User talk:Drmies

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

Help!

Hi, Drmies,

I've blocked five or six sockpuppets over the past hour or two and he keeps creating new accounts. I thought blocking account creation would have some effect but it has had none. I posted on Bbb23's talk page but, hey, it's Saturday night and people are busy. Is there secret CU magic that will work? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oops--yeah, Saturday night with Alabama football, and then a few episodes of Ertugrul--sorry. Did you find a remedy? Drmies (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• I see ST47 came to the rescue--thanks to both of you. Yes, Bbb is not a CU anymore, unfortunately. I can't see (without looking) what ST47 did but I suppose it worked. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Eric Zemmour

@Drmies:Hello, I contribute on this page since end of September, and I have seen that you set up semi protection, which ends up today. I think that, until the presidential election is over in France (end of April 2022), it would be wise to extend this semi protection, in order to avoid any trouble, since this person is highly controversed and subject to overheated debates, in the media and on internet. What do you think? cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• That article is still way too fat, and adding stuff like this doesn't help. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies:Hello, Thank you for the extended protection. One question, if you allow: As IPs are not allowed to contribute to the main article, is it consistent if they are still allowed to contribute to the talk page? as here, or here? Isn't there then a risk that they turn around prohibition to contribute to this article in trying to influence the debates on the talk page, in one way on another, even asking (or strongly suggesting) other editors to write in a certain way, as here?? If yes, should the talk page be also protected the same way as the main page? TY in advance. Cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • No, the threshold for disruption on talk pages is much higher. IPs, for instance, can fuck around on talk pages without it being a nuisance in article space, to put it bluntly. They are free to make their case, but less free to edit articles, so to speak. Now, if they're being disruptive, that's another matter. For instance, this comment is silly and irrelevant, but not disruptive. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I understand, thank you for the explanation. What about insistence to change a particular wording, whereas against consensus and sources as shown here by this registered contributor?--Emigré55 (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Tiny bit of translation

Dutch Maiden

Hi, I hope all is well! If that's ok, what's this say - title & caption, the 2 long words mainly? Many thanks, Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Interesting: "Our shibboleth". "Dutch maiden/virgin: Art. 53 of the Grondwet: The King is immune, the ministers are responsible". Does that help? But I can't really find which version that would be--it's not the 1815 one, or the current one. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• OK, so it's the 1848 edition, here. I had never heard of that maiden as a symbol. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, great - I thought it might be "incapable", a la US. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    • "Onschendbaar" literally means "cannot be harmed". Drmies (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Right, so British style. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions

Previously I put this on your userpage, my apologies. Again, I'm new. This should be on your TALK page (as I believe it is now)... thanks!

Hey @Drmies: thanks for your comment. I don't see what is wrong with just mentioning a comparison. If you or anyone else doesn't like it, I do not need to make it again, but I feel that I supported my points fairly enough. Anyway, I don't need to do it again if the consensus is against inserting Ross Ulbricht's website on his own article page. Also, isn't the talk page the place to bring up things that might need to be hashed out? Instead of just making edits on the main article? That was part of my effort I suppose... but I am still somewhat new to the wiki, so if I am stepping on toes somewhere, just let me know.

Lastly, I LOVE the little "admin stats" thing you've got going on above here. If I copy and past that "{ { adminstats| Th78blue } } (without the spaces) would that work for me too? I know I am abviously not an admin, but that is SO cool!! I've wanted something like that to track all of my own activity. Thanks! Also, please feel free to delete all of these as soon as you respond (please ping me or leave a message on my own talk or user page) THANK YOU! Th78blue (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Making an inapposite and rather offensive comparison is like what Hitler did to the Jews. --JBL (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

JBL this sort of exaggeration is the worst thing to happen in all of mankind's history! HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Th78blue, this isn't about stepping on toes--it was simply an offensive comparison and I hope you will refrain from making more of them. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the wiki is that we are to document the facts as they stand from secondary sources and so long as we also do so in compliance with "neutrality", "notability" and "verifiability" etc. I did not intend, and frankly do not see how, my comparison could be construed as offensive. But even if so, my original points still remain unaddressed as it relates to the inclusion of a small blurb about the petition on the Ross Ulbricht page, only in so much as I am seeking answers to the "Washington Examiner" piece used as secondary source for a one or two sentence piece on the petition with ~500,000 signatures... Th78blue (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you don't understand that, then I got nothing more to say. You keep talking about the same little point, which I already had no interest in, and that deflection is also distasteful. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Bethesda-Chevy Chase rival reverted twice as not notable

