User talk:Drmies

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

Yonkers Police Department Page (Again)

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

August songs

August songs

pics and thoughts on 13 August -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you Gerda. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  + the church where I heard VOCES8 and more discoveries --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments that might need some attention

I am not involved in those content disputes, but due to being on my watchlist I have read parts of the discussions taking place there. I have noticed that an editor continuously refers to the perceived nationality of editors and academic sources they disagree with. So:
1. I think it's worth mentioning here that there is a group of Albanian editors who appear to be colluding to impose the Albanian nationalist perspective
2. The attempts by Albanian editors here....are risible at best
3. The obvious bias of a couple of Albanian authors cannot erase international historiography
4. Your distinguished Albanian “scholar”......I think we can safely disregard anything he has to say (or write) about anything, since it is patently obvious he is just another deranged Albanian nationalist. Cite a reliable source or go away. This comment might need to be deleted because they are referring to a living person, Pëllumb Xhufi, as "another deranged Albanian nationalist"
5. It is abundantly clear that you are the one engaging in disruptive editing across a range of articles, with the help of your fellow Albanian nationalists on this talk page and elsewhere
My question is whether continuosly referring to other editors' and sources' perceived nationality is sth that is unconstructive or not? Especially referring to a public figure as "another deranged Albanian nationalist"? Frankly, I have not read the entire discussions to see the level of civility of other editors, I just noticed this particular editor. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Again just now. they don't fit your narrative of Albanian purity....you and your fellow Albanian editors....but why this strong Albanian aversion to a simple statement of fact.....As I am not familiar with every single outlandish claim made by Albanian revisionists like Xhufi, perhaps you could enlighten us. Do Albanians really deny the Greekness of Dionysios himself?. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • My last comment, sorry for causing many tp notifications. They continue even after the issue is raised by another editor on their tp [1]. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Drmies. Thanks for stepping in and reminding everyone that policies should be followed. I just saw that the warning that you left to [2] about defamatory content about academics he disagrees with in Greek revolt of 1567–1572 was reverted/removed from his talkpage by another user who has the same views as Theodoros in the content dispute [3]. Can someone else who is not the talkpage owner actually do such a thing? Also, what does "non-productive biting" refer to? I'm puzzled as to why your standard reminder was "non-productive" and how exactly it relates to WP:BITE in the case of Theodoros who has had an account since 2008 with 5k edits in total.Alltan (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm kind of puzzled by that myself. It doesn't strike me as a helpful move. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • FYI, their response to your advice [4]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, Ktrimi991, they can insult me all they want. It's a bit childish, though some editors insult admins in hopes of making the admin feel too involved to block. I'm not following them or paying attention to them, by the way, and I think I warned them enough. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Responding to them is a waste of time. I thought your advice would make them reflect on their own comments. If they are unable to appreciate your advice, they might see themselves at the AE noticeboard one day. At that place there is no advice, only diffs to be judged. Up to them what path they want to follow. Thank you for your effort Drmies, much appreciated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sending you one of my attack kittens to assist you with the much needed pruning of the IEEE mess.

Randykitty (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Ha. Yeah, someone was really enthusiastic there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Alerts and notifications

Greeting, Drmies. Can you tell me how to delete the old junks under alerts and notifications. I want to delete the old junks of notifications and alert, not turning notifications off. The old junks from 2 years ago are still present. Manwë986 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello? Manwë986 (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like our only choices are to turn them (alerts and notifications) off or on in User:Preferences. There is no option to delete old ones. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello? Hello. You cleared your talk page--that's fine. Is that what you meant? Drmies (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I meant the bell-shaped thing with the name Alerts. It's between my username and Notice at the top.--Manwë986 (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Click on it, click preferences, and see what it offers. Does it matter? It's like an archive you don't have to look at, ever, if you don't want to. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I just want them to be deleted, they were been in the alerts for more than 2 years. I just don't know whom shall I seek help for this Manwë986 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Policy on listing uses of artists songs in video games, TV commercials, etc.?

