User talk:Drmies

• With thanks to User:RexxS: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Please read and edit accordingly.

Yonkers Police Department Page (Again)

Hey sorry to bother again but I am having a bit of a issue. I am attempting to post the Yonkers Police page again which I revamped but it is not letting me stating "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist." Is there anyway you can help me out with posting the page again? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ?????? (talk • contribs) ?? ????? ????, ??:?? (UTC)

Adding unsigned as this thread had been untouched for a while. I did consider it, but could not find who added it in my search throughout the page's edit history. --WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Writers' tip

further reading: wikt:Project:Tea room/2022/September#mot du règne

Just for reference, Doktoro and any Lurkers who might be interested: I understand that the adjective du règne is "Carolian", from "Carolus", as used in the names of various things associated with King Charles I School, for example. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

One can of course always rely upon The Guardian to mis-spell things, and others to then follow suit.

• "Carolean age dawns as Britain begins long goodbye to the Queen". The Guardian. 2022-09-09.

In fairness, this spelling from The Grauniad is supported by books written by experts in interior design from outwith the United Kingdom.

• Seng Handbook: Furniture Facts: Commemorating Eighty Years of Service to the Furniture Industry, 1874–1954. Chicago: Seng Company. 1954. p. 55. Carolean: 1660–1688

But "Carolian" is the spelling, in contrast, that has been used for the past 2 centuries by others, from Black's Guide in the 19th century discussing Ashburnham Place, through the aforementioned school (and other schools) named after various Charleses, to recent academic history books. The Carolian Chapel is also a common translation of the Karolinska Gravkoret at Riddarholmen Church.

• Black's Guide to the South-eastern Counties of England: Sussex. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black. 1861. Scarcely less interesting, perhaps, are the Carolian relics; Charles the First's watch, his white silk drawers, the blood-spotted shirt which he wore upon the scaffold […]
• Tresham H. Gilbey (January 1881). "Stage Pictures by Old Painters". Baily's magazine of sports and pastimes. Vol. 36. p. 344. The object of this paper is to give a stage view of life in London in the time of Charles the Second, as sketched […] It will be readily understood that all the comedies of that period had the Carolian favour; but Etherege possessed the instincts of a gentleman, and touched dangerous matters with a gentle hand.
• "Silent Auction Brings Grateful Carolian Community Together". St. Charles Preparatory School. 2021-12-07.
• Childs, John (2013). Army of Charles II. Routledge. p. 14. ISBN 9781134528592. Carolian England was ripe for plots at any time and during the first three years of the reign there were a huge number.

Much as we know that furniture is dear to your heart, Doktoro, I think that we should go with the spelling used by the schools and the scholars rather than the one used by The Graduian and the antiques dealers.

Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

CU Goggles

Hello, Drmies,

I have been trying to follow some ongoing vandalism that is being done to the Farnborough Hall article (and a few associated articles), by Kenyon2005 and by some other new registered accounts and some IP accounts. I noticed that similar editing was done by Kalorama20008 earlier this summer and they were blocked by you after issuing some bizarre legal threats. They eventually got globally locked. I don't believe there is an SPI case yet but I'm thinking that Kalorama20008 has spun off into some milder acting sockpuppets who are continuing this crusade on behalf of some convoluted sense of family history involving this house and other people in their family line. I thought I'd approach you since you had blocked Kalorama20008 and ask if you see anything here before I filed a SPI case.

I have protected this article for 3 months so I think it is safe from vandalism but this conduct has also spilled over to other articles. Thanks for any help you can provide in looking into this matter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hey Liz--I was about to run a check on that IP, but saw, in the CU log, that it's already been done--see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalorama20008. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, well, thanks anyway for telling me about the SPI case. I'll go there in the future. This one, if you take time to read all of the content they have posted (hey, I had some free time), is pretty off-the-wall, made-up, pseudo-royalty and rich family tragedy garbage. Why do people love to pretend that they have ancestors who were wealthy or important? It seems to happen a fair bit on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) Same reason most who believe they are reincarnated also believe they were, in their past lives, kings, queens and/or mighty warriors. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't really get it either. It's all so desperate. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

User:JCThring

I'm not able to spend any more time right now looking at this user's contributions, but they seem entirely to consist of cluelessly oververbose references to the scholarly output of one person named Malcolm Tozer, and you and your followers have not only better menu selections, but better vocabulary words for such academic phenomena. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ha I have followers? I feel like Aeneas! Drmies (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oh dear--what a shame, and thanks, User:Bbb23. So, former professional educator and headmaster retires, dedicates time and energy to become a well-published scholar in precisely the right field, then (likely) discovers Wikipedia and goes all out--likely well-intentioned but not in accordance with our rules of behavior. JCThring, there are things you can do here, but there are other things you must do first, and I'll leave a note on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Um, not sure if you would have blocked despite your "thanks". If at some point in the future you wish to unblock him, you don't have to ask me first; I'm sure you'll do the right thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    • You saw my predicament. I suppose I would have given an only warning, which they would have likely ignored, after which I would have blocked. Maybe. We'll see what happens, Bbb--whether my AGF was justified or not. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Selected Biography in the Article Neoplatonism.

