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.

DYK for Antonyo Awards

On 26 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Antonyo Awards, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Antonyo Awards—a riff on the Tony Awards—were instituted in 2020 to celebrate excellence in Black theater? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Antonyo Awards. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Antonyo Awards), 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) 12:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Drhusseinnet

Hi Drmies, may I ask you to block Drhusseinnet (talk · contribs · count) globally as their spamming pattern extends to multiple wikis[1]? Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Kashmiri, I don't have those powers. You can request a global block here--good luck! Drmies (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Cheers, done. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The 1619 Project

Hello Drmies, Hope you are well! I know I shouldn't be doing this but since you're the only regular who's ever even edited the article... I tried doing something about the reception section. I was hoping if you might be able to take a look (assuming I don't get reverted before you have the chance). I put the trivia into a "reaction" section. It was needed then to meet the character count of DYK but I think it's just NOTNEWS and maybe should go. What do you think? (Why can't I still find any liberals other than Harris?) And about the rest too? I'm not familiar enough to know if it's closer to NPOV or FALSEBALANCE. (Then, there's google search bias too) If you have any pointers, I would be happy to try (what can realistically be achieved, I fear, may depend more on how much hindrance AGF and BRD are likely to be in articles like this though). Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah I'm not quite sure what to say. There are an awful lot of edits today, and in general. Ha, I was reminded of this idiocy while looking at the history. I wonder who stuck all that World Socialist stuff in there--it's funny if indeed the "World Socialists" are in agreement with Libertarians and the Washington Examiner and people like Newt Gingrich. As for balance--I think this is one of those cases where, at least for now, the nay-sayers just scream louder and in more outlets.We'll know in a few years if, for instance, the educational material has borne fruit and was well-received; it's just too early for that, and JSTOR won't have those materials for a while anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Going through the sources, to me, it seems it is taken as a given that it's universally acclaimed, and so they don't seem to bother saying that in so many words. Other than the vox website that says it was very well received (last updated two days after the launch), theatlantic, which seems to be trying to be a dispassionate participant (it characterises vox, among others, as politically tinted, and guilty of dismissing legitimate criticisms by bundling them all up with the far right), for example, says, The reaction to the project was not universally enthusiastic, clearly implying but not bothering saying that detractors are the exception.

  I had asked at the talk page about the socialists back in January but only had the opportunity to look into it myself in my editing session that preceded this conversation (Curiously, it seems the day I chose was special (double the regular daily viewership, in the month which has gotten double the regular monthly viewership). WSWS got first into the critical reception, 6 or 7 urls for as many interviews, then it got to the lead because lead should summarise the prominent parts of the body, and then the website itself got into the body because "it is a prominent participant in the debate". There is one discussion on the talk page, still ongoing, about summarising the reception as "generally negative reviews from historians" based on that website. All that suggests to me that it would be next to impossible to completely rid of it. That's why I removed everything and added back the secondary source that says the website was ideologically motivated to promote these academics because it matched their "only class conflict is legit" stance. We'll see.

  I think this meet the threshold for revdel (in case you haven't see it; as you say, awful lot of edits). Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Holy shit thanks for pointing that out. Yes, we'll see--thanks for looking at that WS material, I appreciate that. You ever get any response on the Witchcraft in Nepal article? Drmies (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Proofread/approval of draft

Hi Drmies, As you suggested, I have made a draft of the edits I would like to make to an article which I have edited before, which is now named "Draft:COMATCH". Please could you proof-read the draft. How do I go about moving the article from a draft back to the main public space once you have approved it? Many thanks, (Ingelange22 (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC))

• Ingelange22, it's not necessarily up to me to "approve" anything--you can propose your changes on the talk page. But first there's WP:DECLARE. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

157.40.46.210

Please block user:157.40.46.210 ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• My pleasure. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Brockhold socks

Hi!