I see you reverted my edit to add a link to a TV commercial that uses the song "Skeletons" to the article on the Indie group "Easy Life" (with whom I have no connection). I further note you subsequently removed a number of similar references from that article. As a very infrequent contributor to Wikipedia, I am never quite certain what the "official" policies on such matters are, and I confess that I find it hard to discover/comprehend them. Could you please point me to the relevant material so I may avoid wasting my time like this in future?

For what it is worth, I saw the commercial, wondered what the song was and - having expended the effort to track it down - thought this was of interest (as, indeed, in my opinion, was the other material that you removed). Peter Headland (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Things added to Wikipedia need reliable secondary sourcing. That's really the minimum--without that, there's really nothing to discuss. Also, the primary evidence you linked, that was done inline--please use footnotes for references. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone issue an official disruptive editing notice?

On the My Son Hunter I gave the editor Middle Passage1 a simple warning on their talk page, here,[5] about their repeated disruptive editing. About 20 minutes later, they did it again. I don't know if I should go back to their talk page & warn them again; I don't know if I'm allowed to issue an official notice such as this . If I do keep passively warning them, do you know how many times I need to warning them on their talk page before I can seek help at WP:AIV? Thank you in advance for any help. Best wishes, BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Isn't that user blocked indefinitely already? That seems like a proper solution. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think they are blocked, here's their talk page [6] But yes, that would be the proper solution. Thank you Drmies & best wishes! BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see: there's another one! Deepfriedokra, I dropped that indefblock on them, and I raised the stakes: "Middle Passage" is a highly inappropriate username when what you are doing is right-wing propagandizing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Oh my gosh!!! I just looked up the meaning of that name! You're absolutely correct, it is a highly inappropriate user name. ugh! Some people! BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
        • Holy moly! Something else I forgot. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sock

Hello. Could you please remove User:JarvisJones95 is Orca Vision Inc.‎'s talk page access? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sure. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Fifteenth anniversary on Wikipedia!

• User:Chris troutman, I'm getting old. Thanks for the reminder! Drmies (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Drmies,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, but I could use some help/advice

Good morning (though afternoon, I think, for you). Sorry to bother you with this, but I am not good with the more unpleasant Wikipedia issues. I have some concerns about Ldsgaming21. Their edit history consists of a couple minor and fairly inoffensive vandalism-type edits, and then they made (and undid) a rather more concerning edit at Swastika. I tried to go out of my way to assume good faith and gave them a gentle warning, which resulted in a quick edit/undo to my talk page. The sandbox they created also seems to augur WP:NOTHERE issues. At any rate, just wanted to get your opinion as to what, if anything, should be done at this stage. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, that might not be a long career on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the assistance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden movie...

I give up trying to keep this shitshow of an article representative of what it actually is, maybe you'll have more luck dealing with the delusions of the factually-impaired editors coming out of the woodwork to make this article seem like it's about anything other than a work of fiction. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Well. I'm not really sure what to do, besides the little edit I just made. Maybe it's "supposedly" a biographical film... Drmies (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've decided to just unwatchlist it. I don't have the energy to argue with people who think 2+2=5 anymore. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That article might need a full protection @Drmies, you know. By the way, the film is not a biography of HB, should be reverted first. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Describe it as RS do - alleged life stories. GizzyCatBella🍁 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

OK--change it. I gotta run. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, I will point out that Newsweek isn't known for it's journalistic integrity or factual accuracy. I'm sure Fox News also describes it as a masterful work of non-fiction that is totally accurate and truthful. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This is going to be another The Kashmir Files. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see what Newsweek had to say on the topic. But I used to subscribe to them, a few children ago, and it's sad to see how their reputation has gone down. SFR I'm going to look at that movie. I saw Hotel Mumbai this weekend, BTW, which was fantastic. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I was speaking more about how the donneybrook over how to describe the movie played out on-wiki, and the enormous amount of disruption involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that. Have to go back almost 1,500 edits to find IP editors--that's a sign of disruption already. And I see how many times you put " Not done" on the talk page. Thanks for keeping it clean. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I probably did more "rv NOTAFORUM" "rm duplicate discussion" than actually closing requests. 61 edits to that talk page. And it barely put a dent in the disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a much better film, and it's a true story, right? Drmies (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