Hi

I have reverted the removal of the selected bibliography because the citations link via sfn tags to the bibliography making it explicitly clear what book it refers to. Without the selected bibliography, there is no way of telling what book the citation came from. Also, when hovering over the reference to a citation, the cited book is displayed. By moving the entire selected bibliography to another topic means you can not easily determine which book the citation came from.

The bibliography is selected because it only contains translations and 21st century references, no 18th, 19th or 20th century references.

Could you please discuss major modifications to the article on the talk page before making them so you can understand why the Selected bibliography is needed.

Regards Daryl Prasad Darylprasad (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• I see. This was not clear, in part because of the unusual formatting. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I formatted the Selected bibliography in small font to reduce the length of the article. Darylprasad (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I think there are better ways to reduce the length of the article. For instance, why is there a biography of Proclus right under the link that goes to Proclus's biography? Why is there a biography of Iamblichus when we already have a biography of Iamblichus? Etc. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance templates for Neoplatonism Article

Please discuss the addition of templates on the articles talk page before adding them to the Neoplatonism article.

With respect to the questions of:

"The question of This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (September 2022)"

This has already been discussed in "Length of Article'. Please add your response to that discussion there before adding the template.

"This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (September 2022)"

That may be said of a lot of Wikipedia articles, not just this one. For example, articles on mathematical, physics, and other topics. The audience that it is of interest to are people interested in neoplatonism. The detail is needed to explain the philosophical and religious system adequately.

Could editors please reasonably and logically discuss these issues on this talk page before addition of templates which seem to be specifically targeting one article as many articles in Wiki could be said to have the same properties. Darylprasad (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

With respect to your comment on addition of the template again:

"no, the templates are as valid as ever"

That comment does not address the comments I have made about the template on the article's talk page. Could you please elaborate.

Regards Daryl Prasad

• No. Please discuss the removal of valid maintenance templates: this is on you. I see that post now, on the talk page--but that talk page is you talking to yourself. There is no consensus that somehow the length of the article is acceptable, and I do not believe that 418,049 bytes is in any way appropriate. What's more, this post of yours should be on the article talk page. That you removed the templates, and then removed the valid warning I placed on your talk page, is indicative of the fact that you do not seem to appreciate the "collaborative" part of our encyclopedia, which is precisely what Johnuniq suggested you work on almost a year ago. User:Pppery put the same "too long" template on the article, and you promptly removed it, put your monologue on the talk page, and then made the article even longer. Your statement, "discuss on talk page before adding templates", suggests only one thing: WP:OWN. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • There are already two posts on the length of the article on the Article's talk page. Every time I remove a template I start a new section on the article's talk page. My reasons for significant modifications in the article are always discussed on the talk page as you will see that the many topics there (45 to be exact, 22-67) have been started by me and I explain why I have made significant modifications to the article. I think that is what collaboration is about. My talk page is rarely used for collaboratively discussing an article's significant changes.Darylprasad (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you just put another post there that basically said "it's not too long." That's not collaborating: that's you claiming you know what's best for the article. Ownership. Your own talk page is where other editors go to discuss your behavior, and that is exactly where you remove posts that discuss your behavior, without responding to them. And seriously, you must made almost a dozen edits to my talk page. You'd be pissed if I just rolled them back without even acknowledging them. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Aha--so you did exactly the same thing on Proclus, and I remember seeing how ridiculously long that article is. I guess it was User:Epinoia who put the "too long" tag there in January, which you promptly removed, without consensus? And it seems that User:Aza24 had similar comments, on the talk page, which you didn't do anything with. By the way, I don't care how long 2021 in American television is; that's not the topic of discussion. At 357,229 bytes, Proclus is a monster. I mean, there's 25 footnotes before the first sentence is even over. You can't do all those notes for the dates in one single footnote? [edit conflict: I don't know what "not displaying the text" means. And please respect the asterisk; if you don't, I don't need to extend you other courtesies.] Wow. The first sentence of Plotinus has 32 footnotes. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
      • It is the first time I have come across an asterisk. I am used to semi-colons. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages for more examples to lengthy articles. Why isn't there a template on ‎Presidency of Donald Trump ‎[497,540 bytes] or COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait ‎[574,553 bytes] to name two. Proclus and neoplatonism have been around for 1600 years and there is vastly more scholarship material on them. The articles provide a summary of that vast amount of scholarship. The reasons for the number of sfns is to give the reader a wide range of scholarship that supports the statement. Certain facts about Proclus and neoplatonism are different depending on the century or years within a century of scholarship. The sfns also provide readers with information as to what scholars thought and when those thought were published. This adds significantly to the reliability of the article and adds significant depth to the article. Readers can then easily see the leading scholars who support a particular fact or opinion.Darylprasad (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
        • @Darylprasad: There's a thing you seem to be missing here, and it's called "summary style"; neoplatonism shouldn't contain everything there is to know about neoplatonism, only a summary of said knowledge; and more detailed content should belong on, for example contemporary neoplatonism, modern neoplatonism, renaissance neoplatonism, neoplatonism in the Caucasus, etc. This is not at all my area of expertise so those may not be the correct titles, but it should be sufficient to convey the idea.
          Why isn't there a template on ‎Presidency of Donald Trump ‎[497,540 bytes] or COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait ‎[574,553 bytes] to name two - for the same reason there are 137,000 articles with no sources at all - Wikipedia is imperfect and has lots of unresolved problems that the community works together to fix, and you can't wish away the existence of these problems by saying "other stuff exists" * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
          • @Pppery:, thank you. I think we ran into each other recently but I forgot where--sorry. Yes, Daryl: our articles need not/should not be comprehensive. And in the section above I actually gave examples of what is excessive, and where. Biographies and footnotes. Those 32 footnotes in the opening sentence of Plotinus also make that lead unreadable; there is a very good reason we do not need to cite in the lead. You have to think about the reader. Shit, there's 45 footnotes for the lead. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
            • Probably Kirby Super Star Ultra, which I note still has the fancruft content you removed. Also, since I'm here, do you have any objection to me redirecting Bibliography of Neoplatonism back to Neoplatonism#Reference bibliography now that the purpose of that section has been clarified? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
              • Yeah, I guess. I actually thought we could do something useful with that. The whole setup of that bibliography (look at the paragraph I trimmed in the main article) made no sense at all, and I was led astray in part because of the "Selected" bit, which is inappropriate if it's the bibliography for the article. So after the editor explained, I thought about redirecting, but if that bibliography is so "selective" that it has only sources from the last two decades (which is not a bad thing, not at all), one could make a complete bibliography, and that might be a valuable thing. But I'm not sure the editor is willing to consider that, or has thought about it themselves. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
              • Drmies: your language is offensive. You have been muted by me.
                • Well, that's just awful, that you would say that in passive voice--you could have said in three words what you said in five. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm just sayin...