The rivalry with Walt Whitman HS (MD) has existed for decades. Anyone affiliated with either school or with knowledge of the area knows this. I note you are a fan of the Alabama Crimson Tide. The University of Alabama article has no references for the rivalry with Auburn as it is widely known among college sports fans. Likewise here, though obviously on a smaller scale. But just in case you persist, two links were added to recent articles describing the rivalry.--BoboLink81 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ahem. You are welcome to count the references in Iron Bowl. "In case I persist"--dude. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• High school rivalries are a reliable source of poorly-sourced and excessive detail. At the very least it should be sourced to something like the Washington Post - you can't tell me that the Post hasn't somehow covered Whitman-B-CC games in the past 30 or 40 years, and it should cover all sports. Go find yourself some real sources - your college professors - and Drmies is a college professor - will expect it of you in the near future. Acroterion (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, according to my revised evaluation I'm only marginal as a teacher, Acroterion. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• My edits adding sources were made in good faith in response to Drmies suggestion, but reverted by administrator Acroterion with the summary description, "Doesn't belong in the infobox if it's not mentioned in the article, and student newspapers are far too narrowly focused to support an assertion in a global encycloepdia". I chose to reference the Whitman student newspaper article because it was specifically about the escalation of the ongoing rivalry. A student newspaper is a reliable source for a subject of local interest and WP:NEWSORG does not appear to make any distinction. Many high schools have local rivalries, this as previously cited and referenced has a name, "The Battle of Bethesda". There are references in Washington Post sports articles such as "Whitman holds on against Bethesda-Chevy Chase to extend winning streak". and "Whitman maintains its flair for the dramatic with close win over Bethesda-Chevy Chase".. Now if I add these in WP:GF would that be acceptable? As an alumnus and parent of alumni who has lived in the area for decades the rivalry is long standing and locally acknowledged.--BoboLink81 (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but your last sentence contains a seriously, even dangerously dangling modifier. OK, a newspaper article about a girls' soccer match says "rival"; I don't know that that makes something a rivalry. But really, are we wasting all this time and energy on a stupid infobox where you feel the need to add "rivalry"? We're talking about high school sports. No one is going to live or die. There's a million fucking things in the world that are much more important than any of this will ever be, and you, a parent, an educated and computer-literate person, choose to spend your time on this? Yes, we're a global encyclopedia, and there is a gross disparity between things that are covered and things that are not. The article on your beloved school is half the size of Kinshasa, and Kinshasa has 15 million inhabitants--so if you are here to actually improve our beautiful but imbalanced project, and if you are a moral person with any sense of respect, you might could find some better article to expend your skills and time on. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree. Yet here we are. I initially edited the article to remove a friendly prank about a neighbor who is also a parent and alumnus. I noticed a simple and obvious change (the rival) that was an easy decision to revert. Here's another Post sports article describing the rivalry with the added benefit that my school's team won rather than lost the game: "Montgomery County girls' basketball: Sophomore Kerry Ellis lifts B-CC over Whitman". It should be self-evident why I would bother with something so trivial. I occasionally contribute to articles that I think I can improve. You and the friend you enlisted for support obviously do much more. Try not to discourage the rest of us. BoboLink81 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
      • BoboLink81, I enlisted a friend for support? That's a really stupid thing to say. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Mail notification

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.— Mathglot (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

is making me dizzy. All that eye-straining, mind-blowing verbiage from Eashleyfox is from today? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, more came today. Ohnoitsjamie also declined, but there's a new one--and, amazingly, in incredible verbosity it seems that a COI is acknowledged, and still the steps in WP:DISCLOSE weren't taken. Instead, the user is doing some--well whatever they're doing in that unblock request. It's a common thing with COI editors, of course, that they refuse to read the guideline and act on it, but the most striking thing is that they FINALLY owned up, to being "an archivist in an unpaid capacity for the Ted Stamm Archives". *lesigh* Ohnoitsjamie pointed at incompetence, quite correctly. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I guess I missed the part of the COI instructions that instruct one to refer to oneself in the third person when making unblock requests. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for Unprotect Battle of Montese