[7] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You know where I found it. I wonder if El_C killed my chickens. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I would assume not. He's told me he's petting zoo only. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Rock hard... rooster! El_C 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

OK I have no idea what that is. Is that where geeks play video games, comment on it, and put it on YouTube? And they do that for a living? I had to watch an ad for healthcare.gov and for the electric Chevy Blazer to see that... Drmies (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, that is GTA5 on the NoPixel server. Yes, for a living; it can be very lucrative. It's called Role Playing, or RP, which is mostly ad lib acting within the confines of a video game. Some is comedy-driven, some drama, etc. It's been part of the gaming zeitgeist I'd say for 5-10 years now. El_C 21:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated, but can someone whack 2601:642:4C0D:3EB8:C947:8A50:EB6D:FC35 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) please? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

People do the strangest things. And I'm talking about the people who are paying (?) to see that. Block placed; SFR, that's $5. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you accept Silver Premier rewards points? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, Drmies, you so old! El_C 21:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Better than me, I watched the ever impressive, clearly brilliant non-fiction work, Sharknado 2. I have a lot of regrets PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's already happening!! [8][9] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Administrator changes

DanCherek • DatGuy • Femke • Z1720

Aldux • Graham Beards • Nyttend

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Everett Stern edit reversion

I believe you reverted an edit of mine last month in error. [10] You repeated the reversion of another admin, Primefac. [11] Primefac's complaint was "removing this paragraph per WP:BLPCRIME" I had already read this section. You can refer to it, but this is what it says: "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." (Emphasis mine).

In other words, the section you removed was allowed if Everett Stern is a public figure. So is he a public figure? To me, the fact that he is running for U.S. Senate ought to be sufficient. But if we look at Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual, he is high profile under Media attention (has given interviews). He is high profile under promotional activities (has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, including press conferences for his Senate run, and before). He is high profile under Eminence (has sought a position in a political sphere). Over and over again he has met the criteria of a public figure.

Ultimately do we let wikipedia editors provide well-documented evidence of a criminal prosecution of a Senate candidate, or do we let Senate candidates remove accurate and well-sourced information that they feel might hurt their candidacy or reputation? The rules on this are pretty clear in my opinion and neither you nor Primefac interpreted them correctly here. Also, I feel your comment when you reverted that edit, "do not be fighting with an admin" is not that productive. While you also referred to specific rules, I had already read these and as I describe above, I believe they back my changes, not your reversion.

Mr. Stern seems to think I somehow have it ought for him. My interest here accurate information and fair application of the rules. It does appear to me that over time Stern has made edits to his own web page that were there to promote himself, and could not be backed up by any supplied references. And I think he is just getting what he wants in this case by protesting loudly, rather than because this is what Wikipedia rules say about how public figures accused of crimes should be handled.

