User talk:Drmies

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

Geolocation

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

War redeclared on Talk:American Revolutionary War

Two groups of editors have flooded the article's talk page with a endless cycle of editor accusations and counter-accusations, drowning out any suggestion of actually improving the article. I tried to point out how disruptive this "us vs. them" cycle is, and got the response "Yeah, and it's their fault!" immediately followed by "no, it's yours!".

My question: is there any kind of standard remedy for this kind of thing, like protecting the talk page for a while? I mean, anything besides just standing back and watching the talk page burn while those involved throw either gas or petrol on it, depending on which side they've joined. All the editors seem valued and experienced, and certainly have better ways to contribute than this, and, of course, meanwhile the article itself isn't getting improved. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Loki's hoof - that is a disaster of a talk page. I wouldn't even know where to begin, although there was a tiny part of me that was tempted to ban everyone who was using excessive markup on the talk page... --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Nuke the entire talk page from orbit. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I was going with "block em all and let Jimbo sort them out". Drmies (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey what a mess. I tried to read over some material but there is too much of it. Some people are really going too far (Dilidor's comments are over the top), and some people like their formatting way too much (with bold, underline, etc.). Is every single edit a subject of discussion there? Is there really a hoax? Is XavierGreen really the big disruptor? Etc. No, I don't really know what to do about any of that--except to chop up the controversy into individual RfCs... Drmies (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And sometimes I wonder...."Why don't I edit domestic articles?", then I read "BritClique" and "digital thuggery"... and I go back to editing dead French nobles.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing dead French nobles seems a morbid hobby. Maybe you could branch out and edit articles about them? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Granted, though it beats editing American political articles any day! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that part was pretty exciting. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll attempt to quickly explain my (tenuous) understanding of the basis of the talk page war, as this is hard to discern from the participants, who long ago left off discussing the underlying issues to focus solely on "victory".

The two sides might be described as American-centric (side A) and British-centric (side B). Side A thinks the article should focus more on the 13 colonies, while side B thinks the article should focus more on Europe and elsewhere, as once Britain lost a battle or two in America, rival European powers -- France Spain and the Netherlands -- took this as an opportunity to take Britain down a peg or two, expanding this into almost a world war, which continued for a while after American independence was recognized by Britain.

No editor disagrees on the events themselves, so it's just a matter of balance, right? But with the sides bitterly entrenched, every potential article edit is evaluated solely on the black-or-white basis how it might be even slightly advantageous for "us" or "them" (something like third world countries caught up in the Cold War; if you're not capitalist, you're communist -- there's no middle ground). In this environment, no wording of any RfC would be accepted as "neutral" by both sides.

We constantly urge editors to use the talk page for disputes, but I'd have to urge the opposite in this one case. That's why I asked about protecting the talk page for a bit. It seems contrary to all our normal methods, but this is a contrary talk page -- maybe an "anti-talk page", or even a "shout-page". Sigh.

I've a new idea: Of all the drama boards, 3RR seems to actually function pretty well. How about a "3 bold/italic/caps edits and you're out" rule? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ooh! We could call it "3 shouts you're out"! --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm that includes that thing where people cite in green? Well, I really don't know what to say, and the discussions there are so esoteric (for me) that I can't make heads or tails of it. It's like listening to a Tinariwen song when you don't know Tamasheq. Well, it's not great deserts blues either. 3O is probably not helpful here--which leaves only ArbCom? Or you wait for them all to grow old and die? Or...you just give up on this one, even though it's important and is frequently visited? Drmies (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Great Ghu! he plays guitar like Santana methinks. Maybe Clapton.Oddly compelling. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Glad you dig it. If we're going to be liking guitar, there's this--and of course Bombino, who is an f***ing god, and my favorite song is "Tamasheq" (look up Tamasheq...). But the REAL compelling stuff is Les Filles de Illighadad, like here. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Er, why can't the Brits stay on their own side of the Pond? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear god... that's a talk page in need of an RfC (or three dozen of them) if I've ever seen one. Problem is, I doubt anyone outside of the small group of editors already on that talk page has the desire to familiarize themselves with the endless minutiae being argued over -- and for good reason. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 04:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you watching this?