Both 166.181.84.192 and User:Luftwaffle1939 are socks of User:Brockhold. I filed an SPI here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hmm so this is just another little Nazi dreamer? Drmies (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Elizabeth_Musks#WP:MOS

If you'd told me I'd be blocking over MOS violations, I'd've laughed in your face and told you to get lost. SMDH. Damn! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think it would be the first time--but of course it's not the violation but the associated behavior. BTW I appreciate your double contraction. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated removal of AFD notice

Hi there. I’m not sure where the appropriate place to report this would be, but an editor is repeatedly removing the AFD notice from Yuta (musician) (three times). Would you mind taking a look or advising where I can go about this? TIA, Alex (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• You came to the right place. I gave them a final warning. Strange edits for a new user. I am more and more convinced that there's a template with instructions being circulated; there is no way new users can do this kind of syntax. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry to bother again, but Neocitylife first created the Yuta article after their draft was declined (which I took to AFD, mentioned above). Their draft article for Binnie (singer) was also declined a few days ago and they have moved it to mainspace with no improvements and no notability shown. (I came across this after seeing the user add links to an article on my watchlist) I moved it back to draft twice, but I think should probably step back at this point. They haven't responded to any of the messages or notices on their talk page or said anything in their edit summaries to suggest they are willing to communicate. Alex (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, and if they remove the AfD notice again I will block them for disruption. I saw the history and your comments; there isn't much I can do since you started the AfD; I could have restored the redirect, maybe, but given the AfD we should let this be a community decision. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thame Players Theatre

Hello and thank you for your suggestions regarding the above page. I am curious to know what language you consider to be "promotional" since the 'company' is an am-dram theatre company. Having been editing Wiki pages for over 15 years, this is the first such accusations, so, as I say, I'm curious.

--MovingScenes (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think you know very well what I mean--some of the language that you included, about the convenient location, about the humble blessings of patronage, that sort of things. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Well...

In regards to Middle Ages - I was insane. And I got started on it for the Core Contest and it just kept niggling at me. I also had more time to edit then... but I suspect that the first answer is probably the most likely. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, well, I appreciate it still. I keep mentioning this because whether you were insane or not, I am still in awe of it. PS did you see Alarichall's resume? He's for real--in fact, I might just try and make it to Leeds next year, just to say hi. I've never been. Maybe User:Serial Number 54129 will make an appearance also. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I’ve been dealing with that IP for months. Didn’t really want my Saturday night to be dealing with him at ANI. Appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sure thing. I didn't look all that far into the history, so there may be more rangeblocks that can be applied there; I'll be happy to check if this happens again. For instance, I saw an IPv6 in there but didn't look at the edit, or if there were more. By all means, let me know if there's more trouble. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Just in case it's relevant later, this is another range that the editor has used: 216.249.253.211/21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Interesting. Thanks for that. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • ST47, I assume you found no accounts, right? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Where? I've never checked 216.249.253.211/21. ST47 (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
        • You checked the other one, ST47, the one I blocked, 208.53.224.0/21. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Ah, okay. No, nothing found. ST47 (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary removal of Carnegie Classification context