Thank you for your consideration. Battling McGook (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hi--and thanks for your note. I'll make some comments, not necessarily in order. First, "Ultimately do we let wikipedia editors provide well-documented evidence [...], or do we let Senate candidates remove accurate and well-sourced information[...]?" Well, we let Wikipedia editors decide, but it will have to be according to our policies, and it won't be one single editor who decides on it. Second, "criminal prosecution"--we're talking about an alleged misdemeanor here. Also, "well-documented" was questioned by an editor or two--including Masem, at this BLPN thread, and I agree completely. I went through Google News again and found one example of the story--and it is SO minor that, in the judgment of this administrator, and that of Primefac, it is not worth sticking into a relatively short article, which it would overwhelm: that is why we have WP:UNDUE. If there's nothing new on that story, then it likely went away, and it certainly wasn't picked up by national media.
  And here's another thing, on a personal note: I can't speak for Primefac, but I find it a bit hard to accept "You're wrong about this policy/guideline" from someone with maybe 300 edits in mainspace, where Primefac and I have a couple of hundred thousand each, over 10-15 years. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be questioned, but it does mean we likely know what we are talking about.
  Well, I'm glad you didn't restore the information. I hope it stays that way. And you can be sure that neither Primefac or I will allow the subject of an article to skew the content. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Just as an additional note, while BLPCRIME might be about non-public figures, BLPPUBLIC (further down the same page) says If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article; I believe the point that both Drmies and I were attempting to make with our reverts is that it fails at least two of those three criteria, especially since it seems to have only been an allegation and not a conviction. Should that change, then by all means we can discuss adding it in, but until then we should not be adding every piece of gossip and news about an individual to their page. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    • The criticism about lack of sourcing was when it only had a single source. I corrected that, and there were three independent sources (all different outlets, dailylocal, yoursun, and wuft) before it was removed. I did also mistakenly try to use the docket as a source, not realizing that was forbidden (I still don't understand why but, that's a side issue). The point about the docket though is that it clarifies that the story is absolutely real. It's a thing that really happened and is relevant to the available information about this candidate.
      I don't see anything in the rules about"alleged misdemeanor" being handled differently than any other criminal charge. I still feel that I am correct in regard to the rules. Is it noteworthy? At least three news sources covered it. Is it well-documented? Same. Is it relevant? That's a judgement call, but I think any crime that a U.S. Congressional candidate is 1) accused of and 2) actively trying to remove from public view (here), is relevant. I will read up on dispute resolution to see what the next step is to appeal this. Battling McGook (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Primefac, I don't know what to say here. Barbra Streisand is right around the corner. You have any ideas? Drmies (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Nothing to do but wait and see if anything comes out of the alleged case. Primefac (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
          • The case is not alleged. The case exists. The criminal acts are alleged. The Streisand effect would be if Stern's efforts to suppress this led to additional coverage. Isn't that on him, not on Wikipedia editors? Because yes I do take issue with a Senate candidate successfully suppressing the truth about his indictment by manipulating Wikipedia. The class 2 misdemeanor for which he is being indicted, impersonating a public servant, comes with a penalty of up to a 5000 dollar fine and up to two years in prison, so I remain confused about why this would not be considered a noteworthy issue about someone running for federal office. It's not just about the vote. People come here looking for information before making campaign donations. His suppression of this serious issue potentially has financial benefits. It potentially already has. Battling McGook (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
            • The coverage is lousy. The Streisand effect is also us talking about it here. I don't give a damn about what Stern wants; that is not my concern. I don't give a damn about whether people come for investigating campaign donations. Stern is not "manipulating Wikipedia", unless you wish to maintain that Primefac and I are somehow on the take. So I really need you to take us seriously when we tell you that you are out of line and need to rein it in. You're violating not just the BLP but also AGF, in your accusation that he is successful at getting us to suppress the truth or something like that. Here's what you can do: email ArbCom and ask them. In your email you can speak freely. I can't speak for Primefac but I'm getting pretty tired of saying the same thing over and over again to someone who is simply not listening and who, by now, is doing a pretty good job convincing me that they have a personal interest of some kind. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding blocked users, can I agree with admins' comments?

I admit I was rude, but I figured I'd say this. Thank you so much for warning me - I didn't realize I was fueling the fire. As much as I don't think users shouldn't deny evidence of misbehaving or twist others' words, I wonder if it's okay with agreeing with admin comments. Side note: but I've left User talk:Ki999. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I made my thousandth edit on the person's talk page (which is surreal) but frankly, I'm gonna hold back from responding. As much as I don't trust Ki999, I was immature. I'm only relying on what other people perceive the user, as I do not trust users who deny evidence of their behavior. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize for my barrage of replies on my own talk page. Frankly, the fact I can't remove notifications is bugging me, because I do not want to get reminded of users I do not trust, but that's another topic for another time. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The question I usually ask myself in a discussion that I am late to is: "will my comment add anything to this discussion?" There's nothing wrong with agreeing with an administrator's comment(s), but if you're doing so on a blocked user's talk page purely for the sake of agreeing with that admin, it's probably best to leave well enough alone. Obviously, if it's something like an ANI discussion where more opinions are a good thing, then by all means agree with them (within reason of course). Primefac (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Primefac I see! Thank you. I won't post about blocked users' behavior over minor things in ANI, by the way. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, obviously I like it when people agree with me--but in this case, on that user's talk page, it's piling on, and the situation is not likely to improve. What I would like to see happen is that the editor sees that their behavior, from the perspective of other editors, is not productive, and that they adjust it. Hearing that from others, who may not have been involved with the original matter(s) at all, is not likely to make them think that--they're more likely to feel like they're being persecuted. That's why I asked you to refrain, which you did, and which I appreciate. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies I feel like as if I never considered that perspective. I'm glad you warned me - maybe some people really do need to reconsider themselves.