[1]. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, I'm writing a lesson on Anne Bradstreet. Boy that screed rings hollow. As with so many of these socks, you just want to tell them to stop being a complete dick for a few minutes, and then we can talk. Of course there is serious underrepresentation in article space and among editors, but if you want to play on this website you have to know the rules. I haven't met User:Pathawi, but they seem to be doing good work. I found it interesting that Bbb did the lion's share of the work on the Middayexpress SPIs, but did not find a lot of socking in the last year or more--there is no link between the two, right? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm not sure although I have blocked some socks myself. I'd taken the article off my watchlist but this has led me to put it back. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Chiming in where I wasn't invited, but the User:Hoaeter-affiliated socks seem to have held the opposing view of those affiliated with Middayexpress. I think the current pattern goes back to User:Habesha Union, if not User:EthiopianHabesha (who would have overlapped (again, on opposing sides) with Middayexpress). It's not just the article at this point, but also related pages such as templates and categories. I'm not sure what to do about it all that would be more productive than shaking my fists in the air. (I'm certain there are bigger problems elsewhere on Wikipedia than this.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• You know I kind of liked Midday. At least he wasn't dumb. Wrong, yes. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Olive branch

With hindsight I now see that I massively overreacted to your comments on Talk:United States. I'd been awake more than 24 hours, and I was severely stressed due to some personal stuff, but that's not an excuse; I should have had the sense to log off Wikipedia and wait until I was in a better state of mind. I'm ready to leave that in the past and move on in working on improving the United States article. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 01:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• CactusJack, you're a magnificent editor, from what I can tell, and I thank you for your note and your return. Take care. I was hoping to hear from you at some point. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Help a fella out?

I've been working toward unblocking this user. Bbb23 was a declining admin and advised the SO three months ago.. He has not responded to my pings. I have no wish to aggravate him further. I cannot proceed without him after a recent unblock debacle especially. What would you suggest? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know about any debacle, but if you don't hear from the blocking admin, well, I suppose you should proceed. But maybe that's a thing you can post about on AN. I was thinking this was a CU matter, but it's not. BTW why should this user be considered for early release? I know they've done good work, and I'm not really actually familiar with the block or its circumstances, but I suppose it was serious enough. Maybe AN is a good venue: let the community decide. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I decided to ask them to wait. NRP prompted me to pull my finger out. They took it encouragingly well. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 04:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

wikt:Bruv

It's British. What will those Transpondians come up with next? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 04:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Really? Wow...das cray. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Gettin' old. Can't keep up with the new slang. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 04:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I need some help...

... as I do not understand what is happening.

I have AfD-ed NoMachine (reasoning: Looks like an advertisement (re-)created by an editor who confesses his COI. Most sources are company sources.) but for some strange reason there is no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoMachine as that redirects to Talk:NoMachine. I am left clueless here. HELP! The Banner talk 11:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think there might be a problem with a double redirect; the article was definitely up for deletion in times when the process was still called VfD....see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NoMachine...go to said page, which is redirected to the talk-page. A solution might be to rename it to an AfD2. Lectonar (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a first AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoMachine, which has also been redirected to the article talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your advice. The Banner talk 12:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Antonyo Awards

The Antonyo Awards are in their first year that are meant to celebrate black achievements, but they have been accepted and publicized by major musical theatre outlets such as Playbill, Broadway.com, and BroadwayWorld and almost every major black Broadway celebrity, showing their validity. I think that if Braodway.com Audience Choice Awards have a space in Wikipedia, the Antonyo Awards do too. One user deleted the Antonyo Awards from many, many pages despite all having references from credible theatre news outlets. This is racism and silencing black voices. So please let me revert these edits and allow black theatre members to get the appreciation and recognition they deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggied875 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Convention is that awards are listed if they are proven notable; the easiest way to do that is to write the article for them. That's not a lot of work, if indeed they are verifiably notable. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• (talk page stalker) @Maggied875: Feel free to add your inputs here, Draft:Antonyo Awards. – robertsky (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I made one, is it 'notable' yet? The Antonyo Awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggied875 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nice work. The thing is, we can't tell of course it will stick, but for now you've done what you needed to do. I'm wondering, with a bit of tinkering we might could get this on the front page, in the DYK section. Beyond My Ken, you know Broadway better than me, how about it? Drmies (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Flying duck

