User talk:Drmies

A little gift for you and Uncle G

William Roberts house San Lorenzo, California

Meanwhile, on a nearby elevated freeway...

-EEng

Here is a photo I took today of the 1859 house we discussed recently with Uncle G. It is a jewel in an otherwise dreary neighborhood. There are freeway ramps soaring overhead across the street, above a veterinary hospital. There is a company that sells pool tables close by. In the other direction, a Wal-Mart, an In-N-Out Burger, and a Seven-11. Plus freeway exits and very heavy traffic. The house is very well maintained with pretty gardens and is now the offices of a self-storage company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Cullen--I see you already put it in there. Good! Drmies (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • By the way, I drove by this house on the elevated freeway again the other day, and got into the right lane. I looked over the railing, and sure enough, I could see this beautiful house about 40 feet below. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The straight on front elevation view on Google Streetview is quite good, too. Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Frank Fat's

I know that you like to eat because you keep mentioning stroopwafels and talking about your grocery shopping expeditions, at least when you are not in Mark Zuckerberg's doghouse. Anyway. About 46 years ago I heard about this great restaurant in Sacramento, but procrastinated about checking it out until three weeks ago, when my wife and I ate there with one of my sons. So, I got all wound up about expanding the stub Frank Fat's and quintupled it, I think. Maybe more. I went back again today for a late lunch/early dinner with my wife, because we are old and I wanted to take a photo of a slice of banana cream pie for Commons. So, are there any glaring negatives and can you (or any members of your fan club) make it better? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Books published by LuLu, a self-publishing company, should be used with great care. In this case, I suggest simply not using it at all, and going and finding the back-issue of The Californians with the in-depth article on Fat from which the name can be better sourced, and I suspect other stuff found as well. It's also in Beaton & Beaton 2001, p. 99,106.

  You missed Frank's sojourn in Nevada (Moe 2001, p. 29). You missed "speaker of the third house" and "senator fat", too. Moreover, do not forget the 2007 Gold Mountain: Whispers of the Past exhibition at 40 Acres Gallery. Or the bronze statue of the Chinese railroad worker in the California State Library, made by Edward Fraughton, donated by the Fat family, and recorded in the CSL Foundation Bulletin.

  Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Leung, Peter C. Y. (September 1991). "Legendary Restaurateur: Frank Fat". The Californians. Vol. 9. Grizzly Bear Publishing Company. pp. 35–42. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Glastris, P. (December 1987). "Frank Fat's napkin: How the trial lawyers (and the doctors) sold out to the tobacco companies". Washington Monthly. pp. 19–25. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • "Senator Fat". Rice Magazine. Vol. 1, no. 5. Rice Magazine Enterprises. November 1987. p. 52. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Beaton, Cliff; Beaton, Mrs. (2001). "Mr. Frank Fat, a legendary restaurateur in Sacramento (1940–1997)". 從金山到千禧的風和雨: Honor the Past, Engage the Present, Build the Future. Sacramento Chinese Culture Foundation. ISBN 9780971618602. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Moe, Albert Woods (2001). "Ta-Neva-Ho". Nevada's Golden Age of Gambling. Puget Sound Books. ISBN 9780971501904. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

AFD has turned up some more missing California history for you. See the Bridge over the River Parrots. Uncle G (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Q re 1932

