User talk:Drmies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Whatever happened to the girls?????????? Igelkottar numera?
Cat with miniature bottles.jpg

Some doubt...[edit]

In the article Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century somebody added a long list of names. As far as I know, the list itself is copyright protected (see an edit note on the top of the page while editing). I am not sure if the edits fall foul of the copyright. Can you take a look (or send one of your henchwomen/henchmen in)? The Banner talk 19:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm that "somebody", and I believe it to not be a copyvio. Consider that the list came out as 100 separate articles by numerous different articles over more than a year, and who is on the list can be sourced merely from the titles of the articles without copying any one article extensively. I also agree with an IP who said that if the full list isn't in the article, there isn't really any point in this list. Deleting this as copyvio would mean that a lot of other stuff, such as The Greatest American list of the Discovery Channel, would also have to be deleted. I believe that that shouldn't happen. pbp 20:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no need for such an aggressive approach, Sir. Please tone down a bit. The Banner talk 20:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Aggressive? LOL. You're the one pestering Dr. Mies about this, not I. There's never been a consensus that it was a copyvio; DGG and other editors in the 2007 AfD (roughly contemporaneous with the removal of the full list) agree with me that it isn't, but for different reasons. Banner, your argument that it's a copyvio is weak because you have yet to point to a single source that presents the list in the manner it's presented on the page. You're probably going to have to find one in order to prove your copyvio allegation. pbp 20:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Aggressive, YES. Because you read so badly that you manage to turn "I am not sure if the edits fall foul of the copyright." into "You're probably going to have to find one in order to prove your copyvio allegation.". With so much bad faith, I am done. The Banner talk 21:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not assuming bad faith, merely pointing out that you're going to have to find a source that it's copied from to prove your copyvio allegations. pbp 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know, Banner. Y'all please play nice: I'm tired of listening to people yelling at me and at others. I don't know--I think that often such lists are accepted, but I don't know that for sure. If DGG spoke out on it, ping him--@DGG:. Or ping Moonriddengirl: @Moonriddengirl:, she's the real expert and she's on payroll, so she has to answer. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Let us see if they can take away my doubt, either this or that way. Off course, I hope that I was just overly cautious... The Banner talk 23:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
      • And I see now that the "ping" template comes with free punctuation. You learn something new every day. I also learned that I am part of various secret conspiracies, and that the things I do are probably organized behind the scenes--yay! So stay on my good side, Banner, I'm telling you. Let's see. Who else knows this stuff. Usually I ask Mandarax for all kinds of advice, but I think old age is creeping up on him. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Lists are evidently a gray area in copyright law, and I kind of hate it when they show up at WP:CP. It's a messy and unpleasant situation all around. We have an essay at Wikipedia:Copyright in lists which I authored with feedback from the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers - one of the examples of unacceptable uses, Time 100. :/ (The note about partial uses of such information at WP:NFC (Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text_2) was added based on her input.) I'm afraid that if this came up at WP:CP and I were handling that day, based on the legal information we have been given, I would remove it. (Prior to the feedback we received, I would have truncated it to the top 5, but I was cautioned that this might be no better, as the top of the list may constitute the "heart".) We have a number of such lists that don't include full rosters: Time's All-Time 100 Movies and Time's List of the 100 Best Novels, for instance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks for weighing in, Moonriddengirl. I appreciate it, and I hope it is enough information for our editors. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


I'm staying out of this particular dispute (both the content dispute and the associated project-space drama), but since you pinged me at BLPN, might I suggest that keeping the thread alive by continuing to comment in a section that hasn't been edited in ~10 hours is not a good idea. Tempting as it may be, getting in the last word or keeping the thread alive after it has died a natural death isn't likely to progress anything. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Harry, the moment the guy stops repeating those allegations in every forum possible, I'll be done with it. But I thought it funny that they claimed you blocked them because the matter was so complex, so they bear you no ill will because, basically, you're not smart enough to see the complexity. But yeah, I guess I'm falling for his baiting, orchestrated with his buddies Zambelo and Viriditas. You got a point. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Avakian again[edit]

Enrealidad reverted the article again. This has been the issue for the past few years with this article, edits that aren't his nor comports with his idea of Avakian will always eventually be reverted. I don't know what the procedure is, but unless someone always checks the article, Enrealidad will make sure the article looks like the way he wrote it. How can one prevent this? --xcuref1endx (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • What you should consider doing is posting a note on WP:ANI saying that you want an uninvolved admin to look into the matter. Give diffs of their reverts, ping the folks on the talk page (KeithBob, Cullen, Cwobeel). Indicate, in three sentences, how their edits betray that they do not know how to write on Wikipedia, what kinds of sources are acceptable, what neutrality means. Point out how they are essentially an SPA with 148 edits, half of them on this article. Then, ask for someone to consider warning them in very strong words and consider mentioning WP:NOTHERE. I warned them for edit warring, but I reverted twice already and shouldn't do it anymore; still, if they do it again, you could take them to ANI then. But really, I'd start an ANI thread about this, quick and simple. If you don't mind, I'm going to stay away from ANI for a bit. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