Heard you didn't have a flying duck, so. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein)

I miss the ostrich :( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I miss you, and Sitush, and Child of Midnight, and Kelapstick, and Bongomatic, and Sitush... I miss Wadewitz. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for indefinitely semi protecting my user talkpage. The harassment was really out of control this time. IanDBeacon (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's pretty sad. Thanks. I hope it doesn't get to you too much. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

UTRS #31238

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31238 (Lazy-restless) Do you UTRS. If, not, you should! All the cool admins are doing it, and besides, this appeal might have merit. Cheers, --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

PS. If you click the link, you will get a message saying you are not authorized. Then you will get an email saying you are. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I saw--very exciting interface. I thought it was emails, but this looks like some kind of messaging system? Yeah, sure--I mean, keeping WP:LEASH in mind. I'm not totally convinced, but I'm fine with it I guess. Is MER-C on board? Drmies (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not on UTRS. Either way, the editor hasn't addressed their copyright violations so the appeal should be denied. MER-C 17:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

About Draft:Victor Ramraj and ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature

Hi Drmies,

• Draft:Victor Ramraj has been listed for deletion under the WP:G13 criterion. I would dearly like to contest the deletion, but it would appear to me that text of the article has copied and pasted from the sources in that draft.
• I can see that there has never been an article or draft for this JHU journal

Your thoughts about these matters?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well Fastily deleted it--you could have just deleted the deletion tag, at least for the while: anyone with some good faith will accept that. Why don't you just copy the part that's not stolen, put it in a new draft and add whatever is necessary, and make a note in your first edit summary attributing (some of the) content to that user who wrote the draft? Drmies (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• arial doesn't have an article? Hmm. They're old enough, well-known enough, indexed enough: please write it up. Odd they're not indexed in JSTOR--that's JSTOR's mistake. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Talk page stalker comment - I don't see anything in the deleted draft that raised copyvio concerns. It looks like a bunch of quotes in quotation templates with attribution, so it wouldn't fly as an article in that shape, but the individual quotes are not substantial enough to go beyond what is permissible. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Thx BD! Drmies (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks all. Oh, my undergraduate days... the best thirteen and a half years of my life. Pete AU (BA, BA (hons), Grad.Dip.Ed, LLB, Grad.Dip.Legal Practice and so on) --Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Shirt58: you can request restoration of the draft at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It shouldn't be a problem. BD2412 T 02:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:George Washington and slavery

No talkspace isn't a forum, or not a very good one anyway. Policies change here and I just learned I could not make this entry without login which I could have done a while back. When I said change I meant it in the context of that article and the changes under discussion, viz. change in fundamental social relations. If these are determined by the prevailing social basis in question, then it wasn't quite right to say they were unchanged since in fact thay have radically intensified. It's certainly true that the public life of the United States and the parts of the world under its influence are radically different from what it was at the start of the 1960s. The current police brutality frisson which becomes insensibly a race frisson distracts from that change, which while not fundamental is considerable and not just in the south. In some sense however, I think it's the case that things are really very much the same, in most of the black and the non-college white communities for example but not only there. Examples of social change that really are fundamental: France 1789, Russia 1917, the United States in 1861 or 1933. The change that occurred in the 1960's is not IMO any more fundamental than that that occurred in the 1920s and there has never been so fundamental a change as occurred in Russia or France including the nation state formation struggle with the British empire. Change which is an intensification of a prior state, I'm disregarding.