@Drmies: Hi, I Requested to you Please unprotected Battle of Montese because I've Accepted Submission of Draft:Battle of Montese . This Article is Very NotableTopic ;I my Opinion this Topic Article of Are not Exist in Wikipedia. When I Accepted Submission of this Draft than I see This Page is Fully Protected and I did not moving this Draft to Article Namespace.Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 13:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• User:Lazy Maniik, thanks, but the article is not very well written and, worse, it's almost a carbon copy in many of its phrases and details from the now-deleted copy. On top of that, the editor who created the draft has a strange editorial history, and I have little doubt that this is another iteration of the original sock master. TheresNoTime, I'd appreciate you having a look at the data; Favonian, maybe you can confirm behavior. Please go ahead, either one of you, and place the block if you agree. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like'm. If only we knew a CheckUser who could confirm it. ;) Favonian (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Favonian, that's why I pinged TNT: they had checked a previous one. When a user is on a dynamic range you just can't always see what's going on there, unless you also figure out a range, run that, etc. But I was already pretty much convinced from a few details on the SPI page. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Comparison of a previous sock with this one on pt-Wiki Favonian (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The plot thickens! It looks like one of them warned the other one. WP:HAND? Favonian (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked w/o tag per SOP. The similarity in (sentimental) prose between the post-war sections was a give-away. Sorely tempted to G5 the draft. Any objections? Favonian (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Go for it. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it. And of course I had mistyped TNT's ping... Drmies (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

plz take a look

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CompactSpacez#October_2021 Thanks.

@Drmies: Thank you for informing me on this topic, I did not know about this, but when I did the copyvo test of that draft, it was showing 0.0 percent and I found the article correct, so I have given it Any submission made ready to be accepted.Best Regards. ---✨LazyManiik✨ 04:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, you don't need a copyvio test to tell you it wasn't good to begin with, but with my admin glasses I was able to see it was substantially the same as previous versions. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Question - Moved from Idiot Drivers talk page after a blanking

Hey Drmies, so I asked a question on Idiot Drivers talk page to you, but he blanked his talk page before I believe you saw the question so here is the question (Copy/paste form). Drmies, not saying you are wrong or right here, but since the edit in question was on his user page, technically, did he vandalize Wikipedia? I believe a template should have been used, but maybe not the vandalize template. Not sure, but I would love to hear some input from you so I can learn about the choosing of a template in a user page edit situation. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is no warning template of the highest level for "completely uncollaborative edits that display a stunning lack of good faith". You can't go around calling random editors motherfuckers, not anywhere. And the user has a history of...well, disruptive edits. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Thanks for responding. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem with that editor is how they speak to others--you can see that in the history of their talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Hey, sorry for causing a big stir. Idiot Driver (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Idiot Driver, this is not a stir, but I need you to understand that you are getting pretty close to the line defined, albeit fuzzily but in various relevant ways, in WP:NOTHERE. The way to walk back from that line is to make quality edits backed by reliable sources, and improve articles. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring over RM closure

Hey, if time permits, can you take a look there? One editor closed a RM, one of the participants reverted the closure. The closer reverted suggesting a move review request, the other editor reverted again. What is supposed to be the solution to such a case? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well this is a bit unusual. Dr.K., I don't know what dispute Buidhe was supposed to have had and whether it was directly relevant here--but I'm not sure I really want to hear a long story. Buidhe, I think you should play it safe and just wait for a completely uninvolved editor (or admin) to close the discussion, and at any rate we know you have an interest in the area (just like Dr. K)--it's better to prevent a fight and bickering, by just being patient. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input but in my opinion, letting this out of process reversion of closure stand simply encourages similar behavior by other participants in move disputes when the discussion is closed in a way that they don't agree with. I don't agree that I have "an interest in the area" that the move dispute is about. I will also note that Dr.K accused me of hounding without any evidence. In fact I found the move request because it is listed on WP:RM. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, the reverter is arguing that your close was out of process. All of you here have "an interest in the area"; none of you should be closing anything east of the Pillars of Hercules, west of Bagdad, south of Verona, and north of Timbuctu. Respectfully, of course. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: RM was attempted closure by an closer who was involved in parallel disputes at other articles with several of the RM's voters, (including me, who initiated the RM in the first place), however they have been reverted and now an uninvolved third party Admin closure has been requested at: Wikipedia:Closure Requests. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• • Buidhe is invloved in a content dispute Pushbacks in Greece with two of the participants at the move request, SilentResident and Khirurg. However, Buidhe has a history of being neutral regardless of disputes with certain editors. Last December Buidhe had a content dispute with Khirurg, and the latter reported Buidhe for edit warring and tried to get them blocked. I intervened there to support Buidhe's defense [1]. A month later, Buidhe closed an RfC where I was in dispute with Khirurg and SilentResident, giving them right [2]. I am not against an admin making the closure, but it is very obvious that "No consensus, not moved" will be the result no matter who makes the closure. I doubt that someone would close such a controversial and balanced discussion with sth other than "no consensus". And "no consensus" in this case means "not moved". A waste of time really about sth that will bring no benefit to any of the parties involved. Drmies, thanks for your help, and this is my last post here. I hope not too many comments are made here to make this a tiring time consuming thing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Ktrimi991, no worries--I appreciate you. Edit warring is usually a waste of time, unless I'm involved in it. Let's see if someone is willing to take care of matters. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter what contributions Buidhe made in the past, what matters is that he is recently involved in 2 disputes with 3 other editors who were RM voters. Like the admin said above, let the Move Request be closed by a *completely uninvolved* party. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I'll take your word for it, and that makes sense. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Hi doc. I'm disappointed to see the reason you pinged me is because of the usual reporting action by the opposition, thinly disguised as the usual request for your comment.This game is getting really old. In any case, I'm always glad to talk to you even under these less than auspicious conditions. Silent R. has explained well the situation. On top of that, I wish to add that yesterday Khirurg reverted Buidhe at Pushbacks in Greece and then commented at the DYK of the same article. Soon after that, Buidhe closed the discussion at Imia. Aside from these heavyhanded COI-ridden, HOUND tactics by Buidhe, this was an utterly incompetent close because the discussion is still ongoing, !voting is still going on and even an RM regular has relisted the discussion to elicit more comments, per usual RM best practices. Despite the opposition's spin above, this move request is still to be decided. I think a warning to Buidhe would go some way in mitigating this disruption. Regards. Dr. K. 01:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