  • Cute hedgehog, by the way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


My good friend Drmies, could you perhaps drop in on Firewall_(physics) and revdel the appropriate recent revisions, semiprotect the page, and block the relevant IPs? Thanks much, Gaijin42 (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Ha! Abuser Drmies, you mean. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I see you only protected the page for one day. Could you perhaps do longer? If you look through the history, yo uwill see that the page just recently came off of protection, and the issues started up again immediately. This stuff has been going on for months now diff Gaijin42 (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2014 (U-TC)
My bad, it wasn't immediately, the protection wore off some time ago. Still, it seems as though the guy has a decent level of patience. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Ha, good point. I made it a year. Take it easy Gaijin, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI closure[edit]

Hi Drmies, I just saw that you closed the ANI I opened [1] and was wondering if you could give a little guidance? First I want to thank you for acknowledging EllenCT's behavior is problematic. The question of what to do about it has seemed to vex the community for awhile now as this behavior has previously been brought up at ANI [2][3]and Arbcom[4] as I mentioned in the ANI post. Part of the problem is that extra drama seems to follow this user (especially seen in some of the oppose responses with either unrelated gender comments, additional COI accusations against me, or involved editors from previous disputes infusing additional drama sometimes on both sides). Then you have the massive amount of information that can be presented as evidence (and is needed to establish a pattern of disruptive behavior), yet easily muddled within a content dispute too. Both of those factors are evidenced even just by my ANI, and the cases I cited above. It's not easy to address to say the least. I was hoping at the least for a very direct statement to her to stop the COI/assuming bad faith issues (maybe that could still be specified a bit more in your closing comment if you think it would be warranted), but I'll defer to your decision to close now and see what happens either way. I mainly just want to see a stop to this behavior and the tendency to not hear users she's in a content dispute with that are trying to help her with our civility related policies and guidelines.

The main question I have is what to do if this behavior continues and to find consensus if this remains persistent given the above? There's a history of this behavior coming up again and again. Instead of having this behavior simply brought up at admin related venues getting the point across to stop it, the lack of a decision one way or another each time seems to instead buttress the behavior even further in her eyes as the behavior tends to continue. I've always hoped that simple talk or warnings would get the point across, but given the history, there's also a reasonable chance this behavior could land right back at ANI again someday (though I still hope that won't be the case). The thing that bothers me the most is that trying to respond to this behavior even in good faith seems to put the appearance of tendentiousness in my court no matter what I do, and feeling like my only option sometimes is to walk away points to a larger problem. Given what you've reviewed at the ANI before closing it, do you have any advice on how to proceed with civility issues if they continue to be an issue? Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Kingofaces, first of all, thank you for your note--you didn't get what you wanted, perhaps, but you seem to accept it and that's a good thing. Let me answer in a couple of quick bullets--I choose that format since I've been grading business writing homework all evening. Paid editing, as my friend CorporateM might call it.
    • First of all, Robert McClenon's response is silly. ANI calls for evidence. If it's too long to read, go read War and Peace. Still, brevity is the soul of wit, and economy is a virtue. It's difficult to strike the right balance, but longer posts have a tendency to turn away a hungry audience that desires small bites for quick judgments.
    • Second, it wasn't me who established that there was a problem, it was the respondents in that thread--I just added a tiny little observation of my own.
    • On that note, the ones to advise you are probably those who had previous experience with that editor and responded from that experience. I don't believe I know this editor and I certainly don't know the subject matter.
    • Finally, given that we don't have a "civility board" anymore, and since ANI is more for single incidents than for patterns of behavior over longer periods. For such problems, WP:RFC/U is the first step. If all goes well, a recommendation of sorts comes out of that process, not a block or ban--but it is a step in a process and many editors consider that the first step when editor behavior is the problem.

      So I think an RfC/U is probably the way to go, but mind you, I'm something of a process wonk and I place perhaps more faith than others in RfCs. But go talk to someone who is familiar with the editor and the content area. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it concerning that an editor is pressured into disclosing personal information in order to dispel a baseless COI accusation. Editor Interaction Analyzer does not confirm stalking and some of the diffs in the complaint don't seem to prove what they were intended to prove. It's funny for a Wikipedian to insist that two regular english words, when combined, become some specific Wikipedia term and cannot be used in any other way, especially since anyone that is actually a "paid advocate" should just be banned if they are indeed "advocates". If there is legitimate evidence that a source is a front group, astroturf, or dare I say, paid advocacy, that is a good reason to disqualify the source, but that is the kind of claim we often see that is just plain made up to avoid sources the editor doesn't like. I think Drmies keeps mentioning my often being paid for my work, because he's a bit jealous. My articles may be excruciatingly boring, but I don't get paid enough to deal with these kinds of issues. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 06:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Jealous of someone who makes a decent living with their writing? Me? Never! (I'm assuming, of course, that you're awash with cash.) Drmies (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I hear the multitasking sentiment Drmies. I'm here on WP right now, but also peer-reviewing a journal manuscript. It's in decent shape so few edits and likely to be published, but at least you get paid for your edits. Thanks again for the advice. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ha, it's still business writing, Kingofaces. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Meh, both sides are true. The subjects I choose for volunteer projects are always more interesting, have no deadlines and don't require navigating a corporate bureaucracy. But my paid work allows me to spend devoted time in the middle of the "work day" on articles that would otherwise get no attention. As far as being "awash" with cash, Drmies probably gets paid more than I do in his dayjob, but I have little interest in expensive things and live comfortably. It's amazing that people will complain about being short on cash, when they are in the top 10% worldwide. You can't earn much money doing this sort of thing if you're not willing to take on the naughty stuff. CorporateM (Talk) 16:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Corp, I just learned that it takes the head of human resources here five weeks to make my annual salary. So yeah, wrong business. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarbajit Roy[edit]

