The current date and time is 31 March 2019 T 17:24 UTC.

home	Talk Page	Workshop	Site Map	Userboxes	Edits	Email

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. 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.

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.

Qahtanite[edit]

Hi. could you see the problem in article of Qahtanite. There is a comment sourced by unscholarly source and has a WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE problem. I have tried to remove it but I get reverted. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The source is from Amsterdam University Press. Doug, i would welcome your insight about how reliable this source is for modern historiography. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It is given due weight and it is sourced to someone who is not a historian or a genealogist see talk:Qahtanite.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that other editors have also tried to reinstate this content that was removed by SharabSalam : [1].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thus your removal clearly does not fit with WP:CONSENSUS since you have not achieved any consensus for it.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: A revert from 11/2018 by like minded editor establishes WP:CONSENSUS?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

All that matters is that your removal with the mean of edit-warring does not, since you have not achieved consensus on the talk for your sourced content removal.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, Gianluca P. Parolin is a Professor at the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies, which makes him quite a reliable source for this topic, but i'll wait for Doug's opinion : [2]---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani and SharabSalam: I have no doubt that it's a reliable source. See[3] and [4]. But not for the text in that diff. It should be attributed to him (his name is enough, people can look him up) and it needs page numbers. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ Thanks for your valuable insight Doug, the cite already had a page number : [5], i will include the attribution as you requested. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Dictionaries and Research Prove Useful[edit]

You are out of line to threaten me. I did not include any "unsourced" information to the page in question; I reverted an edit that was unsourced, erroneous, and dubious in intent. Oxford's definition of "historian" is "an expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon." Merriam Webster offers two definitions of historian: "1) a student or writer of history especially one who produces a scholarly synthesis; and 2) a writer or compiler of a chronicle." No matter which definition you use, Supreme Understanding is a historian, as is evidenced in many of his books including Knowledge of Self, When the World Was Black Parts 1 and 2; and Black God. This information can be found in under two minutes, leaving one to wonder why someone felt it was necessary to belittle Supreme Understanding with the term "peusdohistorian" and why another individual rushed to defend and support support this egregious and racially charged insult. You, I, or another person may or may not like what Supreme Understanding has studied, written about, or what his research has uncovered, but one's personal prejudices do not give one the right to redefine him and attempt to negate his contributions to his field. In the future and with all due respect, Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Five-Percent Nation. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. OjogbonIjinle (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Of the three titles you give, the second sounds historical. However, I get the impression that it's self-published. Am I wrong? If SU has made contributions to history, where can we find others' informed appreciations (by historians or book critics) of these contributions? -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hoary: Supreme Understanding self-publishes his own works. I've added that to his article. He's proud of his publishing house and why shouldn't he be? It's original research to call him a historian, although User:OjogbonIjinle has done it again. OjogbonIjinle is misrepresenting what happened. At Five-Percent Nation someone added Supreme Understanding's description as an author to "author and historian". On the 22nd an IP removed the word "historian" and in an edit summary said he was more of a pseudohistorian (something I hadn't noticed until today). OjogbonIjinle restored "historian" and I checked Supreme Understanding's article to see if that matched his article. It didn't and there are no sources calling him "historian" so I removed it. And OjogbonIjinle restored this unsourced claim. We go by what reliable sources say about an author, not dictionary definitions, and our own article Historian says "A historian is a person who studies and writes about the past, and is regarded as an authority on it." It's of course nonsense claim I added anything at all, let alone something unsourced, as I simply removed a word. Of course in no way was I defending anything except our policies. It's OjogbonIjinle who is adding unsourced content. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You wrote: "Of the three titles you give, the second sounds historical." The content of documents is not found in how their titles sound but in the actual contents of the texts. If you read (or even skim) the contents of the books, you will find they are history books. To be specific, the overview of the book Black God states, "In this book, historian Supreme Understanding explores the many Black gods of the ancient world, from Africa to the Near East, to Europe, to India, to China, to Japan, to Australia, all the way to the Black Gods of the Americas" emphasis added (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/black-god-supreme-understanding/1127260720?ean=9781935721123).