If their behavior improves, I'll apologize to them on their talk page. For now, I suppose we'll have to wait. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

My Stepmom's Daughter Is My Ex

I am very curious why you added the {{notability}} template, which is the most ridiculous one among the three you added to this article. A simple Google search can do it but you choose to add this template to an article which has been created for more than a year (and the article was not created by me btw). All your edits have been reverted by me. I am not happy with how easy the edits could be reverted, which means how wrong the edits were. Please do you research before you reverting my edits next time. Thank you. Hijk910 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Googling is not researching. We're an encyclopedia. We work by way of secondary sources. If secondary sources don't prove something is notable, then how are you going to argue it's notable? And speaking of ridiculous: saying that a source for an announcement is primary makes it even worse; what you are doing is using a promotional link to "verify" an announcement, as if Wikipedia is just an outlet for PR. I think you should consider doing this as a hobby on Wikia. What is this supposed to prove? There's a dozen of em. How is this not a spamlink? How is the External links section not a blatant violation of WP:EL? The only secondary sources in the article are announcements from ANN--and those in turn are, explicitly, based on the company website and Natalie.mu, which also bases itself on company websites and are no more valuable than Discogs. In the end, they are all parts of the commercial machinery. Where does actual notability come from? Not from Google or from the company's PR. What you and some fellow editors are doing is merely compiling information from commercial sites and formatting them for Wikipedia, that's all. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why, while Anime News Network is generally considered as reliable secondary sources (per WP:ANIME, it is a notable website), they can't be used as proof of its notability. All secondary sources in nature include information from primary sources. Just claiming "they are all parts of the commercial machinery" does not mean you are right. -Hijk910 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    • ANN reports on anime. They are good at it, and thus are considered reliable, but it's what they do. This does mean, though, that if they are writing about an anime, it's not because it's new or different or special, but because it's their job, which makes it a non-notability-granting reference (type 3.1 on my reference types breakdown). Primefac (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
      • I don't think those ANN reports are "name drops/passing mentions". You guys try to raise the bar of notability to an unreasonable height. WP:GNG mentions "Reliable" and "Sources", and ANN fulfills both. With the same logic, Nature cannot be a notability-granting reference because "it's their job" to feature research. "It's their job" for any media to report things within their scope. -Hijk910 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
        • That's Trump-style bullshit, and an utter misrepresentation of what academic, peer-reviewed publishing does. ANN is really a fancy website for fans of anime. Find me something where ANN publishes actual research. Or where they publish articles critical of something, of anything. Deep dives. Investigative journalism. There is nothing unreasonable about asking for secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
          • I found you an example, which is against your point. -Hijk910 (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

            Hijk910: Anime News Network is a website that Wikipedia uses as a reliable source. This is a list of the sites Wikipedia allows for article citations. Just because you don't agree on using it doesn't mean the editors will all do the same.

            P.S. you need to rethink on how you use links and cite notability. And if an article is of a subject that is not notable, chances are it's gonna be flagged with this. Wanted to give my two cents. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion questions

Hi @Drmies, I just replied to two 3O requests and had some questions. I noticed you were somehow involved in those so thought you might be able to help:

1. Should I reply to 3O requests when an admin is already involved? (realised you were involved in one of the discussions here, not sure if it's still the same standard for admins or if we tend to consider the conversation closed when an admin gave an opinion ^^)
2. Should I reply to 3O requests or reject them when only 2 persons engage in the talk (and it's stuck) but more than 2 persons engage in the edits? Someone raised the question in Talk:My Stepmom's Daughter Is My Ex and I've no idea and it's not something I typically check.