Just a heads-up that your wholy appropriate warning here was followed-up with this ("wikipedia [is] a pointless place where people with nothing more important to do pretend they know more than they do.") And this ("All this brilliance being wasted on the comments section on Wikipedia.") And this ("It's hard to assume "good faith" when it is clear they have none.") And this ("I received your uninformed POV"). And this ("I do appreciate all the time you guys spent explaining your, cough, cough, "logic.") And this ("Get a grip, pal.")

I tried to help them here, apparently with no success. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the IP you page blocked

For a month, tpa revoked, attack on you suppressed for possible doxxing. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

IP sock

Hi Drmies, hope you're doing well. An IP user 212.174.38.3 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Alexyflemming, who is still evading their block, see contributions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ha, I'm on the Greek team! I had no idea. Well, you reverted them. If they get disruptive again, we'll block. But I had nothing to do with the SPI, BTW. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • lol I haven't even seen that. Yeah I think misread the log, other admins blocked for evasion your block wasn't related to the SPI. Thanks for clarifying. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Sure thing--that was a long time ago. And the admins in the SPI, that's from 2016 or so, if I remember correctly. Some people really just need to find a new hobby. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

September music

September songs

This rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and that day in 2022 was full of music, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto (my brother played in the orchestra), and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Today, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

New sock?

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunshine773, see these IP edits. I only noticed it because the editor touched Don't Worry Darling, and all of their edits are today and tend to be as well-written out and relatively knowledgeable as the two user accounts. Not to mention the fact that they went from editing older movies to the only new one. Thoughts? I'll make your gin and tonic a double? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• No--that is, the technical evidence doesn't support it. Hey, I think that's another gin and tonic! Drmies (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks anyway! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

I saw you tagged Draft:Mark Mills, actor-manager for G3 as an obvious hoax. Can you clarify what makes you think it is an obvious hoax? It doesn't jump out and scream hoax to me like some hoaxes do, and I've spent the last way too long (about half an hour) trying to determine if it is a hoax or not. I'm able to verify some details - like that there was an actress active in the right time period named Nellie Boyd (but not that it was a stage name for someone named Helena Tomkins), that there actually is a character named King Multifaker in Little Jack Horner (that name was what I thought was an obvious hoax - but it's real), and a few other things. The draft is totally unsourced though, which is a problem. I considered declining it as not obvious enough to meet the G3 burden, but I'm not convinced it's not a hoax, and I respect your judgement so - - what am I missing? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• User:ONUnicorn, I also spent a good bit of time on it. First of all, Google searches for any "Mark Mills" with words related to that profession delivered nothing to me, and likewise with his name combined with "Marquise Attavanti" or "The Worst Woman" and other names. Worse, the supposed quotes in the article, they do not show up in Google whatsoever, and those should be available on Google since there's no copyright on them and they are "regular" 19th-century periodicals. So yeah, I think the whole thing is made up. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. I've deleted it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. That reminds me--as I was clicking that button I was thinking that it would have been great if I could have put an edit summary in. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Gilley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Gilley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gilley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Tom Reedy (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

New IP

Hy , hope you are well, can you please protect the Kosovo Serbs page, it has been a subject of this ip vandalism [[1]] who changed information from the source, source is open access pg 97. [[2]] with information according to the article, but the ip keeps on replacing 150000 figure with "a number". Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hi--well, I can't see the page, but I'll take your word for it, and I've reverted another of the IP's edits. But I am not going to semi-protect an article because of three edits, all of which have been reverted; I see nothing in the history that warrants that. Actually I'm surprised at how little the article has been fucked around with, given BALKAN and all that. You warned the IP editor: if they keep it up I'll be happy to block them. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Okay thanks, but just been wondering how can you not access the source or the page? [[3]], it was quite easy for me. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    • The mysteries of Google Books will not be unearthed until the stars fall from the sky. Plus, your link was for "hrvatski" and I'm here firmly in "en" territory; I have seen this before, where Google Books links from one language/country don't work in another. Or, I have no answer for it, haha. I see it's rainy and sad today in Croatia, so take care, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank your for your kind advices.