Dr, Q for you: do you have the auth to lift a 1932– sanction? (Background. I was "naughty" intentionally re political articles to make some contrarian points. I used to edit Donald Trump; however, since he won in 2016, I have zero interest to edit or add or subtract content in not only that article, but any article re politics or politicians. Ever! With the single exception of making MoS-type punctuation like MOS:LQ or MOS:NDASH corrections [as a "thank you" when I read such articles for self-education/curiosity/etc.].) Thx for consideration and/or guidance, whatever the Dr orders. Sincere, --IHTS (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• IHTS, not by myself, no--can you link to the discussion/topic ban notice/etc? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thx for reply. [1]
    (I remember thinking when it was applied, it was permanent. Now for first time am noticing this: "is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics [...] until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier." (Does mean it expired & am under no restriction!? Am so confused! [If I've overlooked something, don't know what it is.]) --IHTS (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I *am* geninely confused. Apparently I have an outstanding topic ban!? I rec'd this warning, but it's May 2017 well after the expiration described. (What am I missing or not understanding?) --IHTS (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • MrX, I assume this was a minor brain fart. Yes, IHTS, your topic ban should be vacated (I mean, "be in a state of vacatedness"--there's nothing that needs to be done to vacate it)--Lankiveil, I think you made that close?--and this should not restrict you in any way. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks Dr.
        Without looking or checking, & from my own memory & MrX's warning too, it seemed a fair assumption the expiration had been added later, not only to my acct but assumedly a swath of 1932- sanctions as some sort of modification. But apparently not! More than two have been fooled by this (e.g. also Bishonen [2]; also GoldenRing [3]; also TParis [4]; also Anythingyouwant [5]; also EvergreenFir [6]; and more!), so it is a small perplexing [psychological!?] phenomenon.) --IHTS (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Hmm, yes. OK, strange. But they're all from 2017, so that's the good part, I suppose. Lankiveil, is there's something I'm missing? Drmies (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Um, at first I thought you're right (i.e. isolated to 2017), then I looked & discovered I was blocked in 2018 twice for 1932- violations: on Jan 22 by admin MastCell [7], and on Jan 30 by admin GoldenRing [8].
            Wouldn't it be standard protocol for an admin to check first that a sanction is outstanding, before blocking for it?! And, if the blocks are truly out-of-bounds, can they be scratched from my blocklog? (Some users, e.g. most recently users Softlavender and Iridescent, love to ridicule or attack me based on "length of his block log". I care not so much about that [Eric has a long block log and in my dreams could I be as good a WP editor & outstanding decent/ethical person as he], but it seems like all items in any user's block log s/b at least technically legit. Are they?) --IHTS (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

            in my dreams could I be as good a WP editor & outstanding decent/ethical person as he – Pardon me while I vomit. In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. A line from the conclusion of Wells’s story seems strangely apt, actually: “[He] lay quite still there, smiling as if he were content now merely to have escaped from the valley of the Blind, in which he had thought to be King.” EEng 12:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

            • @Ihardlythinkso: A cursory examination of WP:DSLOG shows that you have an outstanding, indefinite ban from all post-1932 American politics, which was imposed (by me) on 10 May, 2017. See this AE discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
              • That explains it, thank u. (How can I request that it be lifted? I have no interest to edit content or Talks on any political bio.) --IHTS (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                • @Ihardlythinkso: You can appeal to me, to AE, to AN or to the committee at ARCA. The standard in any of these venues is going to be that you can convince those to whom you are appealing that the sanction is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. I'm not particularly opposed to lifting it, but "I'm not interested in the topic any more" is not enough. Appeals saying that the ban is unnecessary because you'll abide by it anyway aren't usually successful and I wouldn't support one. GoldenRing (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • "Abide by it anyway"?! (I don't know what that means. It certainly doesn't apply to me.) Not sure what your standard is or what you are looking for. (Can you specify?) This is irritating, because it seems you want or are looking for public self-humiliation, which I'm not going to "give", and even if I did, I have no idea specifically about what. (Please specify if you think that's helpful.) All I can tell you is that I purposely created disruption at Donald Trump to make a WP:POINT, and that I have no interest to edit any political biography including that one, except for punctuation fixes (MOS:DASH; MOS:HYPHEN; MOS:LQ; etc.) I find when reading for my own education, as "thank u" to the article contributors. Regarding an article that is not a political bio like Shooting of Kate Steinle, I possibly created some disruption-type dispute there; however, that won't be possible going forward. (Why? Because, to be honest, I've given up on the Wikipedia re politcal left-leaning bias. The whole world knows that WP is a biased source of info re political articles. If I would ever make a change to such an article [for example, changing "undocumented immigrant" to "illegal alien", which I have done in the past], I'd only state my basis for it with WP:RS justification, but I have no appetite to fight the tide of reversion that would ensue due to said indisputable WP liberal bias. It simply is a lost cause. Wikipedia will have to find someway, somehow, to repair it's image over time, over years, however I am not interested to participate or subject myself to such endeavor, since it is fraught with stress, an ocean of editor push-back, which if contended, leads to ANI or AN or ARfAR, and I have no interest to be involved in such deck-stacked skirmishes & disputes, not now or ever going forward. Life is too short, and I accept WP's limitations re articles falling under 1932- politics, it is simply not my interest, and the skirmishes to evolve WP to more neutrality re them is further no longer my interest beyond the couple protests I did levy back then which resulted in the 1932- restrictions. I'd like to be able to read articles & improve punctuation etc as mentioned as thank you as mentioned, w/o being under sanction.) Sincerely submitted, --IHTS (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • GoldenRing, if the above isn't sufficient, w/ like to know what specifically you're looking for. (Because I may not be able to give it beyond what I've already messaged above.) Sincere, --IHTS (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • Should also point out, that it won't be possible that I any longer make insulting messages to editors (like MrX) whom I perceive as aggressive liberal editors responsible for biasing articles to left-leaning, as I know I have done in the past (which may or may not have contributed to my ban, am not sure). (For the same reasons as already stated: It's pointless & futile, creates only disruption, and is not my responsibility, "job", or interest beyond the already-levied remarks made in the 2016/17 timeframe.) Sincere, --IHTS (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Bridge over the River … Parrots?