On the matter of fact, I in fact do think it is an anachronism to say that Geo Washington was a racist and probably just false for a reasonable definition. After all a substantial portion pushing for such a declaration don't believe race is anything more than a social construct, which in time will in fact be if it so defined as different from the physiological basis of ancestry. Lycurgus (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Race being a social construct doesn't mean that there's no racists. Racists believe, incorrectly, that race is a basis to determine moral, intellectual, and other qualities. Anyway, fun fact, George Washington lived in the same time and place as the Quakers, and guess what. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of them (the Quakers (or other Christian sects)) owned slaves too? ( History_of_the_Quakers#The abolition of slavery ). Lycurgus (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    • We're not on Facebook, but we're approaching that level. Yes, and then most of them changed their minds. Or did you just read the first paragraph. And is it an anachronism to say Washington was a racist because everyone was? And doesn't that mean that "everyone" includes White people only? Don't you think that the victims of legalized slavery/institutional racism might have, ahem, had a slightly different view? Drmies (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't use Facebook, except for dev purpose. It's an anachronism because it's the post hoc application of a term generations before a time in which a social consciousness existed that would allow it to make sense. An no all of the slave owners weren't white. I imagine the number of free black slaveowners was at least as large as the number of Quaker ones, but want to end this here so not providing a ref for it. Lycurgus (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
      • You are extraordinary good at totally missing the point. One wonders if people during the era of phlogiston could be accurately described as "breathing". Drmies (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Lycurgus, I think you've known for a while that you were able to edit while logged out, including on that talk page. I need you to stop doing that, because it's disruptive and blockable. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on the B/O Templates

Glad that you noticed the templates on Institutional racism. I don't usually answer but you made me aware of how my POV may have affected my answer to having tags placed that make the article seem contested, when we did contest it 5 years ago quite extensively, as I recall some of the fights resulted in time-outs. I wanted to call the editor out for what I see as a white-wash, but that term has been shelved as it is seen as combative. Using verbosity and non-neutral POV as leverage to make an article on what are valid complaints of people of color against the 'system' is a tired trope from intellectuals who want to provide 'cover'- but not violate WP rules against such actions. If an editor adds to an article or raises valid questions about grammar, I'm stepping back and lurking in the shadows. This was a whistle that I had to call out, I was just waiting for someone else to do so first so I couldn't be accused of claiming ownership. In the end, If I ignore the larger attempts to de-legitimize the argument I originally made, and no one else does, the argument can then be made to delete the article. Thanks for seeing the greater picture... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way?

Is there a way to stop this Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 00:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, it's some dude without much of a life. He's been doing this for years, still hasn't grown out of it. It's like when you have a bunch of dogs living on your street, and they shit on your sidewalk, and you just have to live with it... Drmies (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Didn't realize N*zi was a swear word... Primefac (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you allowed to say that?

Is it okay for you to put "fuck you" in a block notice? I was surprised to see that and I'm wondering if I misunderstood something. Who's Nate? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see he's a known blocked user, but I still thought we had some standards around here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It's probably not OK, but I've blocked this asshole so often that I'm sick of him. You can denounce me on ANI if you like. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not following the spirit of WP:DENY, but I can't really blame you Drmies, that guy seems like a pain. Go make a cup of something hot/refreshing, and keep up the hard work :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ideally, yes. But dealing with long term harassment from LTA's is a less than ideal situation. I have been able to remain mostly calm over the years, but I have been sorely tested recently as the LTA's have started to notice me too. It can be quite unnerving. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I am starting to hate these LTAs. And this moron who goes PUNCHES YOU IN THE HEAD FUCK OFF FUCK OFF, what else can you say but "fuck off"? Really, what we should be able to say is "the WMF has taken out a court order against you". Drmies (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth: Being polite to these types of editors is inapproporiate as far as I'm concerned. Once it gets to that point, by all means tell them to fuck off, tell them whatever you want. It definitely won't offend me. Coming down hard on the assholes is the only way to deal with these situations. SolarFlash^Discussion 20:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. (rant omitted). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