I will apply them. I recognise I've made mistakes such as using the edit reasons for writing long texts. I will improve myself as an Wiki editor and I won't edit again as an unregistered user without this account. Thank you! Navarran94 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Good luck, and thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I have never seen an IP with so much crap on them and so much evidence against them being spared. You know how User:Asilah1981 operated and have an experience how these kinds of accounts work. The case for Sockpuppeting is more than clear, despite the subtle evading technics. The editor above is obviously not new in the ENWP, and has not provided any explanations on that.

    I can only foresee more toxic activity by the account above. He has populated Juan Sebastián Elcano with my name and that of another user associating us to a ideological profile. Do walls and noise pay off? Sadly, it looks like it does. Iñaki LL (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    • Iñaki LL, by all means start an SPI if you think there were other accounts before. That's all I can say right now--sorry. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    "With so much crap on them" @Drmies: can you block or punish this user for deliberately doing constant personal attacks breaking WP:NPA against me? This user is shameless and doesn't know the meaning of that word it seems.

    Now he even accuses me of being another user, of course @Iñaki LL: you have a strong ideological profile that determines your edits, it's proven in your edits, the way you break WP:WALLS and WP:NPA against me, with his extreme hatred against my persona, to the point of arriving to a WikiAdmin's Talk Page where I said thanks for the advices and you insult me "so much crap on you" you should be ashamed of your hooligan-style behavior.

    Wikipedia is not your personal blog and it has to remain unbiased. The fact that you didn't revert the actions of a WP:SPA that changed the stable lead in that page indicates it might be your sockpuppet, I'm open for any SPA as I have never used any other account, if you are obsessed with another user is your problem, not mine, but what I won't tolerate is you to come here to insult me. Shame on you.

    Sorry @Drmies: for this. This is the last time I will tolerate this. I have been receiving constant and repeated personal attacks from this user against myself, constant and repeat claims saying I'm someone else, and I'm tired, next time he goes directly to the administrator's noticeboard because I am tired to see attacks, insults and accusations against myself. Navarran94 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Surrealistic. Again a textwall for an account that has only contributed noise and rage to the ENWP. Outside goals in Spain and pressure on admins, just take a look at the names. Only hope that noise does not pay off. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Navarran, if you take something like that to a noticeboard, you should expect a boomerang. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Please, note that he is again reverting the edits even when the lead is being discussed. The misrepresentation of sources is even more clear when he claims that the maximum authority in Basque language is "some kind of association". If we allow everything, then I don't know why we have discussions and rules. Theklan (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay I understand, I've just said that to prove until which point I can I arrive to prove I'm not any other account like that user says. Now both came here when I've just made this to thank you for your advices.

I've also received another personal attack and false accusations (check Elcano's talk page) these users are desperate to get me banned. But I won't fall in that game. And yes, the Basque Language Academy is an academy, not an association, my bad, now Theklan sticks to that (both here and in the talk page) to say my edits are not valid.

I don't understand why they come here. They still try to get me banned after 2 ANIs. Personal attacks against me are still present. I say thanks to an admin and they come here to accuse me. I think now they try to force me to leave Wikipedia, I feel harassed. I'm sorry but this is not right. Navarran94 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted you on a minor thing: please see WP:OVERLINK, which suggests that linking to "Spanish people" is unnecessary. Navarran94, your continued insistence that all the others are out to get you is just not helpful. What I see on the talk page looks like a consensus to me, and I'm afraid that the way things stand right now you are just going to have to live with it. The only way that I see for you to change that is to start an WP:RFC, but you would have to phrase it neutrally. You could ask "should we add a link to Spanish people"--but that's kind of silly, given the link I just gave you. Or you could ask "should we add 'currently in Spain'", which I think will be met with an overwhelming "what's it matter". I'm telling you this from experience. But you are welcome to try. However, if it is not phrased neutrally, it will very likely be shut down and only lead to more disputes. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies, well the first thing is only by these 2 specific users and their words against me, but it seems both have changed their mind and they engage in the talk page without making accusations so I am glad of that. That's a start to solve a dispute.

And yes I am eager to find a consensus as well but unfortunately there is still no consensus in there (I hope it will be one soon) I support the proposal of another user, it would be the most factually accurate lead, either that or the actual one which is practically the same as it was before the SPA changed it to just Basque, something the sources mention but don't support as most mention Spanish too and more say just Spanish than even mentioning Basque... but I am okay with keeping Basque as well.