Guess I should notify you too? Better safe than sorry. Cheers. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks--very exciting! Drmies (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Aw, not very exciting for TPWs, though! I thought Doc had been a bad boy and I was going to ready the popcorn.... Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I hate to disappoint. Yes, it's been a while. You know, my old bar, which might well be worth an article, had a t-shirt that said "A Bad Place For Bad People". I always thought that was too much honor, but I happily leaned into it. Literally. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I will be very cautious if I ever have the opportunity to drink with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
        • User:Cullen328, the bar shut down, and I changed my ways (a bit). Drmies (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO apparent breach

Drmies, can you take a look at the Epidamnos#Roman_remains section? Someone 7 years ago pointed out to the fact that that section has been copied from "The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites" (1976) - online copy for the entry there. The section might need to be deleted from public view by an admin. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio tool does seem to bear that out. Being published by Princeton University Press implies there is a copyright, and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't do so. I'll see how far back the vio goes. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac. Funny enough I was busy getting my boy to not plagiarize on his academic project on the history of Alabama. Boy just copies and pastes... Drmies (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Primefac: can you took at the [[3]] subsection? The editor who made the copyvio breach on Epidamnos, roughly at the same time created that article. As you can see in the diff, he cited as his source that website. He apparently copied content from that website, made some minor wording changes and pasted it on Wikipedia. Even today, the [[4]] subsection contains a paragraph that was apparently copied from that website. The paragraph that starts with "The School of Nisibis, founded at the introduction of Christianity into the city by ethnic Assyrians". Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to look into the matter, though if it's from the first revision of the page we're talking 500+ revisions... any other tps'ers are welcome to take this one if I don't get to it first. Of course, the other option is for a non-admin to remove the content in question and put in a {{revdel}} request. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes

