Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 17 May 2015

The current date and time is 23 January 2025 T 15:22 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 Archive 68

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.

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Dougweller (talk)

Mail

Ainu

Hey Doug, you accuse me of vandalizing the Tibetan and Ainu pages, but you seem hardpressed in denying Caucasoid or Europoid heritage to the Ainu (political reasons?). I removed the sources claiming Australoid relations because they were not hyperlinked and also when I googled the studies I got no results or I just got pay-per-view articles which most ordinary folks cannot access. I may have bee liberal with the term "eurasian" by Brace but that was what was inferred. Just do the basic research on the professor and the Ainu. Brace believes Caucasoids, Ainuids, and partly also Polynesids and Indianids (Native Americans) are interrelated through some early paleolithic caucasoid ancestry. And through the Ainu these genes were passed onto the Samurai class of old Japan. And (to him) the Ainu seem intermediate in features between mongoloids and paleolithic caucasoids. Many studies that do not genetically show Ainu European ancestry are partly compromised. because 1. Many Ainus of today have lost some or all of the typical Ainu traits through intermarriage with Japanese. 2. They are based on y-dna or mt-dna single-gene haplogroup frequencies and rarely autosomal dna, and if they are then it often does not include west eurasian populations in the analysis. As for the Tibetans having a branch of Y-DNA D-M174 unrelated to the Ainu or the Negritos (both groups that have the same D Y-dna macro haplogroup). that is a fact... And it is stated in wikipedia's own article about haplogroup d-m174. Not sure how that's vandalism. Also the Tibetans do contain a very minor "turkic" or "tajik"-like strain. that's not "fringe" thought. Some tibetans have closer set eyes, an elevated nasal skeleton as well as iris pigmentations that go beyond the range of both northeast asian and southeast asian mongoloids. And that is evident in the pictures that you have of some of them in your wiki page. Thank you for your time. This is your guys website, but I hope you can see my case as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgonVonEickstedt (talk • contribs) 04:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem really confused. The whole Asia-Pacific branch that includes everything from the Ainu to the Aborigines is descended from the out-of-Africa migration that, if anything, preceded the migration of of the group that became Caucasoid. It is equally logical to make the inference that Caucasoids are descended from Australoids as the one you chose to make, although neither is true. Do not try to blame your incorrect inference on Brace. It's a good example of why inferences tangential to what primary sources say do not meet WP standards.

Your self-imposed limitations on accessing primary sources are not a valid reason to delete them. The abstracts of subscription articles have value. References to subscription articles can be used to find professional secondary sources that refer to them, or sometimes full articles on the author's webpage.

Sure, Jōmonoid genes were passed to the old Samurai class just the same way they were passed to virtually all Japanese. So what? The Bronze Age and the more sophisticated social structures associated with wet rice farming were brought to Japan by ethnically Chinese migrants during the Yayoi period. Early Japanese leaders considered themselves vassals of the Chinese emperor. Were you trying to attribute the rise of Japanese culture to a group with Caucasian genes?

If you're concerned about Mongoloid admixture obscuring the heritage of the modern Ainu, refer to recent studies of fossil mtDNA from Hokkaido Jōmon skeletons that precede potential Mongoloid admixture. They are firmly within the Australoid group. Sakhalin Ainu are an admixture of the older Jōmonoid strain and Siberians, so don't get too excited if some Eurasian genes got thrown into the mix the way they have been among Tibetans and Mongolians.

The reasons why determination of an Australoid heritage for the Jōmonoid - Ainu lineage would be politically motivated escape me.75.111.54.141 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

EgonVonEickstedt, bottom line is that the material that you said wasn't in the sources was in the sources. You've even admitted that you couldn't read some of them. Sources don't have to be online, and many will indeed be behind a pay wall, but they are still acceptable. In any case, at least one of the sources you said didn't contain the cited material was online and clearly did contain that information. Sources must also directly back the text for which they are used, and the sources must discuss the subject of the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Til

Yes, I'm 99% sure it's him, but he's playing the innocent. Paul B (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

For you

	Long live the Poodle
	Long live the Poodle! Hafspajen (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

	Our dogs last Halloween
	Waiting for their Halloween treats! Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

Reversed burden of proof

Comments welcome Peter Damian (talk) 17:44, 15 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)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

• Foundation elections: Board candidates share their views with the Signpost

• News and notes: Swedish Wikimedia chapter organizes simultaneous Wikidata contests

• Traffic report: Round Two

• In the media: Grant Shapps story continues

• Op-ed: What made Misplaced Pages lose its reputation?

• Featured content: Four first-time featured article writers lead the way

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 16 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) 00:04, 17 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)