I didn't know the overlink thing and I am ok with that, I won't add it again since now I know what it means. I really appreciate your advices and I will apply them, they are very helpful for my future edits in the Wikipedia. If I do something wrong please tell me and I will improve it. Thank you! Navarran94 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

What are the odds

That those same talking heads that discounted Bama's one point win will scream unnecessary run up of the score today. Asking for a friend. Tiderolls 23:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm tell your friend (who likely plays golf) that that's par for the course. I made a rude joke in response to a rude joke by a Georgia troll on an Alabama Insta page. Georgia is just absolutely overwhelming this year, but talking trash never improved anything or anyone. Alabama might have scored 60+ points in the first quarter but I was grading and forgot to check when the game started. OMG, I just saw the finish of the Troy game. Ouch. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Rude? You? Pfffftt. Yeah, App State is a giant killer. Like Coach says, discount your opponent at your own risk. Tiderolls 23:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    • App State should be paying ranked teams to play them! I remember that day. If I was Troy, I would not have played them! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Yeah, me too--but didn't Troy beat some giant too a few years ago? LSU? Haha years ago there was a proposal to change something curriculum-wise on our campus, and it was perceived to water down our excellence (yeah), and one of my colleagues said "No! We're not Troy!" (We have a Troy campus in town.) Then, I thought yeah, we're not. Now, I feel different. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Article hijacking

What the heck is going on with all these articles related to "chandler" being hijacked into articles about a completely unrelated person? Is there something in the water/news lately that I've missed? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know, but it's an LTA, and the less you do the better. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I suspect you've wandered into the morass regarding online forum Kiwi Farms. My apologies. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    • You know more than me! Please, enlighten me. As far as I'm concerned I'm dealing with an incel troll who needs a hobby--for the second or third time in a couple of days.
      • Kiwi Farms began as a forum dedicated to harassing and making fun of someone they know as Chris Chan, whose last name is Chandler. This person has repeatedly been suggested as an article subject and/or for inclusion in the Kiwi Farms article, and rightfully, to my mind, has been roundly rejected as a form of victimization. It seems the denizens of the forum are branching out in their quest to continue victimizing this person in particular. I'm sorry I had to impart that information, and even sorrier I knew it in the first place. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Not just kiwifarms, any place where shitbags congregate. 4chan and others I won't mention, as to avoid promoting them. The level of harassment is one of the worst things about the Internet, and that's obviously saying a lot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Dumuzid, thanks. There really is no lower limit, is there. Where did Milton's Satan say that, about perceiving a hell below his hell? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

          Ayeah, it's hells all the way down. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Am I the prude?

Really, I'm not a prude, although I think we handle sex related articles best following the path of least astonishment. An editor, Leesjy2k, seems to be on a mission to do the exact opposite. I reverted one addition that was pretty obvious, on Doggy style, then took a look at his contribs, which all seem to focus on adding the most graphic photos he can find to articles. To me, this seems like a problem, but wanted an outside opinion from you and/or your stalkers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that the picture doesn't add anything educational to the article. The illustration provides the necessary visual context, and the other images provide historical context in art. Seems somewhat disruptive to add those images just to wave around notcensored. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Prudishness aside, the image was a very poor illustration, compatible with a wide variety of sexual positions. There are many good reasons to have reverted. JBL (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I am clearly not needed here, but want to chime in to say I think we're capable of walking a line between prudishness and prurient middle school sensibilities--so yeah. Very much in agreement. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If it was me, I'd leave it in. The 2 top pics together give a pretty clear illustration. If you look at Doggy style you shouldn't be amazed to see this... Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Skiyomi? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of them. I think it's all way too much. One of the images was a diagram that I'm fine with but the others, no so much. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So the user went on to do more, here (reverted by AndyTheGrump, and in Urination, which I just reverted. User talk:Leesjy2k, we are well into disruptive territory here. User:Dennis Brown, User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:JayBeeEll, User:Dumuzid, User:Johnbod, User:Deepfriedokra, this is really fetishistic editing. I'm wondering if, if the user doesn't respond and if they continue, if we shouldn't get a topic ban, via AN/ANI. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Didn't want to bring this up, but you said the magic word (fetishistic), so you win a prize. Could this be User:Male Masturbation? When you see the user page, you will understand. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not the one, and I know because I just ran CU on the Leesjy2k account, thinking they might have been hijacked--look at the editing pattern. Ponyo, are you still active? I think CU suggests that the last batch of edits may suggest evidence of a hijacking. In the meantime, I am going to block the account until we figure this out. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

When I saw the topic when you pinged me I thought maybe I was going to be asked to give my opinion on the doggy style image. But no, it's a Plain Jane CU check. I'll grab my magic 8-ball and some pixie dust. Hang tight.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, Dreamy's on it. I'm too old and slow for you now, Drmies.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo, feel free to also have a look as a 2O would be useful for me. I've sent an email to Drmies so I can discuss the specifics. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, thank you. Ponyo, I think I may have jumped the gun, but I'd still appreciate your opinion. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll wait a little bit for Ponyo's opinion if they want to give it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I think we have come to the conclusion that the account was likely not compromised. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Ponyo, Johnbod has an opinion on that one, but I don't. Speaking of doggy style--Porter is lying right here, and his style is to sleep and snore. God he's adorable. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, over here please--thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

endorse indef, nothere block if/when adequately warned.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