This is not even like a bridge over troubled water.

• Dos Papagaios River (AfD discussion)
• Ponte dos Papagaios
• "PONTE DO RIO DOS PAPAGAIOS" (in Portuguese). SECRETARIA DA CULTURA PATRIMÔNIO CULTURAL. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Lurkers bored of all of the K-Pop and other Northern stuff might enjoy some Brazilian history. Uncle G (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

For the norteamericanos

• South Fork, Humboldt County, California (AfD discussion)

M. Callan 425 will enjoy more missing California history that AFD has turned up. There are no nearby freeways, but there used to be a railway. Uncle G (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for my new username, Uncle G. Humboldt County is a bit far away from me, especially since it is a two lane highway about 90% of the way. It is a 4-1/2 hour drive for me to Eureka, the county seat, when traffic is good. I only get there every couple of years. My brother lived there about 35 years ago, when he was "in the business", and one of my nieces was born and raised there. Yes, there is the two-lane US highway, 101, which is the main route there, and then there is a very, very remote road that follows the Lost Coast. I drove that road once, and once was enough for me. And then there are the roads and trails that lead east from 101, into wild, semi-wilderness areas, where the pot growers control all the tiny hippie towns and hamlets. It is another world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd say take the railway instead, but the AFD discussion is so far all about things that do not exist any more. I notice that you haven't re-visited that Fat's thing. Uncle G (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Talking

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Mutt Lunker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy First Edit Day!

August

red admiral
... with thanks from QAI

joining in the choir! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• That was quite a while ago. Thank you all. It wouldn't have been so much fun without all of y'all. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Lorena

• Happy Happy D. I'm sure that you felt like this at times so please know that your efforts are appreciated. I hope you and your whole family have a nice Labor Day weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 17:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Marnette. I hope so too. And you too. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• That video was eerily timely, considering that a few hours later, you received a DYK credit with a hook about hauling elephants up a steep slope. However, while the video may be an interesting metaphor for WikiEditing, I must say that it's an extremely poor representation of the myth. The video demonstrates that with a lot of hard work, one can achieve one's goal, while in the myth, the boulder always rolls back down as Sisyphus approaches the top, and despite an infinite number of attempts, he's never able to achieve his goal. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't know about the DYK so that is serendipitous M. I've always known the animation was off to the original myth but I like the simplicity of the lines - with echoes of Japanese calligraphy. The fact that it is from 1974 - looong before CGI - is another reason I enjoy sharing it with people. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it's good. I just wish they called it something else. It's missing the most important thing about the Sisyphus myth, so as far as I'm concerned, that ain't Sisyphus. I guess I'm just a purist. (... said the guy who just used the word "ain't" ...) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've added a photo of Hurricane Lorena to commemorate your first edit, twelve years ago, which removed "Lorena" from Marie de France.
  In other news, The Man burns tomorrow night. I'm sure you'll want to watch the live webcast. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Mandarax! Guess I've been teaching her for a while now. As for that edit, I'd say "RVV" today of course. Now, your Burning Man--that's great, but I've been trying to follow the live feeds from Atlas Electronic. I was looking to link it for you earlier, specifically the show that Tarwa N-Tiniri played today. I can't find it, but there's a few things on their website. I think this should link properly to "Taryet", which is wonderful. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, I was unaware of that festival's existence. And, yes, that is wonderful. It reminds me a little bit of "Ollin Arageed", which the Grateful Dead performed with Hamza El Din at Giza. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy ~ Happy Joy ~ Joy ` happy edit day ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking of hurricanes, our Glorious Leader says Alabama may be hit hard by Dorian. Good luck!!! (For full mocking, please note that new episodes of Colbert begin tomorrow night.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Update: In case you missed it, Colbert devoted a significant portion of his monologue to Trump's hurricane comments. He pointed out that "his tweets weren't overburdened with accuracy", and said "You know things are bad when the National Weather Service has to fact-check the President." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Jew with a coin