How is it disruptive for me to reverse your arbitrary deletion of the context I provided for Georgia State University’s Carnegie Classification? Your initial rationale was “it’s too many words,” but we’re talking about 17 words that provide useful context for people who are unfamiliar with the Carnegie Classification system, which is almost certainly most people who visit the Georgia State University page. Furthermore, the length of that section of the GSU page is very much in keeping with other university pages. TBPJMRamirez (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• And you're an SPA who needs to discuss this matter on the article talk page, not mine. Besides, I believe it was ElKevbo who asked you to fulfill the requirements in WP:DECLARE, and they were right. As for that classification system, there's plenty of room in the article to explain; it needn't be explained in the lead. BTW it's already verbose and unattractive, and your edit just made that worse. 02:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What exactly are you alleging? That this is an alt account? That I’m not a professional Wikipedia editor and that I only edit topics I’m interested in? And how is there a better place to introduce context for the Carnegie Classification system tham the sentence where the system is first introduced? It’s neither verbose nor unattractive, either - it’s concise and easy to read.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • OK, on the talk page, not here. No, I'm alleging that you have a conflict of interest (doesn't matter whether you're paid or an employee or not), that you are not a very experienced Wikipedia editor, that you are not really in a position to say "other articles have it too", and that I don't think you should be giving lessons on how to write a lead. But, again, please explain on the talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I am indeed not a very experienced Wikipedia editor - so what? And I most certainly am in a position to compare the GSU page to other pages - I have eyes. One needn’t dedicate his or her life to editing Wikipedia articles in order to be able to compare one page to another. And I would be happy to give you lessons on writing clearly - context is essential for casual readers, and the reader certainly shouldn’t have to wade through paragraphs of text to find some brief context for a jargon-y classification system that’s introduced paragraphs above.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
        • On the article talk page, not here. Where is that goddamn eye roll emoji when you need it... Drmies (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
          • I’ve added the section to the GSU page’s talk page. If you want another lesson in how to write clearly, where should we continue that conversation?TBPJMRamirez (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Miguel Silva (footballer, born April 1995)

Hi there,

can you please "up" the page protection here? Maybe this time the person (warned several times) will stop, just "maybe"...

Kind regards, have a nice week and thanks in advance! --Quite A Character (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sure but next time, don't revert a whole bunch of times. There's no point in it, and the only thing that can come out of it is you getting blocked. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate it (the protection AND the advice; oops, only noticed now as i wrote this that you did not protect page, you blocked the IP. Not what i was aiming for, but i guess you chose for the best), i guess i really could have been blocked for breaking 3RR (and would not budge one bit in the light of WP's guidelines).

Cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenny Durkan Page

Hi thank you for the support earlier on Jenny Durkan's page. I'm a little new to Wiki. Unfortunately user 71.212.13.9 is still causing problems. They have made 7 reversals and received formal warnings from two editors (one being you), but still they haven't been blocked yet. I can't understand whats going on (I thought after 3 you were done?). It is abundantly clear this person has it out for Durkan. I have never read an article that is so dripping with bias, and it seems they have been making quite a few edits to the page. It's clear this person shouldn't have access to this page. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks. Rwnix404 (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher): User(s) blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Rwnix404, I appreciate your note, and I just left one on the article talk page, where I am also suggesting you tone it down a bit. The editor is now correctly blocked, as they should have been earlier--they reverted seven times, and I reported them, but sometimes it takes a little while. User:Deepfriedokra, thank you for the block. User:Sjö, thank you also. Materialscientist, I'm not quite sure where you saw the good faith--they had stopped, indeed, after revert number seven, but only for three minutes at the time you left your comment.

Deepfriedokra, the partial block is appreciated, but please also have a look at Talk:Jenny Durkan: the user wasn't just edit warring, they also have a likely COI against Durkan and her family. I started writing up some diffs here, but I'll put them on the article talk page. Finally, consider their deceitful edit summaries--I provided some diffs on the article talk page as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for the assistance. It was just frustrating dealing with someone not acting in good faith, engaging in subversive behavior.Rwnix404 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: certainly welcome. Welp, I did not want to go overboard, as I take EW blocks quite seriously. User:Rwnix404My advice would be to report at WP:COIN, or if they are editing libelously, WP:ANI for a more thorough discussion than a Judge Dredd-esque fly-in and blasting. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra The issue here isn't much with outright libelous editing, as with whoever has been editing her page seems to have undertaken a very subtle campaign to make her page look as negative as possible (without being outright libelous). I don't think I've ever read a page where the controversies section is longer than the total of every other section on the page combined, and even the most minor infraction gets a detailed paragraph. Heck, not even Jeffrey Epstein's page is as unbalanced as that! You advocate for more discussion, but it is clear that no amount of discussion with this person with ever get anywhere. They are likely a political extremist. I would like to attempt to work on this page in the near future to make it more balanced, but I fear a non-stop edit war with this individual once their block is over.Rwnix404 (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rwnix404: I've commented on the talk, and find user's arguments arduous. Might want to report at WP:COIN if the problems persist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra saw comments on talk page, much appreciated Rwnix404 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

My IP range is banned

I don't get it.