You happy with the redirect being removed and the old version being restored? Forgot to tell you, made those oatmeal pancakes yesterday using an apple/cinnamon/sultana instant oatmeal packet, delicious. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

AHHH; souds WONDERFULL; Doug, I need something to eat, I just feel it. Hafspajen (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not happy with that at all. The old article was a piece of crap: it's a sequence of events that individually aren't very noteworthy to begin with. And if that editor is really a 60-year old Unitarian named Charles Duff (a US or UK expatriate living in Bremen?) then I'm a monkey's uncle: that particular English they wrote on Talk:Sarbajit Roy doesn't sound very likely. But I'll leave the decision-making part to you: I haven't even had lunch. Glad the pancakes worked out for you--and they're high in fiber! Please, no reports on the Bristol stool scale--tell it to SandyGeorgia. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I was going to protect today. Possibly the blocked TheWikiIndian[5], sadly that's stale. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion...[edit]

Trinity Loren[edit]

Thank heavens you showed up at that article. It is about the saddest thing I've ever read, and the sources, for the most part, are complete trash. Makes me ashamed to be a Wikipedian. Lightbreather (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I was watching Recent Changes and your "boobcamp2000?" caught my eye. :) Drmies (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind cleaning that up? I honestly don't think but two of those sources is bio-worthy - and none for the kind of personal details it has. If I do any more than I have done, I'm likely to start up the posse who thinks that I want to censor WP. My god - this is someone's life we're talking about. Lightbreather (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I suppose I "censored" it pretty good then, and I tagged it too. Thanks--that was great. Please stay out of porn if it means I have to follow you there. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Dank u wel. Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


Drmies and page stalkers, what do you think of this user page? It contains links to external sites where people can ask for bible study groups and such. Is this considered promotional? To me it looks a lot like proselytizing. --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand, after being pointed out, that it was inappropriate. I would have find it respectful, if you just had asked me to delete it. Then I could sort it out myself. I feel I did not get the chance at all. I made a few changes again, as to easy find the links I often use when using my mobile. - I hope that you will respect my wishes to leave these be. - I would respectfully request that you give people a chance. We're not all stubborn and difficult people here on Wikipedia ;)
Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 23:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Ro, I suppose I could have left you a message. Ik was misschien een beetje gehaast, sorry. Zeg, als je toevallig Willy Bijvoet kent, doe hem de groeten. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tahash/Badger skins[edit]

Hi. You cleaned a sock nest here 2 years back. Are these 2 article recreates kosher? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait--wait--badger skins? Fo shizzle? L'histoire se repete...I can't remember if CU was ever run, but let's find out. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Technical question[edit]

Sorry to bother. So I have been working on my project two days now, but when I do a search on "lukeisback" I still get 170 results, even though I have removed that WP:NOTRS from just about every article it was in (except, as I've said before, the Luke Ford article). Anyway, why do they continue to show up? Is there a way to purge them? If you don't know, could you point me to some WP-innards-savvy (not Gj42) colleague? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I've noticed the same thing years ago already: it takes time to update, that's all. Not to worry. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • A section called "technical question" on Drmies's talk page, and I don't get a ping?! That's it, I'm outta here. Writ Keeper  17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry Writ Keeper--I would have but I had to run home for a pest-control appointment. And that's not a technical matter. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Agreed. It certainly takes a few days for the normal search to update. Special:Linksearch is more up to date though and shows that there are still some live links in BLPs. SmartSE (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that special linksearch is cool! So many helpful tools that I don't know about. I waste a lot of time manually searching for things. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's always annoyed me that Special:Linksearch doesn't let you restrict your query to article-space (most of the results returned are from userspace or talkspace, and so not as relevant). I mean, it annoyed me enough that I wrote User:MastCell/el-search.js, a short piece of JavaScript that adds a box to Special:Linksearch allowing you to search only specific namespaces. You're welcome to use it, although it hasn't been tested and the code quality is at the level of works-for-me. MastCell Talk 18:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I shall try it. Mil gracias. Lightbreather (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll be having a go with that too. Thanks MastCell! SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Of possible interest[edit]



jps (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Ha, jps, long time no see. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


High up in the skies Dr Mies?
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Man Writing a Letter + Woman Reading a Letter.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hafspajen (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric Holder[edit]