On 3 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jew with a coin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in some Polish homes, an image of a Jew holding a coin (example pictured, left) hangs to the left of the doorway, and is customarily turned upside down on the Sabbath so that good fortune may fall upon the household? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jew with a coin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jew with a coin), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

For the norteamericanos

• South Fork, Humboldt County, California (AfD discussion)

M. Callan 425 will enjoy more missing California history that AFD has turned up. There are no nearby freeways, but there used to be a railway. Uncle G (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for my new username, Uncle G. Humboldt County is a bit far away from me, especially since it is a two lane highway about 90% of the way. It is a 4-1/2 hour drive for me to Eureka, the county seat, when traffic is good. I only get there every couple of years. My brother lived there about 35 years ago, when he was "in the business", and one of my nieces was born and raised there. Yes, there is the two-lane US highway, 101, which is the main route there, and then there is a very, very remote road that follows the Lost Coast. I drove that road once, and once was enough for me. And then there are the roads and trails that lead east from 101, into wild, semi-wilderness areas, where the pot growers control all the tiny hippie towns and hamlets. It is another world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

blocked on Face book?

Interesting.-- Deepfriedokra 12:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• At least on Wikipedia (in most cases) you hear why you got blocked...even that time Acroterion blocked me. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be funny if not so ironic. At least you never blocked yourself.-- Deepfriedokra 19:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey! I told you never to mention that, or I'll ... harshly criticize you [9]. Besides, I have blocked myself [10]. Acroterion (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm...an admin unblocking themselves and calling it "tweaking"...ArbCom is GOING TO EAT THAT UP. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A day after passing an RFA with all of 44 participants. What were they thinking? Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Need help to get copy of breastfeeding study

I need some advise or help. The latest Signpost issue has a section on woman stuff. It contains this study "Breastfeeding, Authority, and Genre: Women's Ethos in Wikipedia and Blogs." I tried to get a copy as it is available on the web and got as far as a note that my request had been sent to the authors, but I never heard back from them (which did not at all surprise me...). I'm the leading editor on our breastfeeding article and I have been for some years, most likely during the time that they did their study, and I'd like to see our work from their eyes. I'm guessing that I will be critical of their findings, but I think I may learn a thing or two as well that may help us to better present women's issues. Any advise on how to get a copy of this study? Gandydancer (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Can you get this, maybe through Interlibrary Loan? Serial Number 54129, you have any ideas? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes I've seen the google books...as for Interlibrary Loan page...I don't quite know what to make of it (WTF???). Here is a good review of what the paper says (and you can see why I'm so interested). [11] and here is the paper (from ResearchGate - where they said my request/answer is in the mail...) : [12] Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Mies