Wikipedia is not an academic, legitimate, or authoritative source: any individual can access Wikipedia and mock, praise, ridicule, validate, belittle, or negate someone or something based on their personal prejudices, biases, and/or racism. Consequently, the attempt to use a definition from Wikipedia--which can be offered or altered by anyone, including you--is laughable. However, Supreme Understanding is a historian by Wikipedia's definition; he is certainly an expert in his field who has published history books. The real issue appears to be that certain individuals wish to negate and belittle Supreme Understanding because his research doesn't fit a particular racial/political agenda or because his research makes certain people uncomfortable or angry. The attempt to belittle Supreme Understanding's research is also evident in on your assumption that his books are self-published, which you apparently see as a demerit. Do you also take such an imperious and dismissive tone with other self-published authors, like Ben Franklin, William Blake, Walt Whitman, and Virginia Woolf? What makes it acceptable for them and not Supreme Understanding? What roles do the ethnicity and politics of the authors play in determining who is legitimate or not in your eyes? The consistent over-reliance on the superficial notions, the desire to ignore or embrace information based on one's personal predilections, and the desire to negate and denigrate sources that you do not like is disturbing. It is both sad and petty to attempt to claim that Supreme Understanding is only a pseudohistorian, if any type of historian at all. This entire issue seems rooted in some Wikipedians personal biases and insecurities rather than in Supreme Understanding's career, research, and publication.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

In your reversion, I see you have referenced David Irving. This reference is bizarre and has nothing to do with the fact that Supreme Understanding is a scholar of Black history, philosophy, sociology, and religion. Your desire to conflate these two persons--in a sad attempt to justify your refusal to admit that an author of several books on history is a historian--needs clarification. Supreme Understanding is listed as a historian in the synopsis of his book Black Gods (as I shared above) he has written historical books. What is your justification for removing "historian"? What is the purpose of referencing David Irving? It seems you are projecting your personal, racial/racist issues into this topic rather than being led by evidence, references, and logic. This type of illogical tyrannical behavior is the precise reason Wikipedia is NOT an academic source and is not allowed in serious academic conversations or publications. Wikipedia has an acknowledged problem with racism/racial bias. This discussion about Supreme Understanding and much of what occurs on pages about Black people, movements, and organizations--especially those that do not kow-tow to the Caucasian status quo--are emblematic of Wikipedia's deeply rooted problems.

Just because you do not personally like the sources does not mean those sources are not valid.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@OjogbonIjinle: Badgering Doug on his talk page is not productive. Doug is an experienced editor who is well versed in the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Discussion on whether to use a particular source in an article should take place on the talk page for that article. More general guestions about the reliability of a source may be presented for discussion by the Wikipedia community at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. - Donald Albury 13:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Unjustified "Good Faith" complaint[edit]

You recently left a complaint on my Talk Page about assuming good faith. I have removed it. This was in response to my referencing Wikipedia's guidelines. Referencing these guidelines is standard procedure, whereas making baseless accusations is not. Please explain to me how it is you find my referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and other rules in response to a person accusing me of being a member of an organization with no evidence, is a failure to assume good faith on my part. Additionally, please let me know whether you found the baseless accusation against me to be a violation of good faith and if you do not, please inform me how it is you don't find this a violation of the assumption of good faith.SamSamuel11 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@SamSamuel11: you were never accused of anything. What I see is "if you are a member of either of these organizations, you have a conflict of interest, and should act accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 8:43 pm, 24 March 2019, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC+0)". Note that User:Grayfell used the word "if". Your accusation is entirely unjustified. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't find that a convincing excuse. I have never made any claim to be of an organization, nor have I provided any evidence of such, so he was unjustified in interrogating me on these grounds. I could easily imply anyone could be a member of an organization, but and have a conflict of interest, but instead I stick to the actual arguments they are making. And my referencing the good faith rule is totally reasonable given his unjustified interrogation of my motives based simply on the rational and critical arguments I was presenting.SamSamuel11 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Israel page...[edit]

Hi Doug. I have been a member for 4 years, but I don't have 500 edits. I did leave a comment in talk, is that being removed? I have been debating the Israel/Palestine situation for almost 20 years, and I did leave credible citations. I do realize I forgot to sign it and didn't use the <ref> and instead used 'link'. This is the 1st time I have used talk, is that the issue?