AlanTheScientist (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• User:AlanTheScientist, sorry I saw this so late. I don't have much experience with 30, but I think it requires the cooperation of both--and I have no intention of engaging with that editor. Maybe that answers your question? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Trouble with a user's ability to write clearly in English

I have been trying to edit some of the contributions[12] made by Iliochori2, and I'm having difficulty keeping up. I noticed that you addressed them on their talk page a year or so ago, and I'd appreciate some guidance on the best, most effective way to broach the issue of an editor's lack of ability to write clearly in English. There are dozens upon dozens of pages that either need complete revision/rewriting or simply should just be deleted to which the editor has added a large amount of unreadable, turgid content or created in full. Given that you and Robby.is.on have both brought this up with the editor previously, I'm unsure exactly how to proceed here. I'd appreciate any guidance or help you can provide. Anwegmann (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hi. I don't know what to tell you. This is decent, but I see there's still problems in other articles, sourcing issues, a clear lack of competence, and a lack of communication. What's an example of a really bad one? Drmies (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response. Perhaps I'm overreacting—hence my reaching out to someone else to take a look, I suppose. Here's an example[13] of one that required a lot of rewriting. Here are a few more examples (I've linked the last versions before I made any edits): [14], [15], and [16]. I suppose the issue I'm having is that nearly every edit they make requires at least some degree of important grammatical revision, and I'm not sure how to bring that up with the editor on their talk page...or even if I should. Anwegmann (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    • No, I hear you--I brought it up and I pinged some other editors. A lack of competence can lead to a block. Thanks, and thanks for cleaning things up. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

AmySEOPro

Hi Drmies, I was considering whether and how to file at SPI due to the Dana Parish AfD and Andrew Hollander AfD. I began by reviewing User:AmySEOPro and saw the indef block you made on August 30, 2022. Should I formally file at SPI or is this flock of possible ducks quacking loudly enough for you to maybe review and address without a formal report? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• You can, if you like--but I checked a few and found nothing useful. One thing, maybe--Crazy4science need to be looked at. If Thomasmcsweegan starts editing the same articles, they need to both be blocked. But what I think you are dealing with is off-wiki cooperation. Writing styles etc are slightly different, but there are formal similarities: someone posted/emailed a model of what to do and how to do it. It's a matter for the closing admins, really, to make sure that the meat doesn't win. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies - I had wondered if this was a meatpuppetry situation and appreciate your review and insight. I have watchlisted the articles and both AfDs and can follow up as necessary at SPI. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah, sorry--sometimes these things are easy, and you blocked a half dozen of those jerks, and sometimes, they are a bit more complicated. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
      • I noticed the Crazy4science link as well, keeping an eye on the other account but I feel like it will just fade away; definitely getting more of a meat vibe than a sock vibe. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
        • As it turns out, other AfD regulars had similar concerns, and it is de ja vu all over again. Many thanks, Drmies and Primefac, and I wanted to make sure you both are aware of the ongoing developments. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible block evasion/abuse of user talk

Hello, since you enforced the block of Ki999, I wanted to let you know that the user has continued the content dispute he led at Talk:Andrew Tate#Andrew Tate has active, official accounts on Rumble and Gettr on his talk page post-block. Please note that the user has not bothered to make a formal unblock request yet, only further underlining the WP:NOTHERE argument. The user seems to be here to debate above anything else, thus talk page access should be reconsidered imo. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

vice versa

Infinite would work for me-- meow. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Editor reinstating a certain author as a source