Whenever I wanna post, I stumble upon

blocked for a long slew of leading edits, edit warring, POV editing, and esp. trolling on talk pages

clamp.

I don't remember doing POV edits in articles (point of views?), and talk pages trolling. Sure, I tried to re-arrange the order of empirical proofs in 'Spherical Earth' article, trying to make it chronologically lined up ("available to ancient people ---> available to naval people of Medieval era ----> available now thanks to modern technology" order)... but I did it "wuth my visor open", e.g. under Uchyotka name

Also, I always sign Uchyotka (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Uchyotka, sorry, but I don't understand the problem. If you sign in, you are not blocked. You didn't tell me which IP range you're talking about, and for the sake of privacy you probably shouldn't, so I can't tell if that block was aimed at you or not; it is likely that it was not, or I would have blocked you as well. It is most likely that it has nothing whatsoever to do with you, but that someone on that range was trolling a whole bunch from various IP addresses. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • OK. Anyway, my IP range I was talking about is:

large (whole MTS mobile network in Moscow)

Russian (I wonder who the *eck would troll using Moscow IP, real Russians normally are too busy arbat-ing, e.g. working)(OK, it could be a proxy)

Gets blocked for 10 days, but gets blocked again, and again, and again with same reason. Please tell me more on the troll so I could literally talk back my replies (probably a Lurkmore.to troll copypasta poster). Uchyotka (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I hope the trolling was not directly aimed at you. Uchyotka (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• • • Uchyotka, I'm sorry, but I can't do what you ask. The IP range isn't "yours", and in order to find out which one it is I'd have to run CheckUser on you but I need a good reason--that you edit using your account from a blocked range isn't really a good enough reason, and I don't see any evidence at all that someone is messing with the edits made from your account. If the range is so large, why would anyone think you have anything to do with edits that were made from the range? Drmies (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

False information in the Copperhead article from Copperhead CEO

Right before the article was fully protected, someone working with the CEO removed valid, sourced content and restored their marketing to the article. Check out this bit of the article:

> Android Headlines reported in December 2019 that "Not only has CopperheadOS not gone under, but the company has also continued to be profitable.."

This is what Android Headlines says:

> Not only has CopperheadOS not gone under, but the company has also continued to be profitable, according to the executive.

This is a clearly manipulated quote, and is just pushing a quote from the CEO (the blog post simply communicates what the CEO says with basic paraphrasing) as if it was stated by Android Headlines when it was not.

The following sentence is a similar form of trickery:

> CopperheadOS updates are now publicly listed on Copperhead's website [6] as opposed to Github.

Sources were published on GitHub. Sources are no longer published - it's not source available. They only publish bullet point release notes on the site. These release notes were never published on GitHub, so this claim is simply false - nothing was moved from GitHub to the site. This is an attempt at hiding the truth. Aside from the claim that this information was moved being false, there is no source to back it up. They simply link to the release notes as a source for this claim. It hardly makes sense for the article to talk about where exactly release notes are posted aside from them trying to weasel word their way out of the lack of source availability. Please take a look at what was removed in the last edit. The editor who corrected the company name also provided the official government source. There is no company called Copperhead Limited.

The person who restored this content also removed the history of the changes to source availability and added back the false that there is source availability. You can see for yourself that things are not as they claim. strcat (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm less interested in these minutia than you might think. You're making accusations that come pretty close to outing; I encourage you to look at WP:OUTING before you take that any further. The best thing to do, I think, is for you to take this to WP:COIN. I am really not interested in finding out whether something is open source or almost open source or whatever; to me, the entire article is on a subject that barely scratches notability and has become a viper pit. What you need, at least what you need on Wikipedia, is an editor or two who care about notability and verifiability, who have an interest in the topic, and who have some subject knowledge. I'm 1 for 3 in that regard. Seriously: COIN. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)