Markusgarvey (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Markusgarvey: it only applies to the articles themselves. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Where to go for dispute resuolution[edit]

Doug, I'm having a dispute on Dhul-Qarnayn and Alexander the Great in the Quran. It seems intractable. Can you suggest the best step for dispute resolution? PiCo (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC) @Pico: sorry, rl and ISP prolems. WP:DRN. Or an RfC. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

YGM[edit]

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis[edit]

Hello. You have stated your reason for rejecting my proposal on Talk:Answers in Genesis as "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". In fact, Roxy the Dog has since quoted this statement as an argument against my latest proposal. However, I don't understand how this serves as a justification for reverting someone's edit, and, moreover, such an action violates WP:ROWN. Even without regard for Wikipedia policies, though, isn't it still preferable to keep the version about which there exists the least disagreement? If both versions are fine, but one version attracts serious criticism from a group of users and one doesn't, what's the logic behind keeping the former? Note that I am not criticising you but instead trying to gain insight into your reasoning, so that I can then address it better in my proposal.^Ol^Ja 20:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Hi Doug, just to let you know you've created a duplicate merger proposal at Talk:White supremacy – an IP had already beaten you to it, so now there are two threads on the proposal on the talk page. Richard3120 (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I fixed that as soon as I saw it, I was helping the IP who couldn't put a merge tag on the protected article. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Do you know of any WP policy/guidance/essay that says/hints that old "secondary" sources like Josephus and Herodotus should mostly be seen/used as primary sources in WP-context? Or is this just something I've dreamed up myself? For transparancy, this [6] discussion made me wonder. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Davidbena has been in a discussion about this before. @Zero0000, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, Tgeorgescu, and Greyshark09: you've all discussed this, can you help? Probably not here though. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Have no time to get mixed up in the redirected page debate but no ancient text should be ever cited on Wikipedia without a reliable secondary academic commentary on it. I wrote up Dionysius Thrax to stub level recently and conserved the famous primary source about the cup of Nestor that scholar is said to have fashioned. But I added both Rudolf Pfeiffer and R. H. Robins as the required secondary authority in doing so. The reason is very simple: every other sentence, however clear the grammar, has a long history of modern textual commentary on it, and, in many crucial passages interpretations as to the reliability of the report are various and contested. One can of course use such primary sources with attribution, but the information thus presented will be defective by omission, partial and partisan if the editor does not show how it is interpreted, skeptically or otherwise. For a classicist Herodotus/Josephus are primary sources, but at the same time, they are secondary sources in the sense that much of what they write reworks earlier sources (which by turn then are 'primary'). I don't think Wikipedia policy on this shows any awareness of the bullshit that emerges if you define a premodern text as 'secondary' because we know it drew on other works which have disappeared. Xerxes' army numbered 3 million according to Herodotus (7.334.1) or the land forces at roughly half that, 1,700,000 (7.60.1). It's actually more complex that even that, on Herodotus's own internal evidence. Logistically, we know that the maximum army could not have exceeded 200-250,000. Josephus's 1,100,000 Jewish casualties for the siege of Jerusalem by Titus is tantamount to the total carrying capacity of Palestine at that time, and clearly exaggerated. Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a final note posted here, to avoid possible suspicions by one editor there I am being intrusive. Just a quick read through several articles and sources underlines that one should not cite responsa as is done, unless via a scholarly source. The rabbi in question Joseph Colon is a fascinating figure in his own right, noted for the unexceptional length of his responsa, so who controls what is being excerpted from that text? Secondly, in northern Italy at that time, despite his eminence, there were two influential halakhic cultures. One was of Savoyid origin, Colon being the palmary representative. The other was the distinct Ashkenazic tradition brought in by German migrants. At times their views clashes, so an editor can't just cite a primary source as evidence for a clothing fashion, without contextualizing the specific halakhic viewpoint within the more general rabbinical tradition of that area and time. The reigning expert on Colon is Jeffrey Woolf, and neither here nor on the Joseph Colon article is his research used (except in the bibliography), when it is readily available online.See the several sources by Woolf listed in Jacob R. Marcus, Marc Saperstein, The Jews in Christian Europe: A Source Book, 315-1791, ISD LLC, 2016 978-0-822-98123-7 p.323

• Jeffrey Woolf, The Authority of Custom in the Responsa of R. Joseph Colon (Maharik), Dine Israel, 1998
• Damsels in Distress: Jewish Women in the Responsa of Rabbi Joseph Colon, pp.103-117
• 'New Light on the Life and Times of Rabbi Joseph Colon (Maharik),' Italia 13-15 2001 pp151-180 pp.171-177

More specifically there is an excellent study of the problem in

Beth A. Berkowitz Defining Jewish Difference: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge University Press, 2012 978-1-107-01371-1 pp.176-189. And see also

Moses Avigdor Shulvass, The Jews in the World of the Renaissance Brill Archive, 1973 978-9-004-03646-8 pp.186ff.