Hope you've enjoyed your time off, but the hour has arrived for you to run for Arbcom again. So scrape the rust off that crowbar and buy yourself a nice new baseball bat, because the community needs an enforcer. Hope you'll run again, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd support you, but I'd also support abolish arbcom. My question this year is easy: please name one case where arbcom was beneficial for project, and say what makes you think so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Ha, User:Carrite, I thought about it--but I really can't. It's too much: too much time, too much email, too much GMail, too much paperwork. I can barely follow the rules and regulations as we have em. I appreciate the thought, though. Are you running? You know, I could support Sandstein, for instance--they're always saying he's too authoritarian, and I disagree frequently enough with him, but on a committee he'd be one solid voice out of a dozen or more, not out of two or three like at AE. I really want Bishonen, Ponyo, zzuuzz, Rosiestep... (I'm not pinging them cause they're all just going to laugh...) Or Black Kite, Iridescent; I trust their judgment. And I'll tell you also, I just don't know how I would have voted in Eric Corbett's case. Ha, I probably would have taken the coward's way out and abstained--though my colleague just said that if you feel strongly about something you shouldn't abstain, because you're basically letting the majority run. Oh, he came in to say the best thing to do is to be fortuitously absent that day... Drmies (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I nominate Acroterion. BOOOOM Drmies (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha. Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator and not the person to break the glass ceiling as the first non-administrator elected — obviously! You still need to run, your options available are "Yes" and "I'll think about it." I do appreciate that it is a shitty job, however. As you may have caught as a lurker, I said of you myself on one of the criticism message boards that you'd have been a loose cannon on the committee and I have no idea how you would have voted on the Malleus matter. Glad to hear that's on target, ha ha! Nevertheless, either you run or get three of those on your short list above to run, 'cuz it is time to clean house on the committee. best, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think the current committee -- or what's left of it? -- is doing a halfway reasonable job in the midst of bizarre and impossible circumstances. But then, what do I know. Drmies and I come from completely different places as to whether huge military tanks are cool, so if he successfully stood for arbcom then he would probably end up having to vote for sanctions against me sooner or later, and this would make one or both of us sad. So much sadness militates against your proposal, tim. (On topics like Neanderthal Shaping using Nuclear Fusion in Eastern Europe and Exile of Donald Trump to an Infobox in Orbit Around Neptune by Antifa, of course, Drmies and I have much more closely aligned views, but those topics tend not to come up in arbitration cases.) MPS1992 (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I've been informed that someone thinks I'm not running for ArbCom because I'm your sock, and you've already said "no". I'm not running for ArbCom (or steward for those speculating), but glad to know the reason is because I already decided not to on this account. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Everyone is Drmies's sock. He runs Wikipedia single-handedly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Explains why Dutch is the official language of the CU mailing list. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm only socking for the Popeyes Chicken. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Kansas Bear, I mentioned that today and thought about driving by--but I am not sure I could handle the rejection. Tell you what--tomorrow we have a faculty meeting, and I'm proposing a Big Thing. If it goes well, I'll think on it. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sock of blocked WP:SPA

Hi Drmies, I belive Nuno Coimbra is a reincarnation of XavierD75. He exhibits the same behaviour patterns, insisting on modifying the same information in the Isabel dos Santos article, like other previous ones already blocked, determined to change or delete information about the date of birth, name of the mother and citizenship, to the point of removing the infobox, as here, here and here. In one of these, he was asked on his discussion page to explain his edit, but ignored it. The editor is also determined to fill the page with flattering photos of the subject, often with disregard for the page structure like here and here. At one point he included 4 or 5 photos of his own photos. He has been blocked on Commons for spamming. Editor also insists in removing references do other people by the same name, having twice removed the disambiguation hatnote here and again a day ago here. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Cova Foradà

On 6 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cova Foradà, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Neanderthal man, whose upper jaw was found in the Cova Foradà in Spain, used a toothpick because he had sore gums? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cova Foradà. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cova Foradà), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Message I Received

Hi,

I just wanted to say that the message I received earlier today on my talk from you really hurt my feelings. I really wanted to be a good member for Wikipedia. I've seen the website doing a lot of great things, but there are still so many articles left to write. I really wanted to make articles for Louis L'Amour novels and for some of the seasons of Survivor. The Australian Survivor Season 4 Wikipedia page doesn't have recaps for the episodes. There is no way to know what happened in them and nobody wrote any synopses for the episodes. The show, Survivor, is a very dynamic show. There are a lot of perspectives, story developments, and strategies of the contestants that needed to be shared. I was told that my work was not constructive and that's just very hurtful to hear. I worked very hard to watch the episodes and write the plots for them so that people would know what was going on in the episodes. It's nearly impossible to write a short synopsis for an episode of Survivor when there is so much going on. I really worked hard on those articles and it just hurts to see that my work wasn't appreciated and people keep deleting them. I just wanted to contribute something positive to the page and instead I've been told that my articles are not constructive and that I've been edit warring. That was not my intention when I joined Wikipedia. All I want to do is positive things in my life and I just feel like nobody ever gives me the opportunity to do that. Can we create separate pages for the episodes? Anything that I can do to share my work would be appreciated. But, please, don't say my work wasn't constructive. It was something that I really worked hard on and I just wanted to do something good for Wikipedia. Derekyoung418 (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Derekyoung418: Hello, and thank you for your concerns. I have moved this thread from my talk page over to Drmies' talk page as he was the one who first reverted your edits and would better answer your questions. As Hydronium Hydroxide also mentioned to you, the reason we do not include full details about episodes in lists is laid out in full at WP:TVPLOT. As I am neutral about this matter, I will leave it to Drmies to answer the question about creating pages regarding each episode. Please consider this reply my apology to you for the initial rude message, and I hope my answers helped in some way. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Robbins

