they are not popular? Or, is it because another editor (User:Tajik) has said so?
- If I wanted to know something about Cambodia I will have to find a reliable Cambodian site to explain to me about their country, history and people. Why can't the same be done with Afghanistan?
- In here Sabawoon states that "More than sixty five percent of the population speaks Pashto". This is one of the "official languages" of the country and I don't know why that line surprises someone. If Spanish and English were both the official languages of your country, and a source stated "More than sixty five percent of the population speaks Spanish" or "More than sixty five percent of the population speaks English", will it surprise you? Will you call that source of information unreliable?
Ahmed shahi (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- As I said, take it to WP:RSN which is the appropriate forum for discussing reliable sources. If you are sure a fact is correct, find a reliable source - unreliable sources aren't always wrong, they just don't meet our definition of a reliable source. You still don't seem to understand our concept. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hello! Today I added an external link (www.caloriefacts.org) to the "Databases and Search Engines" Section of Wikipedia's Nutrition page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition). I was wondering why you removed it. I admit, I'm slightly biased, since the link was to a site run by two of my colleagues, but it seems like the perfect fit for that section. Why can nutritiondata.com have a link and not caloriefacts.org? Especially since NutritionData is a commerical site which is only partly a nutrition database (the focus more on nutrition blogs, products, etc., wheras CalorieFacts is a dedicated nutritional database search engine.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.24.193 (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Several points. based on our guidelines at WP:EL. First, there should be a minimum number of links. Secondly, we shouldn't link to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I couldn't see anything that met that criterion. And thirdly, there's the fact that it is a minor site, with an Alexa Traffic Rank of 10,281,672. Adding it would promote it of course, but we aren't here for that. If you want other comments, we have a board where you can raise the matter, Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. I very much appreciate your coming to my talk page and asking me, you'd be amazed how many people respond by verbal attacks or vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thought I'd bring it to your attention: I requested a ban again, since the user sent an email declaring his intentions to continue his prior behavior. Maybe a permanent ban is too much, but six months seems about right. — Timneu22 · talk 13:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- He's up to his old tricks. Namely, he's a copyvio king. — Timneu22 · talk 11:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I see he's been blocked today. The 1837 book though is out of copyright. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Book review: Review of The World and Wikipedia
- News and notes: iPhone app update, Vector rollout for May 13, brief news
- In the news: Government promotes Tamil Wikipedia, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject U.S. Roads
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Anon. editor from Qatar that you blocked for one week on 4 May is back at Talk:Israelites, using a different IP address, with the same post as previously. It is disruptive, especially as one of the "regulars" on that talk page is sympathetic to the "challenge" to religion (challenge that I've called "defamation" and that you called "anti-religious rants") posed by the IP. I deleted once; it came right back. I don't want to provoke (or engage in) an edit war. Can you have a look, please? Hertz1888 (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I'd just like to take up one or two things you've written recently.
- In Talk:Piri Reis map you wrote "it does need to be basically a scholarly article", I responded "just like every other wikipedia article" and you replied "We do not expect all our articles to be scholarly, unless you have a very different definition of scholarly than I have. We have huge numbers of articles on music, villages, cities, towns, books, tv programs, cartoons, etc. that we don't expect to be scholarly."
- Of course I'm aware of the fact that in many cases we have to make do with sources which are less than ideal. The point I wished to stress is that we should be as scholarly as is possible in the circumstances, that is, to use scholarly sources whenever and wherever they exist, and to cultivate a scholarly detachment (WP:NPOV) and accuracy (WP:RS).
- In Talk:Ica stones you wrote "I'm not sure I agree that our policy is 'to present attested facts, neutrally and accurately.' 'Neutrally' to you may not mean what NPOV means to me, for instance. An article on evolution, for instance, isn't expected to be neutral, it is expected to be written from an NPOV standpoint."
- I have never before in wikipedia seen any attempt to counterpose "neutral" to NPOV. The N stands for "neutral". I really don't know how you are trying to distingusih the two ideas. As for evolution, to say that the article "isn't expected to be neutral" seems to me quite wrong, and flatly to contradict wikipedia policy, which I support. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I was suggesting that 'scholarly' is not what is expected in all our articles, eg actually watching a tv episode and describing it seems to be sufficient for articles about tv programmes, odd as that might sound. As for NPOV, of course the N stands for Neutral, but neutral usually means things like equal time for both sides, etc. and our NPOV policy makes it clear that that is not how our articles should be written. Minority viewpoints do not necessarily get equal time. Articles on subjects like evolution aren't neutral in the sense many people use the word. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Next time when I found some mistake on Wikipedia (like this or this) I'll inform you personally about it because I don't want you guys to consider it as vandalism. I know my situation and I don't have time for appeal to unblock my account, but some articles are important to me coz I'm working on one academic work so I use "what links here" very often - that's why I've found many mistakes. Cheers, vandal-killer! :) --93.142.161.161 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC) (Orijentolog)Reply