→Hello: new section |
|||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
--[[User:Berzerker king|Berzerker king]] ([[User talk:Berzerker king|talk]]) 03:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC) |
--[[User:Berzerker king|Berzerker king]] ([[User talk:Berzerker king|talk]]) 03:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Hello == |
|||
Hello Mr Doug. I hope you are doing well. I have reported some user who have attacked and harassed me. However, I feel that the users who are discussing me there are very biased, I might be wrong. You can check it and your input there (even if it is against me) will be highly appreciated. Regards[[User:Ryanoo|Ryanoo]] ([[User talk:Ryanoo|talk]]) 09:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:05, 7 November 2018
The current date and time is 20 August 2024 T 00:45 UTC.
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 to start a new topic.
|
First, please remember that I am not trying to attack you, demean you, or hurt you in any way. I am only trying to protect the integrity of this project. If I did something wrong, , but remember that I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please keep your comments civil. If you vandalize this page or swear at me, you will not only decrease the likelihood of a response, your edits could get you blocked. (see WP:NPA) When posting, do not assume I know which article you are talking about. If you leave a message saying "Why did you revert me?", I will not know what you mean. If you want a response consisting of something other than "What are you talking about", please include links and, if possible, diffs in your message. At the very least, mention the name of the article or user you are concerned with. If you are blocked from editing, you cannot post here, but your talk page is most likely open for you to edit. To request a review of your block, add Administrators: If you see me do something that you think is wrong, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo my actions. I would, however, appreciate it if you let me know what I did wrong, so that I can avoid doing it in the future. |
You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right; don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.
Islam in Sweden
Doug_Weller The references there don't mention such information though also why is the information even included in there its not even realted to the topic in hand? bolanriver (talk) 9:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Was blocked unjustly, and via circular reasoning
Hello! You blocked me. This I circular reasoning for the first delete by Yaniv was inappropriate. He called my post “garbage”. I have a right to appeal to the editors board and speak, and people have been siding with me, but you and others keep blocking me! For nothing I’ve done on the administrators page! This is not okay! You aren’t using logic or sources, but ridiculous rules that you use whenever you feel it meets your agenda! STOP! Thank you for your time!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.4.16 (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Edits on the Answers in Genesis Page
Doug, thank you for sending me the relevant editing guides after reverting my changes to the Answers in Genesis page. As you can tell, I have rarely changed content and am rather new to the process. The changes were designed to moderate but not entirely eliminate a bias that leaks through the wording and content on the AIG page. I will provide answers next time I edit. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.27.241 (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Your thoughts
Your thoughts on this edit and this edit? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Kansas Bear: disgusting. Blocked the IP for 3 days, posted to the obvious account. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, yeah. Another sock IP of sockmaster Roman Sakhan.[1] He's obsessed with "Baloch" content, and edits from Turkmenistan.[2] Compare with his other sock IPs, who also geolocate to Turkmenistan, and who have also called me "Nazi" [3]. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
|
![]()
|
- A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
- A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.
- Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
- A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
- The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
- Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
- The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
A Genesis History
I was just wondering why you removed my edit of "A Genesis History" due to the fact of my edit not being neutral. I think that it was more neutral the way I put it because of the fact that neither creation science or evolution has been completely proven. Creation science comes down to believing that someone or something created the Universe. Evolution is theory's based on what some scientists have come up with based on their research. There is no proof of Creation nor is their proof of Evolution. It's just that more people view Evolution as true than Creation. So how is saying that Evolution and the Big Bang are established scientific fact neutral? Thank you. Zynergen (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Zynergen: Regarding evolution: see Evolution as fact and theory, E. coli long-term evolution experiment, Evidence of common descent, Evidence for speciation by reinforcement, Coloration evidence for natural selection.
- The idea that God created the world does not contradict evolution -- see Theistic Evolution, which is what the majority of Christians outside of America (as well as a significant number of educated Christians in America) hold to.
- So-called "creation science" and the idea that creation and evolution contradict are just ploys by a movement that decided that science must be wrong since it doesn't align with their failure to read Genesis in its proper context.