Thanks. You just beat me too that. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Sure thing, CBWeather--odd thing was, when I clicked "undo" the first time I saw a note that said "the edit is already undone", but that turned out not to be the case. Maybe the wiki is slow--I know my connection is. As a side note, no thanks--we had chicken and sweet potato waffles for dinner. As another side note, MONGO, what? That content was totally unacceptable! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I've seen that "the edit is already undone" notice before and it wasn't correct then. I think MONGO just didn't take the time to look at the sources properly. At first glance they look OK but they seem a bit biased. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You big mean admins protected the page before MONGO, just a Pawn in the game of life, could self revert...still, mistaken to revert first time...MONGO be extra careful, avoid blocks, unquiet meals making for ill digestions, etc.--MONGO 04:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Right on MONGO, thanks for your note. Shit happens, no worries. BTW, I may be mean but I'm totally impartial: while I approve of Holder's tenure and I'm sad to see him go, I have no love at all for that little mustache. And as a reader of Spivak I'm naturally suspicious of any Columbia U. grad. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, MONGO calls us mean and meanies while Drmies makes personal comment about Holder. Both blocked or have to eat seal liver, but I'm merciful so no bearded seals, as a penance. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
MONGO once also mean admin-type, till even bigger and meaner arbcom-types take tools away from MONGO...MONGO almost blocked all the then sitting members of arbcom just before losing toolbelt, thought hard about it, would have been ultimate troll move. Likely lead to immediate and permanent hardblock of MONGO account, but would have made MONGO infamous at least....hehehe. Best not to trust tools to deranged persons such as I because I might just use them!--MONGO 05:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
MONGO lie. MONGO no tell truth. Be many deranged persons with tools. Drmies deranged. CBWeather deranged. Me not deranged if I keep taking my 12 anti-psychotics. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Malik and I deranged too. A least no beans for me at dinner. MONGO stink. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Different degrees of derangement....MONGO still most deranged and stinky.--MONGO 15:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Dirty and filthy! Yes! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarbajit Roy[edit]

I cant understand for life of me why you keep sending this article to India Against Corruption. Duffycharles (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Hmm. I thought he was supposed to be a big shot in that organization. Where else would you like me to send it? Drmies (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
There is some content dispute over how Roy is connected to the IAC which is the subject of Wikipedia's article. Nevertheless, Roy is a notable person even without his IAC role, and is a well known / notable public interest advocate and RTI activist in India. So I suggest that you restore the Sarbajit Roy article so it can be improved to Wikipedia standards by auto-confirmed editors. Duffycharles (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Bob Avakian edit[edit]

I posted this on the Talk page for the "Bob Avakian" article and am also posting it on the Talk pages of individual editors who have commented on this recently.

Nobody has bothered responding to any of the criticisms I put up on the “Bob Avakian” talk page about edit by Keithbob and others, other than Keithbob saying that I should start a separate thread if I "have concerns about a specific sentence or source". No, it isn't a problem with one or two phrases or sources – I have concerns about the overall totality of the article as rewritten. It is inaccurate, possibly libelous around certain allegations of legal issues, and biased.

My criticisms are very specific, based on carefully locating and studying each one of the sources added to the article, researching the authors of those pieces, and looking at what I know of the actual facts. I have offered specific criticism and comments about different elements of the article. And I've raised concerns that this is very connected with the basic methodology that led to this – just find something that someone said, don't bother looking at whether they have any basis to say it, and then simply cite it as truth. This is precisely what leads to rumors and inaccurate summations being turned into "facts" when there is no basis for this.

Nobody has addressed any of this. Instead, the argument seems to be simply an empty call for "consensus" without dealing with the content of that concensus. Just because the majority of people say something doesn't make it true. Think about the fact that most people in this country question basic scientific understanding like evolution, or global warming.

Again, it is inappropriate and frankly irresponsible to simply remove an article that was the result of literally months and months of careful study of everything I could find on Avakian, whether supportive or critical, and carefully source every statement in it, and instead substitute a poorly researched, biased "substitute". It goes along with removing all of the content of Avakian's views and writings without any effort to even engage them. Again, readers of Wikipedia come here to find something accurate, reliable and informative. EnRealidad (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Which is why your version cannot stand. Look, there is nothing fancy about this. There is no "methodology" besides "look what's in the secondary sources and summarize". So don't be surprised that you're having difficulty getting answers, since a. it's all been explained a few times already and b. your long walls of text simply don't pertain, there is nothing to answer. I'm sorry, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. You are clearly not aware of or in agreement with how we're writing this encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Assistance Needed[edit]

I'm having a bit of an issue with User:Finkie13 and User:Radio247. Both accounts have edited the WSGS article almost exclusively. All of the edits made to the article are clear OR. I posted messages explaining OR and RS to the users.