Could you either explain your cutting of a page that has been in its current state for a long while, for personal reasons? Happy to engage on the talk page rather than watch another round of edit wars. Thank you! Poetic1920 (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see now that the external links are incorrect I'm editing them thank you! Poetic1920 (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- per Wallyfromdilbert last night, he suggested I add them back for now. Could you revert them while we discuss rather than simply delete wholesale? You'll note with help I did a lot on the page to bring it in compliance, with the guidance of Wallyfromdilbert . Poetic1920 (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, are all academics being held to the standard you are holding this page? I just looked at several and they have lots more pages than this one, without selection criteria like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Clayton_(critic) Poetic1920 (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please note that "other stuff exists" is not a very persuasive argument on Wikipedia, as other articles may be done wrong or have reached a consensus based on reasons provided in a talk page discussion there. I have copied the removed articles onto the article's talk page (Talk:Hollis Robbins#Selected articles) so that a discussion can take place there. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk)

Ha ha got it! And I agree that maybe the "selected" articles are not her best ones. May I put the other ones up without having them taken down, since they have impact? Maybe one more has public impact and I would be sure to indicate that. Thank you!Poetic1920 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Poetic, it would need to be a secondary source that proves impact, one way or another. I, and many others (Randykitty comes to mind, and Tenebrae) uphold these standards. That many articles still have such linkfarms is unfortunate, but all three of us--I am sure--hope to live long enough to take care of them all. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

DrmiesThank you! Do you mind if I put them up one at a time later today, with secondary sources, and you can let me know if they work? I agree on your standards, in fact. Wikipedia is better than a link farm! I've learned a lot in this process and I appreciate your guidance. Poetic1920 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Poetic1920, it may be better to provide those links on the article's talk page first so that they can be discussed on the talk page, especially if this is an area where content has already been removed by other editors. (Also, you should add one more colon when you respond on talk pages, so that it indents your response one more space than the comment above.) – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"Message blocked by the remote server"

Dear dr Mies, for some time now, if I write to your normal Wikipedia address, my message is blocked by the remote server, and I've heard the same thing happens to other people. I've tried to alert you to the problem at your ArbCom address, but haven't heard back. I'm far from sure you check that address, or indeed that it's still live (since you're not an arb right now, though perhaps soon again, hint hint!). So this page is currently my only way of reaching you. Have you considered getting a dedicated address for Wikipedia e-mail — for instance g-mail, which doesn't have the same tendency to block messages? Entirely up to you, of course, but Bishzilla has g-mail for Wikipedia, proudly, and she loves it. Bishonen | talk 10:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC).

Haven't the remotest--

Perhaps it is that Dr Mies is quite selective

(And not at all eclectic)

In who he elects

To select

To accept

For the receiving of emails.-- Deepfriedokra 14:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it is likely that something between the Wikipedia email system and our server/whatever doesn't work well. I've asked the head of ITS, who's a nice guy (and a stellar student in my Freshman Comp class, a decade ago). Drmies (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal 3 modification

Hi. I wanted to let you know the proposal has been modified and Mandruss notified me I should do this. The proposal, similar to the old one is:

Anthony 22 is limited to making 1 edit per article per 24 hours in the main space. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit. Talk page discussions do not count toward this limit.

I don't expect you to change your mind - this is just a notification. Thanks.

Regards,

---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, another modification has occurred. Rather than only a modified proposal there is now a proposal 3A and a proposal 3B. I still don't expect you to change your mind - this is just a notification. Thanks.--Steve Quinn (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry, that is "original" proposal and "alternate" proposal. (Have I been editing long on Wikipedia? Or is this my first time :>). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Alliance Defending Freedom revert