In general it's best to stay calm. But admins are not inhuman and sometimes we have to put up with a lot of fecal matter. I vaguely recall a particularly pernicious and low brow vandal who after blocking for about the 6th time in a 30 minute period, I may have suggested that they try something that I have been told is anatomically impossible. It's also possible I may have used slightly different language. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha, yes. Captain Eek, I forgot you're an admin--woohoo! Good for you. Please meet Nate Speed, who hasn't had a date since at least 2007, and how could he, with those manners. Ad Orientem, I don't usually cuss at these a-holes, but this one is special. With others, there's other approaches, and let's hope that the FBI is finally taking this harassment seriously. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

How does one draw the FBI's attention to such edits? Asking for a fiend. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha, old Nate was now PUNCHING via email. Deeprfriedokra, this happened because the WMF got involved. Your friend might want to contact User:Kalliope (WMF). Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@SolarFlash: But then how would I ever deploy my Joachim Steubenesque sardonic wit? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hi, recently you blocked a couple of accounts and some IPs for socking, original discussion found here.

There seem to be a couple of new IPs evading the block, as they're attempting the make the same identical edit to the same article. The IPs are Special:Contributions/107.77.226.186 and Special:Contributions/107.77.226.129. Quiet Riot is the article again being targeted. Best regards. SolarFlash^Discussion 19:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, that hair metal nonsense? I'll have a look. Meanwhile, maybe it's worthwhile starting an WP:SPI, if there isn't one already. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I'll keep an eye on it for now, maybe they've finally lost interest. SolarFlash^Discussion 23:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Please reopen Dixie Chicks for moving

Protecting Dixie Chicks without moving its contents to The Chicks goes against consensus.--BaseFree (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am not sure you understand how this works. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• (talk page watcher) @BaseFree: Admins protect a page to stop disruption and to allow consensus to emerge. Once consensus is reached, the page can be moved to the version supported by consensus. At this point, I don't think there is a consensus, at least not on the talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

BaseFree, consensus was reached to keep "Dixie Chicks". The fact you don't like the outcome is neither here nor there. Cassianto^Talk 06:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Actually Cassianto, that's not what has happened. The RM was procedurally closed, as it was to move "The Chicks"→"Dixie Chicks". Since it is already at that title, and move protected, the RM was closed as moot. If any editor wants, they could open a new RM for Dixie Chicks→The Chicks (band). (Not that I'd advise it. COMMONNAME clearly applies) John from Idegon (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  John from Idegon, I see, thanks. Cassianto^Talk 08:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's a whole bunch of unnecessary stuff. Someone moved it to the new, correct name, someone moved it back for no good reason at all, someone closed down a discussion that was leaning hard toward moving it back to the correct name, saying that, ahem, it was the opposite. And now we have a new move discussion--*lesigh*--which will be a landslide. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies, couldn't agree more. You definitely did the right thing protecting the page during the discussion to save a move war but the "procedural close" of a discussion that was clearly heading towards consensus to move to their new name was somewhat bewildering. No doubt the new one will be SNOW closed soon but the non-admin closure a few hours after the discussion was reopened was a little frustrating. Glen 13:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks--yes, I did not understand that close at all. But it will all come out in the wash. We're big Dixie Chicks fan here at Casa Drmies, and we're all still getting used to the name. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you allowed to say that? Part 2

Talk:The_1619_Project#Issue_of_Hannah-Jones's_negative_statements_about_white_people_are_relevant has the comment "clutched their pearls and removed 'crock of BS' and 'drive-by editors dumping', but had nothing of substance to add." Considering your experience, could you say why this wording is allowable? I'm just reading WP:PERSONALATTACKS "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated... personal attacks may lead to sanctions... Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together." The news reminds me of the need for bystanders to intervene against attacks. I see a similar discussion above from 3 days ago about a blocked user, though WP:PERSONALATTACKS says "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user." Numbersinstitute (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)