Neither editor responded to my posts, but Finkie13 has not edited the article or any article since. Radio247, on the other hand, has. Twice while I have been writing this post and is on the verge of violating 3RR. Could you have a word with both, especially Radio247. Thanks...NeutralhomerTalk • 21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have also reverted the content as it appears to be a copyvio, which was copied from - including the bare bracket numbers that are broken markers for what was likely refs at one time. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies: I just reported User:Radio247 for 3RR violation. I gave them a warning prior to doing so, so they were adequately warned.
@Barek: I thought that was a copyvio, but didn't have time to check, was working on the above linked 3RR report. Good catch. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
If it were only edit warring, I would have left it to someone else at WP:AN3 to address; but as it also involved an apparent copyvio and they refused to discuss them, I have blocked the user for 72 hours.
Note - it is possible that the content on the radio stations website is itself a copy of older Wikipedia text - but I couldn't locate a version from earlier in our article with the same text. So it is most likely text that the radio station copied from some other as yet unidentified source. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Barek: If you could, could you please mention your block of Radio247 on the 3RR report at AN3? I figure the WSGS page for the station's history is probably from personal stories and recollections. They ask for folks to email in their stories. That would essentially be second-hand original research and definitely not allowed. Hopefully Radio247 comes back willing to edit constructively. Thanks for you help. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


This is the context of the current AN discussion about the The Devil's Advocate (TDA) following your block on them. You're mistaken about a couple things. In regard to your comment on TDA talk page [22], AN is not "their" (admin's) board, despite the name, any more than a catfish is a cat (despite the name). Maybe it should be but it's not, as indicated by the header Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and arbcom policy, which used to explicitly call AN a "community board" [[23] The block on Devil's Advocate -- which has come to my attention because the current ban discussion -- was inappropriate per WP:INVOLVED because hatting -- as the template documentation clearly states, is an editor action, not an admin one (it doesn't require sysop permissions to hat something).

I'm kind of embarrassed to bring the last point up, but it might save you grief down the road: While any Wikipedian with a lick of common sense would realize, referring to folks who vote in Rfas as "idiots" [24] is a harmless rhetorical device, unfortunately the current wiki political correctness, as least in some areas of Wikipedia, have recently gotten another admin in hot water: the TL;DR version is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Sexology_.28TParis.29 but the short version is TParis used the phrase "for the morons who can't read" on WP:AE and got a discretionary sanction logged warning for it (how stupid is that?) NE Ent 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Don't be embarrassed, Ent, and thank you for your note. I'm sometimes embarrassed enough to be an administrator, and in this and other recent cases, embarrassed enough to be a Wikipedia editor in the first place. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The return of the snake article vandal[edit]

Hi Drmies. Perhaps you remember me, I'm the IP that opened an ANI against the editor User:DendroNaja who is obsessed with snakes. after a short investigation by you and @User:Casliber, it was discovered he is a notorious multiple offender on wikipedia.

He appealed the block after a 8 days. I was happy to inform the Admin there who he was dealing with:

Guess what? he's back :) the new incarnation is User:DocSean

Check out his love for snake articles and...(drumroll plz) Temazepam.

I caught him because i was watching the Black mamba article, which is his biggest fetish, and he just made his first edit there. I'll ping @User talk:Materialscientist who seems to watch over that article too.

Thank you (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • You're kidding. And this a day, or two, after the return of User:Paul Michael Heart, or Michael Paul Heart, or Hermitstudy, or whatever. Well, the ANI is not the thing to link to--the SPI is. Where is it? 23:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Here it is (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I just blocked it as a pretty obvious sock....time to clean up I guess. How do I log on that page...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Ha, yes, I just put the dinner dishes away and found the SPI. Sebastian80's talk page makes for interesting reading; the funnest part (well, fun...) is good old Tnxman307's comment on 20 January (incidentally, my brother's birthday). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick work CasLiber. and thank you Drmies (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, all thanks are due to Casliber. Thanks for keeping an eye on that black mamba--yes, I believe "fetish" is the right word; I wonder if Sebastian/Veronica knows what a fetishist's favorite smell is. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Maupoleum[edit]

BB (Bad Bishy) in action

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to certify RFCU[edit]

Would you please certify this RFCU? Thanks. --Lightbreather (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry Lightbreather, but I can't do that. I can agree that there are problems, but if I had been convinced he was hounding you I would have blocked him already. In fact, I had two good reasons to not block: a. I was not convinced (and in part that was because I did not want to read all the large swaths of text you two produced), and b. I did not want to act on behavior in my administrative capacity when I was more interested in trying to mediate. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
A couple of your comments (That includes provocation and hounding/stalking...[25] and I still can't picture you as joining some gender task force of your own volition, sorry[26]) make it pretty clear that you do think that he harassed me in the recent past, and that he was supposed to stop, but I'm not gonna push it. As for large swaths of text - when I complain, whether it's in detail or succinctly, I abide by the policies and guidelines about where and how to do so... and I provide evidence. I think those are distinctions worth noting.
I do thank you for trying to address the problem. Lightbreather (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I have thoughts and opinions, Lightbreather. But participating in this RfC would prevent me from taking administrative action in the future, and I want to keep that option open. Besides, and this may contradict what I just said, I am trying to scale back my commitments here altogether. Too frequently I'm either in the middle or I'm a punch bag or I'm having to act all authoritatively, and I am not enjoying it. So you'll have to find another certifier, but you need more people to comment in the first place. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I hope you have never thought that I used you as a punching bag, though I know you have been in the middle of my and others' problems before, and I thank you again. As I said though, I'm not going to push it - meaning the RFCU, and my understanding is that without a second certifier it will die (be deleted) tomorrow, and that will be the end of that. Of course you already know this, but I'll say it again for anyone who might read this: I think the Wikipedia system for dealing with those who harass and attack does not work, contributes to the project being a hostile workplace, and costs the project otherwise good editors who cannot or will not work with loutish colleagues. Lightbreather (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
No, Lightbreather, not you. I hope someone will certify it for you. And I do think that we have problems in dealing with editors, yes, though I wish I could put it in words. Or in policy. Or that I wasn't so conflicted about all this (and that). Drmies (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