Regarding your revert on the article, do you think the list criteria ("The following people are currently or have been affiliated with ADF") should also be changed? The RSs (and her Wikipedia page) say Lisa Biron was associated with the group, which would seem to fit the list description. Also, I think additional names may need to be removed, especially if it is no longer just "affiliated with" (e.g., Michael J. Juneau or Alan Seabaugh, whose Wikipedia articles do not mention the organization). Thanks for any advice. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ha, I should have read that more carefully. That should be changed: none of the sources I looked at offered much in the way of "affiliation"--if you take it broadly, I would be affiliated with Scientology because I once edited a book for someone who was involved with Narconon. That list should have people who were on the board, on the payroll, etc., with a direct and important and verifiable connection. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, that makes sense. I am still learning how to deal with lists, as the relevant policies deal mostly with style over content guidelines. What could the list criteria be changed to? Would "employed or on the board of ADF or Blackstone" work? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Kuru started something on the talk page; that's the place to try and hammer out a consensus. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Roberts Landing, California

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

im not sure what revert I did that was wrong. An interesting comparison perhaps between [13] and [14] at Wordpress.com. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• The IP was correct with this edit. I don't think you ever reinstated that edit, but others did. BTW I just dropped a week-long block on the other IP, whose edits are indeed remarkably similar, for a smear. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you folks never heard of WP:PINGs or WP:TALKBACK? Or does Doug simply want to be with the popular kids? Softlavender (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Erm. Doug *is* the popular kid here, the rest of us are just his groupies.  :-) Risker (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hey Drmies! This was copied in large part from this. Noticing you reverted the edit, could you revision delete it as well? Best regards, Vermont (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

I've just spotted you reverted a BLP issue on my talk page. Just wondering if you can say it was at me or about a page I have edited in the past. If you can't say, I understand. Red Jay (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, it really had nothing to do with you. Thanks, 21:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon

[15] I don't know what more could have been said, short of "this is about his sister, not him, and doesn't belong in an article about him". I thought we'd been clear enough. I'm worried that we have several editors who believe that everything ever said on a news report belongs on Wikipedia, and if it's not important enough for an article of its own, they'll find another article to shoehorn it in. I suppose, though, that the real tragedy is that the murder is completely not notable, and if not for the salacious gossipy bit, wouldn't have even rated more than a paragraph in the local paper. Risker (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• It just boggles the mind. You get reverted, you get warned by two administrators at least one of whom is Methusalem's age, and you go do it again. I wonder if they'll ever challenge this. Thanks Risker, Drmies (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

relax

i was just trying to be helpful, other people have their bio pages with info on their siblings, and since it was recent big news that his sister's crime showed up i added to the wiki page. so no need for you to be powertripping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YipB (talk • contribs) 01:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sign your messages, YipB. Risker, this person added the same inappropriate information as the editor I just blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Drmies. I've left him a pretty detailed message about the serious nature of the BLP violation on his talk page. Risker (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just noting here...both of the accounts involved in this stuff have very low edit counts. While the other (now-blocked) account had received a lot of warnings specific to BLP issues, YipB (with fewer than 200 edits) didn't seem to have crossed the same threshold. Thus, I've left a pretty detailed explanation on his talk page about why adding this sort of stuff is a problem. I'm doing that out of the goodness of my old heart, and hoping that it has a net positive effect, but I'm not quite sure if I'd be doing the same thing for an account with 500+ edits. Speaking of which, given that the article in question is a BLP and thus covered under discretionary sanctions, it might be worth considering whether extended confirmed protection should be applied; it has been in the past, for more or less similar reasons (i.e., BLP violations by autoconfirmed accounts). Risker (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you Risker. I'm not a big fan of this confirmed protection, but if this kind of stuff (this TMZ editing) continues, something will need to be done. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Petro Kilekwa

On 9 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Petro Kilekwa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Petro Kilekwa from Zambia was enslaved because his mother could not pay the ransom – eight yards (7.3 m) of calico cloth? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Petro Kilekwa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Petro Kilekwa), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you one of the better editors that criticize me so much?

User talk:Doug Weller#Wikilawyering is Bad Editing. Hm, looking at his talk page he's had a thing about the need for sources for years. :-) Doug Weller talk 17:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ernst Dammann

Hello! Your submission of Ernst Dammann at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder! Drmies (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

AfriForum

The edit war at AfriForum continues. Bishonen | talk 18:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

Sweet Home … er …

• Baxter Leach (AfD discussion)

If M. Callan 425 can take the non-existent train to South Fork without stopping off to eat along the way, then you can nip over to Tennessee during your lunch hour to look for sources about a very recently dead person. No cheating and using all of that JSTORerry and stuff, now. Uncle G (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm I'd love to but we got a new puppy. (Its name is Porter.) Drmies (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Shouldn't that be "Their name is Porter"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I will steer clear of the gendering or possibly misgendering of the animal, but, once there are enough independent reliable sources that discuss it in detail, the best article title will probably be Porter (dog). MPS1992 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• He has a little penis, which he uses to pee on the rug. He's really kind of cute, but cocker spaniels have a tendency to look kind of dumb. My standards for dogs are high, because Sadie. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Bad revert?

