April 2025
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any removed comments (mine or anyone else's recently). Which comment are you calling out? Ymerazu (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Very sorry, wrong editor.
- Are you interested in speleology or just articles on caves? I can probably advise you on either including sourcing, having done caving myself and written articles on caves here. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Phew! I was looking at my recent comments and scratching my head, as I've been trying very hard to stay positive and sincere.
- I'm interested in both speleology and caves. The cave articles seem like an easier place to get a foothold as they are more descriptive than conceptual. There is also a *lot* of missing or outdated information on cave articles, more than I was expecting.
- The source I'm interested in using is The Encyclopedia of Caves and Karst Science (2004). It's a nice overview of a topic I've been interested in learning more about. When editing, I'd also like to search for more recent sources, but not sure where to go beyond Google Scholar. Ymerazu (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Look at cave articles. I created Peñas de Cabrera, Trou de l'Abîme, and Long Hole Cave. In retrospect they are pretty bad. Mainly due to sourcing or lack of sources. You need at least 3 reliable sources discussing the subject in detail and I seem to have failed badly. You need to source most if not all of what you write. See also Help:Referencing for beginners. If you aren't sure if a source is reliably published, ask at WP:RSN. And of course use Google books. When you have 500 edits you can use the WP:Wikipedia Library which is fantastic. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Go to Cave scroll down you will find a dropdown menu on cave topics, with articles with sources. My latest article is much better but not on a cave, Pinxton Castle, and I've written Archaeology and racism and Nationalism and archaeology Doug Weller talk 14:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- You can look at my talk page to find more about me. I spending what time I have left on pseudo-history and pseudo-archaeology. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Go to Cave scroll down you will find a dropdown menu on cave topics, with articles with sources. My latest article is much better but not on a cave, Pinxton Castle, and I've written Archaeology and racism and Nationalism and archaeology Doug Weller talk 14:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Look at cave articles. I created Peñas de Cabrera, Trou de l'Abîme, and Long Hole Cave. In retrospect they are pretty bad. Mainly due to sourcing or lack of sources. You need at least 3 reliable sources discussing the subject in detail and I seem to have failed badly. You need to source most if not all of what you write. See also Help:Referencing for beginners. If you aren't sure if a source is reliably published, ask at WP:RSN. And of course use Google books. When you have 500 edits you can use the WP:Wikipedia Library which is fantastic. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution
Dear Ymerazu,
The issue around DMY/MDY dates on Pope Leo XIV's article has been tabled at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I have not discarded the RfC due to controversy about whether or not that is appropriate. As you have been reasonably involved in this issue, this is letting you know that it is requested that you submit a summary of dispute on the DRN entry for this issue.
Thank you for time in the RfC and more broadly on this issue. JacobTheRox (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just seeing this now, thanks for the notification. It looks like I am seeing it after the DRN request was closed.
- The closer of the DRN request, Robert McClenon, seems totally reasonable in their closing comments for why the RFC can stay open and in addressing the concerns I and some other editors had.
- That's all good. I'm a little nervous for the closing of the RFC if I am being honest but I won't get into my concerns here. Hopefully a truly uninvolved neutral party comes in and makes sense of the mess. Ymerazu (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)