Sorry, I was building a deck when you archived. Barrowman played Captain Jack Harkness on Doctor Who, and its spinoff Torchwood. G'day sexy alien hunter. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Fascinating, K-stick. Is grilling season over already? I saw some kid in a commercial--oh! a Bank of America commercial, I just remembered--who looked just like your boy. Made me think of you. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Well I am stuck in Saskatchewan until mid October, but it is always grilling season for me. I have been known to do up a steak when it is -40, although I try not to make a habit of it. I got a new BBQ at home, and have used it once, to cook hot dogs. To my knowledge none of my children have been in commercials, although who knows what they do when I am not around. Presently I am researching how to seek asylum in the Turks and Caicos Islands, will let you know how it goes. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Good luck with it, K-stick. I'm rooting for you. And you know I'll come over any time and help you with memo writing. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For you[edit]

Washington Allston 002.jpg
Antoine Berjon, French - Still Life with Flowers, Shells, a Shark's Head, and Petrifications - Google Art Project.jpg For No Reason at All reason at all............................... ...........................................................................................................................................Hafspajen (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Good laugh[edit]

Louis Maurer, The American Admin - Always Ready, 1858


I got a good laugh out of your comment on ANI " The funny thing is that KoshVorlon typically seems a bit hot-headed in this forum ". Only response I can give to that is "Guilty as charged "  :) KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 21:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, you know, I've been wondering if you'd been having a bee in your bonnet recently, but not this time. I do think that a topic ban is a bit drastic, and if it can be based on edit warring (and, really, disruption) on one single template, as poor as those edits are. I'm a big fan of RfC/U, which would call for a broader investigation and can, in the end, lead to a topic ban. But as I said on ANI, holy moly that template is problematic. See this. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Kosh, hoy headed? hell no, but should you go to Zahadoom, you will die Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sure Drmies has no idea what you're talking about. I haven't mentioned Babylon 5 in a long time, so I'd like to clarify something. I recently put a userbox on my page stating that Breaking Bad is the greatest work of entertainment ever produced. But B5 is certainly right up there, perhaps in second place. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, thanks for explaining that, Mandarax. I was already wondering if DS was delivering yet another of their potty-languaged diatribes, in anticipation of an indefinite block for saying "shit" somewhere. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Babylon 5 was awesome. Anyone who has not seen it should do so. It's in my top 3 with GBH and Edge of Darkness - hence Mrs. Begoon's description of me as an "old fart". Begoontalk 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Darkness Shines ... um, did you mean Z'ha'dum by chance ? (Just yanking your chain ) KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 21:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
For a man who is shitfaced, I thought I did quite well, and as the taxi is now here, back to the pub, have fun everyone. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral eyes needed[edit]

Talk:John_Walsh_(U.S._politician)#Plagiarism_allegations_redux. Thought this was settled two months ago. Montanabw(talk) 03:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on that issue and your contributions to an appropriate resolution (IMHO). Your calm and thoughtful approach is much appreciated. Montanabw(talk) 05:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Another ProudIrishAspie sock[edit]

You may recall our friend ProudIrishAspie, who has a fondness for Ireland, cursing at people, not responding to comments, and flooding military history articles with flags. In July, you blocked a sock of his, American Starkiller, which prompted a bit of hatred from him.

Now, he's back at it again, working as Darth Jadus, and he has clearly been warned about the flag thing several times by others. I'm going to ping Ian Rose here, because I'm infrequently on Wiki anymore, and Ian recently reverted Darth Irish Starkiller's edits on an article I monitor. I'm leaving this on your talk because you've death with both prior incarnations, and SockBanned the last. Any advice and/or assistance is appreciated! Cdtew (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Also gonna drop a ping to BusterD because apparently he's had some recent difficulty from Darth Irish Starkiller. Cdtew (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I looked at a few edits, but I gotta run for now. We really need an SPI. Thanks for the note, and I'm glad you stopped by our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I have opened one up here. Feel free to contribute. Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Notifications, I was made aware of this thread (I'm on break for a few weeks). I had tried unusccessfully to get PIA to help with other tasks and had made a polite warning to Darth Jadus. I'll confess I hadn't noticed the User:American Starkiller episode. I don't have anything meaningful to add to the SPI but will keep my eyes open. My watchlist is filled with the sorts of pages where flag icons have been a problem. BusterD (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this Draft RFC?[edit]

Hi Drmies,

Crisco 1492 and I have been working on a draft RFC relating to the Violence Against Men category, and what rules should be there for its use. Crisco 1492 suggested I ping you to take a look as an uninvolved third party. See User_talk:Crisco_1492#Violence_against_men.2Fwomen_categories. The second version of the RFC draft, lower in the section, is where we are now.