Most of our articles on these areas either lift from an encyclopedia, come from direct familiarity with a primary source, or just from random google clicks, despite the fact that beautiful secondary scholarship covers nearly everything. I think the fault is that one is tempted to google so specifically for a quick laconic answer, that one never throws a broad net to trawl up numerous sources which, if you then sit down and read through them for several hours, will give you an education while providing context, background and details, and much new material for articles, new or established, one never gets with quick fixes. Alas. I found out, for example, that there is much solid documentation showing that despite halakhic rules, there was a widespread tendency from Poland to Italy, for Jews to wear the same dress as other Poles, Germans, French or Italians as the case may be. Often the gorgeousness of Jewish women's dress was so admired, Christian neighbours borrowed from their Jewish friends in order to cut a figure when going to mass. I.e. the standard clichés of the received narrative Jews were compelled to wear distinctive dress (often legally true) by Christian laws, corresponding to the rabbinical insistence that they might not adopt alien dress codes, was in reality often ignored.(Edward Fram, Ideals Face Reality: Jewish Law and Life in Poland, 1550-1655, ISD LLC, 1997 978-0-878-20097-9, gives a charming Polish sample) Hope this helps.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Coming to this from a historian's perspective - no, we should not consider Josephus and Herodotus (or similar) sources as secondary sources in the Wikipedia sense. A large part of a historian's training is learning how to use sources such as those - at least if you're studying in fields outside of modern history. In my own editing interests - no one would consider using Bede without filtering him through a modern historian.. or they shouldn't be at least. (The entire Classical WP indulges entirely too much in the use of primary sourcing for my comfort, but it's so freaking entrenched over there that it's not worth the fight.) This would extend well into the Enlightenment, quite honestly - technically Edward Gibbon is a secondary source, but except for quotes for color, he really shouldn't be used for a source on wikipedia. (The fact that James Ussher is being used as a source is frightening... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive replies NishidaniEaldgyth (and apologies to Doug Weller. Btw, "noted for the unexceptional length of his response"?)! It seems to me that you are saying that this is pretty much WP:Use common sense (or at least you wish it was), but none of you know any helpful WP:HOW TO DEAL WITH JOSEPHUS AND SIMILAR to point to. WP:AGEMATTERS doesn't really help in this case. I remember once I talked with an editor who wanted to insert criticism in 300: Rise of an Empire based on Herodotus, which I felt was wrong on so many levels.

I think WP should mention this somewhere, at least at guideline-level. I suppose I could try to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources or somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the slip. It's 'exceptional length of his responsa' and that comes from the second article I think by Woolf, though I can't remember the page no.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Or someone will start one for me: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#pre-modern_historians_as_sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a good essay at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) - its helpful. The problem is that what is "primary" has a much more elastic definition in ancient and medieval/post-classical studies compared to modern historiography. For say... the American Revolution, works written 100 years after the events are definitely secondary (if perhaps outdated), where in ancient/medieval history, they are likely primary. The problem comes in when Wikipedia makes a hard and fast declaration of primary/secondary/tertiary that allows for the consideration of someone like Herodotus as "secondary" when no scholar working in that subject area would consider him such. And then, of course, you get folks who argue that Wikipedia policies should be prioritized over what actual experts consider/do... which just leads to messes. I own many of the primary sources for my main "subject area" - but I never consult them when editing for wikipedia - it's just too much of a temptation to sneak just a tiny little bit of interpretation into my editing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That essay also seems unwilling to take Herodotus by the horns, as it were. It mentions "Any primary source" but that's it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I told Davidbena to be careful about WP:OR, see e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bdub2018/Archive. In the end, I got tired of reminding him the basic WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

How quickly, it seems, that you forget the case. We were discussing issues on a Talk-Page, when I was no more than 1 or 2 months old on Wikipedia, and, as usual in such discussions, we began to throw ideas back-and-forth between us, and which views have absolutely NOTHING to do with Wikipedia:OR.Davidbena (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The gist is: you are not an ignorant about Judaism, but if we don't have 20th and 21st century WP:RS to go by, what you write is consigned to the limbo of the unverifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

My friend, I assure you that I will do my utmost best to add more recent opinions as touching upon Jewish Halacha. Only, I think that it is fair to mention here that religious Jews, as a whole, not secular Jews, rely heavily upon halachic works written well-over 500 years ago. You see, tradition still means much to most religious Jews. Still, we can prove this by citing more recent sources on Jewish Halacha. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The point being made is very simple, David. On Wikipedia, you cannot or should not cite a primary source for this material, but cite it via a secondary source. If you want to note the halakhic status of non-kosher hydrolyzed collagen i.e. gelatin in kosher marshmallows, you can't just cite or translate some primary source like the deliberation of Rav Moshe Feinstein for this, for the simple reason that Rav Ovadia Yosef and others disagreed. What you have to do is cite a secondary source for either or both, and never just cite one text penned by this or that halakhic authority. In short, editors must not cite primary sources unless they draw on a secondary source which explains them in context. This is a technical matter and has nothing to do with some dispute about the status of halakha, as you seem to think.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis[edit]