Hello, Drmies. Sorry to bother you. But I am notifying you regarding an editor trying to add a source by an extremist author (Xhufi) in the WP:BALKANS, and specifically the article Greek revolt of 1567–1572 even though Wikipedia's WP:UNRELIABLESOURCE clearly states that the editors shouldn't be doing that. extremist sources are not reliable should not be used, but the editor insists in restoring the questionable source even though there is a clear lack of editorial consensus on the Talk page for using this source and the academic scholarly also has dismissed that particular author, Xhufi, for their extremist views. Relevant talk page discussion may be found at: [17]. I tried to explain to the talkpage the Wikipedia's guidelines but the editor is brute-forcing the source into the article without providing evidence about the source's reliability on the talk page, while sources discrediting the questionable author have already been presented on the talk page. Your attention is needed. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

A note for thoughts: After notifying the editor for the disruptive editing on the article: [18] the editor counter-responded with this [19], suggesting the use of user talk page notifications and warnings for retaliatory means. It is the same editor who is defending the extremist source, replying on the article talk page about how they consider the extremist author to be "reliable" while failing to provide sources defending the extremist author's reliability: [20] I just replied to them telling them that editorial opinions don't matter here - when the WP:RS discredit the extremist author, such as this: [21], then the editors are supposed for the sake of Wikipedia's neutrality and verifiability to find another and more reliable source instead. IMO, sticking to WP:RS is important considering that the WP:BALKANS topic area is a politically sensitive topic area and extremist authors have no place in it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Pëllumb Xhufi is still alive, so I would be careful about WP:BLP. 2 RSN reports have been made on him, first in November [22] and most recently in the last month [23]. Both failed to discredit him, so I am not sure how Ahmet's actions constitute a violation that ought to be reported. Users should first try to explain why the author is not RS, either via (a third) RSN report or at least through RfC, tools given to the community to create discussion and to achieve consensus.Alltan (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Both failed to discredit him" is not an accurate statement I am afraid. The RSN simply did not conclude in favor of Xhufi despite your hard efforts to convince the others that they should be considered reliable. From the moment RSN did not conclude in favor of Xhufi's reliability, then the editors should refrain from using an ultra-nationalist politician of the far-right as a reliable source. Drmies, I will appreciate your attention. Citing extremists ought to be a big no-go for Wikipedia! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Considering I am the subject of this discussion I would like to leave a comment. Xhufi is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania and he has collaborated multiple times in international publications. We haven't had any RSN which excludes him from being WP:RS and just recently this book which SilentResident wants to remove was cited extensively in an article published in Cambridge University Press [24]. SilentResident wants to remove a source which is used in a Cambridge University Press article as being 'unreliable'. The sources meets the objective criteria of WP:RS and it hasn't been decided in any other dispute resolution discussion that it's not RS, although consensus itself can't override policies. So I really don't understand why SilentResident is still doing this. @Drmies: could you also look more closely in recent comments SilentResident made towards me? I am getting repeated inappropriate comments from them where they say that they will report me etc: [25][26][27] Also, Xhufi is a living academic who is subjected to continuous BLP violations. SilentResident may not agree with what Xhufi writes, but Xhufi meets WP:RS and is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Whether someone agrees with him or not, it is a fact that he is getting cited in highly reliable journals. Therefore, his name cannot be dragged around Wikipedia anonymously and be called a racist and extremist. This behavior is disturbing and has to stop, I have asked from SilentResident repeatedly to at least follow this basic decorum principle but it only keeps getting worse. Nobody should use the privilege of anonymity in Wikipedia to call living academics "racists" with no evidence, this is blatant defamation. Ahmet Q. (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Well, all this is great. Ahmet Q., none of the three diffs you dropped here, that you called "inappropriate comments", are inappropriate by our standards. Sorry. The rest, that's a matter that requires more time. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• User:SilentResident, I really see no evidence that the scholar in question is unreliable or extremist, and no consensus to call him that. The RSN conversations are inconclusive, and that first talk page discussion you linked to is clear as mud, in part because too many of the involved editors use too many words. Suggestion: try again. At RSN. With a list of links to citations that disqualify him. Same for your opponents. Invite broader discussion. What we have right now is nothing to base any decisions on, unless it's the usual edit warring or whatever. And if someone publishes something in a reliable journal, we really have no good reason to exlude it, only to properly ascribe it. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)