Your input is most welcome. Mattnad (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I had a look, Mattnad, but that's a lot to chew on. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
  • Thanks for that message: I appreciate it. As a good liberal I wish the world were more fixable. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Reply[edit]

Yes it does go some way to addressing the problem but not the lack of common sense shown by the NOT CENSORED brigade. WCMemail 21:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix Marie[edit]

I'm concerned about your decision to delete the Phoenix Marie article. Only one editor voted delete, and the six others all voted keep. Your explanation of the decision also did not address the objection based on item #3 of WP:PORNBIO. I realize that it is your job to weigh the merits of the arguments and I can understand your reasoning, but it seems like you made the decision completely against the clear consensus. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, there's two deletes. The coverage mentioned by Davey2010, those three sources, they're nothing. I mean, this? Rebecca1990's rationale hinges on this award (those videos, that's also nothing--we do have some standards), and there is no rebuttal to the argument that it's handed out by a producer to his own product. Redsky and Samwinchester don't actually present anything, and the other two, including yours, are nothing but "per Rebecca". That this person would be "one of the biggest porn stars", for instance, that's just incredibly unlikely for all kinds of reasons. But you are welcome to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review, and I wish you the best with it. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • While I could debate the facts of the discussion, my concern is more that you appear to have simply used your own judgment about the topic, ignoring the editors who participated in the discussion. As for myself, I could have elaborated my position, but I had assumed the consensus was already clear and it wasn't worth my time. I will take it to deletion review. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have used my judgment in the weighing of the pros and cons. Elaborating one's position is always a good idea. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Phoenix Marie[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Phoenix Marie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sammy1339 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


In the midst of the BLPNAME dispute/discussion, you mentioned taking the situation to Arbcom. I'm largely unfamiliar with Arbcom, and other than what reading I just complete on its role in Wikipedia, I really know nothing about how it works or how to utilize it.

I still maintain that the names of non-notable minor children of article subjects should not have their names or other identifying information about them placed in articles. It's trivia, it does nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, and it's just filler. Plus, I believe BLPNAME is clear that such names and info should be removed from BLP articles. Obviously, others severely and loudly disagree. Over the last couple of years, I've seen several other admins and much more mature, responsible, and non-celebrity impressed editors defend and enforce BLPNAME as I have been. But, it seems that the trivia/fan fluff-loving editors are taking over the discussion. So, is Arbcom the place to go to solve this standoff once and for all? If so, I have no idea how to start. And, frankly, am afraid I would muck it up (I'm not so sure I'm the best person to bring it there). Any advice or assistance you can provide, I would be grateful for. Thanks, -- Winkelvi 02:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Winkelvi: I would expect an WP:RFC would have to be held first before Arbcom agreed to hear a case. Frankly, I'm not impressed by your characterizations of editors. I support the inclusion of children's names in articles as standard biographical details like the name of a spouse or birth/death locations and I've been here a long time. Instead of resorting to ad hominems, have a look at our FA-status biographies like Nancy Cartwright, Bronwyn Bancroft, Antonin Scalia, etc. --NeilN talk to me 02:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Since I was addressing Drmies specifically and he is quite familiar with what and to whom I am referring, it really matters not to me what you think of my "characterizations". I find them spot-on considering the instances and situations referenced above. And, just for the record, because something has already been done in opposition to policy doesn't make it acceptable nor does it nullify the associated policy. -- Winkelvi 02:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No fighting in the war room, please. Winkelvi, I didn't say I was going to take anything to ArbCom: I wouldn't know where to start. Ask NE Ent. NeilN has a point, of course; the Mighty ArbCom (pinging Beeblebrox, just because I can) is likely to say "thou shalt pursue RfC first", but it seems to me that such a discussion will most likely end in, hmm, let me check...wind from the southeast...dark clouds overhead...barometer dropping...blood raining from the sky...yes, no consensus it is.