Drmies, I know this [[16]] is content you support but doesn't Consensus say in the case of a dispute the material stays out until there is a new consensus? I think there is a consensus for exclusion but even if I'm wrong, is there a consensus for inclusion? Aren't we at best/worst just at no consensus? Springee (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe, but there is no BLP exemption and the content is well verified--and I don't see any clear consensus. I looked over Azerty82's edit, and it is a good set of edits. I just left a note on the talk page providing even more sourcing for why this particular speech was deemed, by the Dutch and Belgian press for instance, to be of great importance. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• But NOCON doesn't address just BLP. It says In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.. If we both agree there is no consensus for inclusion (you saying no consensus either way and me saying consensus against) then we should default to removal until consensus is achieved. BTW, I am here because I remembered something that you said. "Finally I'll break a lance for Springee, an editor with whom I frequently disagree (because foolishly they disagree with me)..." I cut it off there because the rest was effusive complements :D [[17]] I'm only half kidding, I'm here because your comment really reinforced the idea that we need to respect others and follow the rules even when we don't like the outcomes. I think the "rules" are clear in this case, new material, no consensus for inclusion, remove until a new consensus is reached. Part of my frustration has been BMK clearly ignoring such rules with claims like "we need consensus to remove". Springee (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I know it doesn't address the BLP--that's not my point. There is no consensus to exclude, it is well-verified, it is argued to be relevant--so whether it should stay or go is, to some extent, a flip of the coin. However, you will have noted, I think, that I did not support (by commenting or edit-warring) BMK's earlier version, since I thought that was going too far. This revised text, however, is significantly different, and does not, for instance, say the pep talk has "some of the primary characteristics of right-wing populism", a phrase that can be construed as synth/OR. Plus, after having read the German, French, Belgian, and Dutch coverage of the speech, I think some editors just don't realize the importance of Bannon's speech to European r-w populism. It's huge: it is the first time, as far as I know, that an American ideologue comes to Europe to school a party congress on how to do their thing, and the European press covered it so much because it is such a unique thing--an American who doesn't come to bring democracy or rock and roll, but something entirely different. And it was a turning point for the FN as well. Then, throw in Bannon's The Movement, which he planned to set up in Brussels (mentioned in one or two of the articles I linked), and you have something really important. Fighting over excluding that one short section which is so incredibly well supported seems silly to me. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• That the speech was significant makes discussion of the speech due, not the inclusion of a specific quote. Also, again, policy is no consensus => return to previous stable text. It isn't add new material => no consensus => retain because no consensus to remove. I'm going to try to butter you up again... come on, you are an admin, you know you are supposed to set an example of how to strictly follow policy. ;) Springee (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• If you look at a dozen different news articles from reputable sources in three or four different languages, and all of them or almost all of them include that particular quote, then that particular quote is worthy of inclusion. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Good Day Drmies, regarding David Dobrik's page i apologize if i end up adding too many tables in his page, i am still new to editing the wiki and i appreciate the help that you did, and the reason i added those tables is based on me just copying existing tables from various person's page like how in liza koshy or gabbie hanna's page they have a television table where it was listed that they either co-hosted a show, a contestant on another show or have their guest appearances listed too, so i thought since david co-hosted a show, became a judge and a guest judge that its ok to add them too. I guess i thought the wiki has a uniformed format that every page should be ok to have the same thing on their pages and not just nitpick which page deserves to have certain infos while the other doesnt even if they have the similar accomplishments.

In the future is it ok to use your edits to david dobrik's page as a basis me to also help clean up other existing pages with the same content? i already deleted the podcast table in jason nash and logan paul's page for the sake of uniformity since it only listed them guesting or hosting their own podcast or youtube channel and so on similar to david's page and when im free i can also help look around various pages and do the same things. Thank you for your time. Princeton294 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)