😥 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I figured this was going to end in a block. I have no problem with nudity, I was born that way myself ;) But JayBeeEll, I was thinking the same thing, that image could have been one of many positions, being so close in. The nudity has to serve a purpose and be the "least astonishing" way we have available to visually represent the topic in a fair and thorough way. I would agree, this user's edits were more prurient than informative. And yes, Drmies, now that I look it, it does look hijacked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Dennis, I really don't want to think about your naked butt right now, but thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

No one does, that's why I'm single for the 3rd time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to revert all these recent photo additions? Under the circumstances, I'd have thought it appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

RE: "sleep and snore.} FWIW, I sleep on my face. More apnea that way. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, AndyTheGrump, and I reverted some--but given that my hijacking block may be wrong, it's probably best to give an actual explanation instead of saying "hijacked user". I was fine with one or two, but hijacked or not, I do not have that much good faith here for that user. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted him on Creampie (sexual act) where he basically took a few edits to add an entire gallery of post-coitus closeups, very, very unnecessary. Similar to NudistPhotographer, I don't think they are here to build an encyclopedia. When there is zero encyclopedic value for many edits (or even having them at Commons...but I digress), that is nothere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I just set a record for vulva removal: 511 in two edits. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I left a note on the users talk page. If the CU block doesn't hold up, I'm willing to block for WP:NOTHERE. They have had some problems with sources/OR/etc in the past, but nothing like this. Still, and indef is due, to be lifted with some restrictions if it comes to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

At Sexual intercourse we now have (after reverts), several ye olde pornography images, & other drawings, but no photos showing the subject (with humans). That doesn't seem good to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, we have houseflies, and I've always wondered who it was who loves Avril so much. Hey, have at it! It does need a few decent images. But did you see this? Scroll down for the full effect. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, there are rather a lot, but I think the degree of minor anatomical variation is a very important thing for this article to cover, & photos are the only way. The article was already (rightly) committed to having lots of photos, offering a very stark contrast to Sexual intercourse as it now is. I know which I think is more encyclopaedic. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Before the Committee of Public Safety disperses, what about using this image in a gallery in Life of Buddha in art? It is already mentioned, with a link in the ref. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Seems fine, but if someone were sticking it in dozens of articles I might be inclined to bring out the guillotine. JBL (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh that's lovely. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Belligerent/edit warring IP

Don't feel like dealing with this person any more. Their standard response to disagreement is to revert and call the other editor "retard".[4][5][6][7]. They have been warned about WP:CIVIL. They are insistent that a mere rumor from one line of text from a data leak be included as a confirmed fact. Will go to 3RR then ANI if necessary. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. 31 hours -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Deepfriedokra. If I continue to develop the article (emerging information on a new and important subject), leaving alone the contentious line about "Blackwell", do I run a risk of 3RR for in some part possibly undoing the work of this IP editor? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And thanks to User:Jauerback also. Sorry, User:DIYeditor, I was doing dishes and discussing styles with my dog. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As long as you do not revert their content, I think you can just add more of your own. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And (Jauerback, Deepfriedokra) IP is back at a slightly different address with a 3RR violation[8] after being warned yesterday.[9] —DIYeditor (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Jauerback malformed ping. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Unfortuantely, a rangeblock would require a /18. 😪 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately this user has some solid knowledge about the topic, but resumed their disruptive editing and confrontational edit summaries[10] (sans the slur word) immediately along with the block evading. They don't seem to have much interest in learning how wikipedia works or how to collaborate. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, Jauerback, Ponyo back again with the slurs too [11]. What's the next step here, don't want to keep spamming Drmies with this. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Aggressively renewing DHCP leases now[12]. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I will prepare an ANI I guess to see about a range block? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Widr blocked /18. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• OK--thanks, and thanks Widr. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Persistent toxic behaviour after warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Drmies, the dishonest approach, judgmental and confrontational attitude and level of aggression against veteran editors in Talk:Juan Sebastián Elcano and other articles is just untenable, right after you warned seriously the editor in the ANI. I am only seeing textwalls and noise. I let you know, more toxic action was to be expected from the IPs/Navarran94, and it is happening. Dr Jeckyll, brings next Mr Hyde, an attitude you are familiar with, since that is what happened continually with Asilah1981.

A clear case of WP:NOTHERE that sucks all the energy from constructive contributors who work and comment on content, except when talked about and there is no other option but say sth on behaviour. If this edit in the talk page is not disruptive editing and harassment I do not know what it is. I urge for immediate protection and closure of this circus (sorry to put it like this, but that is what it is), making good your warning in the Incident. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I was about to open a complaint about your lack of WP:NPOV and I've actually hit "ping" for Drmies in Elcano's talk page to prove your history in Wikipedia like in that 2018 ANI (well, both of you 2 users) also I don't understand what "harassment" do you refer to if I've just posted a link to an ANI which was as well for the lack of NPOV in your edits.