    In short, I don't really know. Whatever I said, I hope I didn't say "take this to ArbCom right now" since there may be procedural steps, but what I intended was that it may have to be ArbCom who settles this. Thanks, to both of you--how both I characterize one of you as a great, kick-ass content editor and good admin material, and then each of you can think that the other guy is the schmuck! Or, let's leave characterizations out altogether, unless it is of my enemies of course. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • By the way, Winkelvi: ?, and ? Drmies (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "[I]t seems to me that such a discussion will most likely end in, hmm, let me check...wind from the southeast...dark clouds overhead...barometer dropping...blood raining from the sky...yes, no consensus it is". Ok.. I certainly have the right talk page watch listed here! ;-) But seriously...been watching this dispute. I need to review BLP policy because I don't remember this mentioned as the OP insists, but could be wrong. Wait...did they really accuse you of harassment and making threats, tell you to stay off their talk page....and then post on yours. Well...alrighty then.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Ha-ha! No, I know you're not referring to me, Drmies. Which makes me the schmuck and definitely not admin material (I think I'm probably seen as more pain in the ass than "kick-ass"). Being still a very new editor who opens their mouth more than they should and doesn't have the best personal behavior filter due to my Asperger's, the label likely fits (more than I would like). Sorry I didn't explain myself better regarding my inquiry about Arbcom. You never gave the impression it was the place to go now or even in the immediate future, I felt you were really just saying that the issues raised were posing a conflict that wasn't going to be easily solved. Like I said, I'm really unfamiliar with Arbcom and didn't know if it was a viable possibility to solve the issue or not. That's why I came to you: advice and long-term editor wisdom. My big concern is that the "let's push our personal agendas through while shoving policy aside" mentality I observed surrounding several editors' behavior was disturbing, to say the least. It's becoming a prevailing attitude, I believe, that pop-culture and trivial "facts" are important inclusions in Wikipedia articles, putting the "encyclopedic" part of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be aside. This latest with the incorrect interpretation of BLPNAME (whether just a misunderstanding or intentional agenda pushing) is a good example. And it's going to get worse before it gets better, in my opinion. Which is why I would be interested in seeing this go to a higher level than star-struck/celebrity-loving community members commenting and forcing their will, policy and common sense be damned.
Thanks for the reply. -- Winkelvi 03:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
See, the thing is, I agree with you on the narrow issue of the names, but if you wish to "win" this argument, it's a better tactic to try and win over your opponents than to paint them in a corner. As wrong as they are (this NeilN cat, he's never been right in his life, but I won't say that in public on my talk page), they still need to be taken seriously. Or at least one should try. Or, "personal agendas" instead of policy--well, BLPNAMES isn't all that clear and leaves room for discussion, so this argument works for your opponents as well... Neil, I don't think I'm terribly wrong in my prediction for how such an RfC would go. It's much harder to predict how ArbCom might feel--don't you think that they're just likely to kick it back and say that those are individual cased to be decided on by editorial consensus for the individual article? Drmies (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Arbcom is involved with behavior, not content. Unless editors' behavior is in question (disruptive editing, refusal to drop the stick - on either side) they're not going to decide content matters unless all other avenues have been exhausted and disruption is still occurring. If that happens, the case will probably go something like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images#Final_decision. Whacks for the disruptive editors and the community told to hold a RFC to clarify BLP policy. --NeilN talk to me 04:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, two things. Mark Miller, I really did not appreciate all that potty talk on ANI. A little decorum please, and if you want to do something useful, just close that thread in a way that makes everyone happy. Winkelvi, I suppose you should consider following NeilN's advice and start an RfC on the talk page of the BLP policy (and with a note on BLPN, I suppose). I think you'll find that the discussion is going to derail or go nowhere, but maybe I'm wrong--I've been wrong before, often enough. Good luck with it, and let me know what you do. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was a little much for ANI. I was far too upset there to have been posting while still heated up over the ping. No excuses. That was just a lot of cussing.
To address the other issue of Chelsea's baby, BLPNAME actually seems to allow it with: "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced". The baby was all over television news, both broadcast and cable news, newspapers and magazine online articles. Notablity is not inherited but this baby seems to have been born notable. The entire situation should be RFCd at the moment as this is similar in nature to the Hillary renaming situation in my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Two things: Is anyone in the news caring about the baby today, and does knowing the name and birth date/birth location of the baby going to enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject? -- Winkelvi 04:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The core of BLP is do no harm. It doesn't harm anyone to mention the name if the parent has openly and willingly stated the name and reliable sources are provided. That said, I don't even think Chelsea is notable except as the daughter of a former President...and therefore think that the name of her baby is even less so. Point is, policy supports providing the name but I personally think it does nothing to enhance the article on Chelsea. Zzzzzzz.--MONGO 04:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I got your basic opinion of the subject from your calling her "Princess Chelsea" and referring to the baby as "it". But...there is more to her notability than just being the daughter of the Clintons.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A TPS's 2 cents: A person's kid's name (though not the kid's birthplace or exact date of birth) is considered pretty standard bio-data in real-world sources. I don't think we need to determine whether such information is "mere trivia" or answer the question of how the kid's name "enhances the reader's understanding" (analogously, how does knowing that Chelsea Clinton was born on Feb 27th, and not on March 3rd, help anyone know who she really is?). Instead, as a tertiary source we should look at the approach taken by other secondary and tertiary sources, and as far as I have seen most comprehensive biographies (or say, obituaries) do include the names of a person's immediate family-members.
That said, I do think we should exercise our editorial discretion in individual cases. For example, I'd think twice as hard before including say John Gotti's or John Hinkley's kids' names in their wikibios out of concern that such association may harm innocent individuals (haven't checked what the wikipedia pages actually do); ditto in cases where a person has tried to keep their family life particularly private (Michael Jackson?), or where a person is wiki-notable but not really a "public figure" (most professors, bureaucrats etc). But in Chelsea Clinton's case I don't see any such concerns arising. So unless the argument is that my subjective impression is incorrect and real world bios exclude such information, I'm not sure why we are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Abecedare (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)