User talk:Dougweller
|
Welcome to RationalWiki, Dougweller!
Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing:
|
As a general rule, it is generally accepted as good form around here if you discuss changes to our articles about you on the talkpage before you jump in and start whitewashing what we say about you. Thank you. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- So you have nothing like Wikipedia's policy about biographies of living people, which requires reliable sources for anything contentious? And whitewashing is nonsense, that was just an attack article. You even reverted the clarification about Walton Hall. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hold up buddy. I'll be honest and say that I am not familiar with the topic at hand (which is you). But it is generally accepted practice around here that, if you wish to make significant changes to an article's tone and content, you explain what you're doing and why on the talkpage first. That way people can object, agree, and so on and so forth so that we avoid edit wars. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- On that note, I've already taken to task to see that your concerns are addressed. But we don't generally overhaul an article so completely without discussion. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete?[edit]
Hey buddy, the deletion discussion of the article on you has begun on its talkpage. You may want to join in. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have, but I'm really disappointed with this Wiki. It reminds me of why I stay away from forums, Usenet, etc now. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for being a good sport about it. Like any other wiki, we err and sometimes will make pointless articles. Truth be told I was a bit wary of you showing up here, not because I had read your article (I hadn't; it was off mission and garbage;why would I look it up?) but because when someone shows up to protest an article about them or their viewpoints they storm in here kicking and screaming, "HOW DARE YOU INSULT ME, I WILL SIC THE FBI ON YOU; HOW COULD YOU NOT BELIEVE THAT CANCER IS AN ILLUMINATI MOON LIZARD PEOPLE PLOT, WHAT A 'RATIONAL' WIKI, YOU'RE ALL FRAUDS AND I AM SMART," which is always tiresome. ±
KnightOfTL;DRcritical thinking is the key to success! 14:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty much what Knight said. i think 99% of the opposition to your attempts to deal with this was suspicion of the fact you were trying to deal with an article about you. But yeah, I agree we should set a higher standard of sourcing for articles like that. Sorry that I ever seemed to defend that. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk)
- Lol, yes, I've been there more than once on the other side. I'm also a volunteer for the WMF handling email complaints to the foundation, and have to deal with a lot of people complaining about their articles. I did try to make calm edit summaries. Oh, in that Usenet threat about me badmouthing, you can find a post of mine [1]. I love the fact that the kooks are being used as sources to attack me. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty much what Knight said. i think 99% of the opposition to your attempts to deal with this was suspicion of the fact you were trying to deal with an article about you. But yeah, I agree we should set a higher standard of sourcing for articles like that. Sorry that I ever seemed to defend that. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk)
- Well, thanks for being a good sport about it. Like any other wiki, we err and sometimes will make pointless articles. Truth be told I was a bit wary of you showing up here, not because I had read your article (I hadn't; it was off mission and garbage;why would I look it up?) but because when someone shows up to protest an article about them or their viewpoints they storm in here kicking and screaming, "HOW DARE YOU INSULT ME, I WILL SIC THE FBI ON YOU; HOW COULD YOU NOT BELIEVE THAT CANCER IS AN ILLUMINATI MOON LIZARD PEOPLE PLOT, WHAT A 'RATIONAL' WIKI, YOU'RE ALL FRAUDS AND I AM SMART," which is always tiresome. ±
but you have no education in history yet claim to be a professional?? that is kooky doug... but dont worry about it ur article is deleted. 86.153.42.156 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, I claim to be an amateur, see [2] And I studied history at Yale, but not as my major. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Your mop[edit]
You probably already know how to use it. Sprocket J Cogswell 
00:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth...[edit]
I suppose I must have made a minor edit on an article about you. I really can't remember doing that. I'm pretty sure that all I did was add a defaultsort so that the page would be listed under W instead of under D. I'm not familiar with your work and (with the exception of Conservapedia sysops) I don't enjoy slagging people off, so I can't imagine I added anything else.--Spud (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Woah!!!![edit]
We're not an encyclopaedia. The old article on Quetzacaotl was fine - short and snarky - and replacing it with the WP version doesn't help. If people want the WP version they know where to find it.
Please do not make major changes to established articles with discussion on the talk pages first. Bad Faith (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm new here. I saw a nonsense article - Quetzacaotl isn't the god of chocolate, why would we want an article saying that. So exactly what do you want? Do I gather any changes must be discussed, but that you can start an article saying anything without discussion? Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I could I guess point revise it to point out what the fringe says and what the mainstream says, I can see the point there, but do I have to discuss it all? Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Now, I always say that snark shouldn't be at the expense of fact, but just mirroring exactly how Wikipedia writes an article isn't the way to go. For a start, Wikipedia has a wider scope, more editors and generally has had far longer to build up quality articles. Competing in a game of "who can write the most serious article" would be like me crawling with two broken legs vs Usain Bolt. Pointless, and full of hilarious fail.
pathetic 13:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- But, to answer the question more fully, you don't have to discuss an edit. Unless you plan on removing vast quantities of material from an article, there's no need. Usually for a small, stubby little article then any expansion on it will be a positive one, so there's no need to submit a writing plan or discuss it at length. Though a little note saying "I'll work on this" might help avoid edit conflicts as people will be sure not to edit until you're finished (not that this ever works in practice). gnostic 13:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've posted to the talk page. I've been trying to make the Wikipedia article deal with the fringe stuff (starting with correcting a long standing error saying he was god of the east). Now for the beard thing. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- But, to answer the question more fully, you don't have to discuss an edit. Unless you plan on removing vast quantities of material from an article, there's no need. Usually for a small, stubby little article then any expansion on it will be a positive one, so there's no need to submit a writing plan or discuss it at length. Though a little note saying "I'll work on this" might help avoid edit conflicts as people will be sure not to edit until you're finished (not that this ever works in practice).
- Now, I always say that snark shouldn't be at the expense of fact, but just mirroring exactly how Wikipedia writes an article isn't the way to go. For a start, Wikipedia has a wider scope, more editors and generally has had far longer to build up quality articles. Competing in a game of "who can write the most serious article" would be like me crawling with two broken legs vs Usain Bolt. Pointless, and full of hilarious fail.
- I could I guess point revise it to point out what the fringe says and what the mainstream says, I can see the point there, but do I have to discuss it all? Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
New article[edit]
I found a new article about you here it is not me who has created any of them, and in the history it says Rhawn Joseph, Joseph is a known eccentric who is known for making websites against people. I created an article about him here at rationalwiki. I also noticed he has been banned many times on wikipedia and perhaps that is why he is making these articles about you becuase you banned him. DinoCrisis (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. This is all a bit of a pain because it's led to vandalism of my talk page and at least that of one other editor, but on the other hand it's just what happens to people who dare disrespect the fringe. I love the bit about me being a Young Creationist. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- And it seems I was taken in by the person who actually created the attack article on me. I'm too trusting. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Emil Kirkegaard, Anglo_Pyramidologist and Mikemikev[edit]
I know Anglo_P via email, and he's told me Vihaan_Khatri isn't him, but likely Mikemikev. To get a background of the situation, see here. Khatri is claiming to be a Hope not Hate member, and Mikemikev regularly impersonates HnH members on here, as well as both Anglo_P and Emil Kirkegaard (again, see here where this is documented and https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Emil_Kirkegaard/Archive1#Impersonations).Octo (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)