You call me toxic when you've harassed me since day 1 in Wikipedia, making 2 ANIs to get me banned (said by yourself in the 2nd ANI) didn't assume good faith in any of my edits, precisely targeting me in talk pages, saying I'm a sockpuppet, even coming to an admin's talk page to accuse me in a talk section made by me where I've said him thanks for his advices.

In addition, in the article Kingdom of Navarre you made 2 reverts (I've made ONE and I left it to evade an edit war) when I kindly asked you to provide reliable sources saying it was a "Basque Kingdom" (the sources talk mostly about the Basque language) for more than 2 weeks yet you didn't provide anything but reverts and false accusations, just as saying I'm disruptive yet without proving your edits with sources.

The way you edit and accuse wikiusers, is exactly the same you were accused of in the 2018 ANI against you and you still act the same in 2022 as your true purpose is to impose your POV by making other editors "stop" with your threatening words. I'll let below the ANI where many other "veteran users" (still active nowadays) have said exactly what I say about you and even more things related to your edits.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987 / Iñaki LL you often boast about your "veteran" status yet you have been accused of a clear lack of WP:NPOV for many years by other "veteran" users. In the ANI from above (please Drmies read it) you made in 2018 what you've made to me nowadays, like making reverts and accusations without sources/proofs, opening ANIs asking deliberately to block a certain user, and so on... Leaving that aside, as it's said by other users as well, your edits are clearly pro-Basque Nationalistic and this has been said by many users during many years. Even your own wikipage says it and you have political wikitags. Why do you feel offended if I make these remarks? It's publicly available in the Wikipedia. Navarran94 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, that really is a matter for a noticeboard--you can't really ask one specific administrator who's already spent so much time on this matter to come to a judgment. And it needs more pair of eyes than just mine. As a reminder: the more concise an ANI post is, and the less it plays the personal angle, the better. Navarran94, I think that all those frequent and lengthy posts are going to sway editors and administrators to perhaps issue a topic ban, or more. It is not at all clear to me what that now-interminable thread is about, and you're not helping the cause. I don't even know what the cause is anymore. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. I looked at this, went cross-eyed, and said to myself, I said, "Drmies will sort it. Their reading comprehnsion is far greater than mine." 🙄 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay , I'll make it fast. This user has exactly the same behavior as in a 2018 ANI made against himself , where he made an ANI trying to get another user banned (like he tried with me last week) and he got warned by an admin, above you have the link of that ANI where it's proven this user edits with a lack of WP:NPOV and reverts for no reason putting untrue edit diffs. It's 2022 and he does the same as he did 4 years ago despite being warned by an admin.

Also, in the page Kingdom of Navarre he's at the edge of making an edit war to impose again his POV while I've been asking him for sources for +2 weeks already but all he does is reverting without providing any source backing up his claims. Navarran94 (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

OK. Don't make it fast, just stop. I hope you understand by now that no one is following you down those rabbit holes. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you in that I cannot even follow what he says, just that he is tracking me and scavenging among my edits in search of evidence of my alleged ideology, jumping to his own conclusions and posting it all in the talk of the article Juan Sebastian Elcano. Also he is erratic and angry, from the first day he came out of the blue. That is what I get.

Navarran94, above: "when I kindly [italics is mine] asked you to provide reliable sources saying it was a "Basque Kingdom" (the sources talk mostly about the Basque language) for more than 2 weeks yet you didn't provide anything but reverts and false accusations, just as saying I'm disruptive yet without proving your edits with sources".

Well, if one clicks on the references provided by me before and during the litigation in that article, one sees this:

1. World Monarchies and Dynasties: "By late in the thirteen century, the Basque kingdom had been transferred through marriage to the French king (...)"

2. Medieval Queenship: "A complicating factor was the existence of the Basque Kingdom of Pamplona or Navarre to the east (...)".

3. Caliphs and Kings: Spain, 796-1031: "New players enter the game in the form of the Basque Kingdom of Pamplona (also called the Kingdom of Navarre") and the Frankish counties of Catalunya (...)".

4. The history of Basque: "In 1514, the Kingdom of Navarre, greatly reduced in territory and power, was quietly absorbed by the Crown of Castile, bringing to an end history's one great Basque political entity"

5. The Britannica makes reference to the main linguistic base of the kingdom ("In the Middle Ages much of Navarre was Basque-speaking", although it holds true it does not call openly a Basque kingdom, and it does state it was a kingdom "of Spain", in a broader sense (geographical, but that is my guess).

Here below are the reactions of the IP/Navarran94 in question (article Kingdom of Navarre). Some of those diffs I posted them in the ANI, where the case was more than clear.

Diff I added above, 1, + diffs 234 On the Basque names of Pamplona: [13] (Basque, stating the ruling of the Royal Academy of the Language in favour of "Iruñea", but acknowledging the existence of "Iruña", a matter of nuance), [14] historic records of the name.