Hello. You have stated your reason for rejecting my proposal on Talk:Answers in Genesis as "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". In fact, Roxy the Dog has since quoted this statement as an argument against my latest proposal. However, I don't understand how this serves as a justification for reverting someone's edit, and, moreover, such an action violates WP:ROWN. Even without regard for Wikipedia policies, though, isn't it still preferable to keep the version about which there exists the least disagreement? If both versions are fine, but one version attracts serious criticism from a group of users and one doesn't, what's the logic behind keeping the former? Note that I am not criticising you but instead trying to gain insight into your reasoning, so that I can then address it better in my proposal.^Ol^Ja 14:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are having difficulty understanding the phrase, I will translate for you. It means that there is nothing wrong with the way it is and doesn't need changing. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

2 people including James want James's wording, 3 want the current wording. What is "serious" is usually in the eye of the beholder. There's clearly no WP:CONSENSUS for the change. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

2 people want my wording. 2 more people are neutral. 1 person opposes, but hasn't stated what issue they have with my wording. I am not arguing that there is a consensus yet, of course. But you are not answering my question. How can 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it' count as an argument?^Ol^Ja 16:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearly no WP:CONSENSUS so no change. I'm telling you that it is acceptable as it stands. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Specifically, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view" and "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change". So far, the two editors who agree with the proposal have made arguments, while the three who don't have just stated that the proposal is not an improvement (which is not an argument as per WP:ROWN), and have not objected to the change. Please tell me where I am wrong.^Ol^Ja 17:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

James, You say above "1 person opposes" which is of course either deliberate lies, or WP:CIR, (you don't appear to be competent enough in basic counting.)I cannot decide which. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: One person has commented 'support', and one (me) has proposed the change, so altogether 1+1=how many people support the change? Good, Roxy, 2. Now one person has commented 'oppose', and the other person who commented 'oppose' said they are OK with my version. So, altogether, how many people are not OK with my version? Wow, brilliant, seems like you got this one as well, it's 1 person! Good progress, Roxy! Maybe we can get to multiplication next time!^Ol^Ja 17:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

SPI case[edit]

Would you please take a look at this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34 A checkuser has decided to close it just because those obvious WP:DUCKs are stale on EN WP. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: just ask a steward as you were advised by someone with much more experience than I have. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Patricia Sutherland[edit]

A few days ago you objected to my edits on this page. These are useful edits that I have revised and put back:

Para 1: added “in some circles” to “controversial” to increase accuracy

Research para 1: refined the subject’s research history and deleted irrelevant material (her discoveries at Quttinirpaaq and on Axel Heiberg Island); deleted incorrect material (her presentations in 2000 and 2012, the statement that she suggests pre-Norse contact, and the sentence about “spoils of war”); added the most important (2009) academic publication on the evidence for Norse presence in Arctic Canada; added 2018 reference

Research para 2: deleted paragraph which was added January 16 by Jerry Stockton. This addition is part of a trolling effort against Sutherland’s research, and in any case is not particularly relevant to a biography (note that this material was also added to the bio of James Tuck, where it is even more irrelevant.)

Personal: deleted irrelevant material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArctosNU (talk • contribs) 20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

CRYBLP[edit]

Check this edit. What's your opinion? Nearly every respectable scholar says him to be a leading Hindutva idealogue. ∯WBG^converse 05:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you’re going to call someone names, the least you can do is spell them correctly. (See wikt:ideologue.)—Odysseus1479 06:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Eh, typo:-( @DW:--See trhis t/p thread.∯WBG^converse 07:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!^Ol^Ja 02:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Case of Active Vandalism[edit]

User:Doug Weller, please check the edit history of Jewish religious clothing. There is a case of active vandalism right now. Can someone please stop this guy? The editor who is being very disruptive calls himself D Gums (talk · contribs · Gums WHOIS). Can someone please stop him? ---- Davidbena (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Davidbena: blocked him for the use of "Yid" in his edits. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User:RonBot[edit]

user:RonBot this bot is adding broken image tags to articles that doesn't contain images with broken links. Could you check it and possibly shut it down until this problem be fixed. It's already all over my watchlist. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: to be sure I asked a bot specialist, but I see you wisely reported it at ANI and it's shut. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019[edit]