- It's not a matter of majority vs minority opinion, it's scientific fact vs superstitious delusion. Our neutrality policy means that we dispassionately present what reliable sources say about a topic -- not that we create artificial balance between known facts and denial of those facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
My personal user page
Sorry , I had realized my fault. Thanks for the correction. And I want to talk you do you have WhatsApp ? then send the number on my talk page SHUBHAM PRAMANIK (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The Alt-right page
Hi. I would like to inform you that I have stopped "edit warring" on this page, and have taken my argument to the talk page. Why are you threatening me with sanctions? I haven't changed my edits back on this page since your "warning" you sent me. Maybe you should have a word with the people who undid my edits for absolutely no logical reason? Oh no, that would be too fair. Transcendent28 (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Transcendent28: The discretionary alert is not a warning; it states clearly that,
It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date
. Although, the edit-warning notice above does. But, with (hopeful) the cessation of edit-warring, the DS notice is just a reminder. ——SerialNumber54129 - @Transcendent28: Generally when one editor keeps reverting several other editors, that is a hint that the serial reverter is on a mission to impose their own point of view against consensus. Fairness to the encyclopedia demands that the one making the same edit over and over again be the focus of warnings. Please reconsider your approach to editing the encyclopedia to take into account the necessity for consensus; this appears to be a continuing problem for you. Thank you for taking your concerns to the talkpage, as you should do after no more than one or two reverts. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Belshazzar's Feast
Where in that source does it refer to a court contest? Could you link it? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #337
Disputing the "Far-right" tag for the party
Hi Doug. This is with regards to the article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Liberal_Party_(Brazil)
You reverted my last change with comments that the links I shared do not discuss the party. But neither do the pre-existing sources cited as support for categorizing of the party as "far-right". I searched the links. You can do a word search for the text "party", and see what is said in each of the occurrences and none of them say anything about why the Social Liberal Party of Brazil is a far right party.
I consider this a serious case where the subjective political ideology of the editors is being entered into encyclopedia entry. The citations are news articles, which are good enough to say "event x happened" or that "according to person / source x, so and so is the case", but not to state in wikipedia voice that the party is a far-right party. I checked the policy of wikipedia and it says the same thing
"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
I would like to remove these other sources and the categorization of "far-right" as well please. Until there is a proper discussion about why the party is being called far right, it is not fair to stamp the party with this kind of label. Especially one which has just won a democratic election in Brazil. This would be like calling the entire country of Brazil as a far right country.
If I have missed where the other cited links talk about the party being far-right please let me know so that I can correct my mistake.
--Berzerker king (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism by user Ryanoo
Hi Doug,
The user Ryanoo has vandalized the Land of Punt page and added his usual link: https://nantt44.wordpress.com/2018/08/27/chapter-vii-charmutha-becius-the-punt-kingdom-and-its-countries/ That word charmutha in the link is Arabic and it means "bitch" or "Whore" or "Prostitute". He's the one who's been vandalizing the page with that link in the past. I have reported it to @ Roxy, in the middle. wooF but I don't know if she will fix it as she's planning to take a health break. Can you please revert his changes and report him. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arboleh (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Updates to nation of islam page
Hi Doug,
You have undone the updates I had made to the page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam
I agree that you have a logic in your argument that mentioning of Obama might seem irrelevant here. I made that citation to show that Farakkhan is a big deal. But I disagree that actions by Farrakhan is not relevant to the page of nation of islam. As you can see, in the page of nation of islam, Farrakhan is listed as one of the leaders of the movement. It should be very much relevant what the leader of the movement is saying and doing.
I would like to remove the mention of Obama and put back the rest of the comments which I had made, because I think that Farrakhan, by virtue of holding a very important tie to the organization, is relevant to this page. Otherwise, ultimately everything that happens, has to be done by humans. The organization itself cannot make any statement except though some of its own members.
Please let me know.
--Berzerker king (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Mr Doug. I hope you are doing well. I have reported some user who have attacked and harassed me. However, I feel that the users who are discussing me there are very biased, I might be wrong. You can check it and your input there (even if it is against me) will be highly appreciated. RegardsRyanoo (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)