I will not dwell on the waste of energy and time this is bringing to productive editors, and administrators alike. This should have been closed in the ANI, else executive action according to the warning. Sorry for this long set of contrasted evidence of the last 20 days in the article Kingdom of Navarre. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, I'm trying to stop this, but if you respond and comment in detail on content questions, you are just prolonging the agony. I thought I had made it clear that I am not interested in becoming a judge on content and sourcing. I'm not going to read over that evidence, those diffs, etc.--what matters is this. If you think that Navarran is so disruptive that they need to be blocked, or blocked from certain articles, you should go back to ANI. That earlier thread, the one I closed, did not lead to what you want, but it did take away one thing: the IP editing, and you should be happy about that. The "deeper" matter, of the disruptive behavior, was not handled because a. the thread combined (or, muddled) two very different issues, and b. the initial post was way too ... excessive. Do it again, focus on behavior, keep it short, keep personal stuff out of it, don't bring in every single accusation that you can think of. If you do that, it is also easier for administrators to ensure that the person in question will have to be concise. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I have spent too many hours by now on this issue, so do not know if I want to go through another ANI, that actually becomes a punishment for regular contributors that see their editing environment conspicuously altered, as it is in this case. I am sorry to hear you interpret the above evidence as content, because it is not, it is all about sectarian behaviour and disruptive attitude with very few diffs and commented, trying to focus, I do not know how to make it clearer (read the references, read next Navarran94's edit summaries). "the initial post was way too ... excessive": I am lost here, to be honest. It looks like I need a diploma on ANIology in order to navigate this bureaucracy.

The relation with the outside-of-the-WP campaign (linked above) waged in Spain including certain high-profile Spanish politicians and some influential Latin-American personalities is all too clear in the moment chosen and anonymity of the account, his cockiness and type of language, you "be neutral!", "neutrality!", etc. A clear WP:NOTHERE. I will see what further actions I may take. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you are sorry for etc. The disruption and the content stuff go hand in hand. This is NOT a thing that one individual administrator should decide on. There's so much on this talk page already--it could have been handled at ANI, and a topic ban or whatever might have been handed out already. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: Assumptions and accusations, once again blaming me... It seems it's a never ending loop. After 2 tryouts to get me blocked in 2 ANIs now the reason is some kind of ... online campaign no one has ever heard about? Are you really grasping at straws again to prove some kind of point based on your own assumptions?

I have shown a 2018 ANI where Iñaki LL was warned by Wikiadmins to stop doing ANIs by putting real effort by trying to get other users blocked repeating exactly the same behavior. It seems you are bothered because Elcano's page is being decided by consensus and a RfC and your POV doesn't prevail anymore. But like I said, this is not the Basque Wikipedia, here the admins are on the neutral side.

@Drmies: I won't continue his game anymore. I'm glad the Elcano content dispute is being discussed in a RfC, since the beggining this user bullied me and didn't WP:AGF on none of my edits. The prove is coming to this page where I've just said thank you for your advices. Last time spreading this mess on your talk page (from my part) and again, thank you for your advices as I try to improve my Wikiedit skills. Navarran94 (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You should both chill out -- stop antagonizing each other, stop justifying antagonizing each other, stop explaining why everything is the other one's fault, & generally take a break from editing in the locus of antagonism for a few days. JBL (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speaking of another anatomical issue

From the recent history, looks like a bit of an edit war is underway. Perhaps a bit of page protection? I know English is your subject, but lately it seems biology has been knocking, at least on the Talk page door. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Congrats, Drmies, you're now the admin people think of first when naughty pictures are involved. JBL (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

JBL, this is not a new thing. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Well that's gross too, but at least clicking on the history doesn't suggest it was ever well illustrated. (BTW I can't help but wonder what it says more broadly about a person that in 2009 they were obsessively editing that and in 2022 they were getting themselves indeffed over this.) JBL (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Whoa--no kidding. That user was SO disruptive way back when already. Then they got blocked for right-wing edit warring on Planned Parenthood, with a blatant disregard for our sourcing requirements (their history showed a whole bunch of, eh, misunderstandings and BLP violations--here's some OR/BLP violating material from the same time). The SA Farm Attacks prove they're just not getting it. The real miracle, I suppose, is that they didn't run into a block sooner. But yeah, that sperm eating stuff, that wasn't just disruptive, it was seriously disturbing. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Gin and tonic for you

Hi Drmies, have a short break and enjoy your drink. Thanks for your kindness.

Mhhossein ^talk 13:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• User:Mhhossein, I appreciate that, my friend. I hope you get a lot of hits for your article. I also hope that one day we won't have to write such articles anymore. I am so sorry for the poor Yemenis. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • That was a great and wish Drmies, hope that happens very soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Something else

thoughts on this, especially "I just hope.." at midnight on the 22/23. Also his last comment. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone is just very strong in their convictions... even when it involves mythological figures. That being said I have left them a note about the appropriateness of their comment. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

And I've warned them for edit-warring at Selene. JBL (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I've just straight-up pblocked them from articles for that, actually. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow. So much craziness. Sorry Johnbod. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Primefac, what if we simply block that user until they actually explicitly take that comment back? I think Johnbod is owed that. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I can get behind that. Would you care to do the honours or shall I? Primefac (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)