Clpo13

Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I hope you had a happy Halloween and that your month is off to a good start. Sorry to once again bother you, but I have some socking concerns at the bundled nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chancellors of Germany by age. I'm concerned that 144.130.153.129 and Virender 95 display similar narrow prolific interests/username with the sockmaster at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of New South Wales by age. The IP editor's many 2020 edits to List of prime ministers of Australia by age (now up for deletion) directly lines up with the sockmasters known behavior, as does Virender 95's massive trivia additions to an Anglo politician article, List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age. I would greatly appreciate if you could look into these concerns. Thank you for any help you can provide. Sincerely, Newshunter12 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's pretty pathetic, huh, that compulsion. I blocked a whole bunch and will tag them later. Oh, next time, please note that it refers to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theotherscrubbythug, so I don't have to look for it--I have a pretty poor memory, haha. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Duly noted, and I can't thank you enough for your extensive efforts to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. The compulsion to create this vast sock-trivia nexus really is pathetic. Some people just need to turn their computer off and go for a walk instead. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Does Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theotherscrubbythug need to be renamed after User:Bryson 85, since that is by far their oldest (yet) uncovered account? The original investigation name was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bartolo 5565 if that helps anything. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • It's all in a day's work, Newshunter12, and I don't mind at all. Again, if you make it easy for me it's easier--there's a whole bunch of sock masters out there that I've worked on, and I have a bad habit of forgetting their names. There's the right-wing troll from England, the AP2 troll who I think pretends to be liberal, the dude from England who is interested in lesbian soccer players, the Dutch/Eastern European one who likes old wars, the one with the radio stations in the Philippines, my correspondence partner Arturo in California... There's so many! As for renaming that one, maybe, but I leave that to the clerks, who are much better at doing that. User:Blablubbs, any thoughts? Drmies (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
        • You're well traveled down these roads, it would seem! I'd have a bad memory to if I had to remember so many Loony Toons in action, haha. I am good at paying attention to the small details of events/incidents and keeping track of all the moving parts, so if you ever need some non-admin assistance wrapping loose ends up, I'm more then happy to help. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Hm. The account is indeed substantially older, but also less active than the currently listed master, and their block came after the first rounds of indefs. Moving is the procedurally correct thing to do, but just moving and retagging would likely be somewhat confusing to onlookers since there is no record of the account at SPI, so the account should be filed pro-forma. In the end, it probably won't matter much – if I randomly came across this, I probably wouldn't do anything about it – but since it got brought up, we might as well. Unless one of my trainees is feeling bored, I'll try to get to that tomorrow. --Blablubbs (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Yeah, personally I don't care, really. The current name, it's just stupid (but then, they do stupid things)--but again, that's why I'm perfectly happy to leave that to others. BTW I appreciate y'all doing that work. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
            •  Clerked. Took 47 edits. Clerking sure isn't doing my namespace stats any favors. And go figure that the one time Drmies doesn't hint he wants me to clerk something (like he did last time with this same case), he asks someone else who then does exactly that. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
              • Haha, imagine running CU on a handful of accounts, a couple of ranges, etc., with dozens of tabs open, and all so you can place a few blocks and make one note on an SPI--that's not good for one's editing rate either. Getting one were you can mass-rollback is the only way to make up for it. Write any articles recently? Drmies (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
                • If you need any help with the editing rate, opening recent changes and setting up a decent list of filters so you get lots of vandalism to revert will do wonders for your edit rate and your namespace stats (provided you don't need to give warning templates as freebies to everyone...). Article creation is of course more interesting, but that takes time and effort (neither of which are good for the edit rate). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
                • Grumbles. I know what you're getting at, Doc. Soon, hopefully. I go through phases of being drawn to content and coding on the one hand, and being drawn to admin-area stuff on the other hand. Drifting back into the former sort of phase now after a lot of SPI work. Gonna try to steer my efforts toward content, thus, even if part of me really is dying to work on BRFA/'zinbot 2. Most of my content work has always been removing bad content, but I'm aware that uh... certain parties... may value seeing seeing an article more comprehensive than H.R. 1 to my name. For now, got a redlink-to-DYK in mind. On verra ce qui ce passe. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • Certain people in certain processes do indeed care for that, yes! Take care, Drmies (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Not acceptable"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychedelic_therapy&diff=1053464088&oldid=1053463914

Why are some of these "not acceptable"? Helper201 (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Seriously? Cause it's the website of an advocacy organization? And HealthEurope--did you see [5], and their qualifications? Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Resources. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• • They still report on and link to evidence based scientific data from both outside and inside. Also, not sure what you’re trying to say about Health Europa as that links to a 404-error page. Helper201 (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Health Europa states on its about page - "Most of our content comes from key figures within the public sector, academia, industry and the scientific community". Helper201 (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Corrected: [6]. Wait--are you seriously saying we should just take their word for it? Because that is not going to happen, no matter how many dogs the editor walks dogs and how many first-class degrees he has. Wait, the digital publication editor has a lot of plants! Come on now. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

They have editors, so what's the problem there? Every publication has editors, that doesn't make their information unreliable. Note, I'm not saying we should publish the editors’ opinions as fact, I'm talking about when the website report on scientific studies (in regards to Health Europa). I'm talking about using their website as a third-party reporting on others scientific trials etc. In regards to their own research like in the case of the Beckley Foundation, if they are deemed a reliable organisation that performs research to proper scientific criteria then what's the issue? If there is data to say these organisations post unreliable information then removing them is certainly justifiable, but if they aren’t then I don’t see the problem. Helper201 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, "they have editors" is an argument that is never going to fly at WP:RSN. That they don't pass standards set in MEDRS should be obvious, and that both websides are neither independent nor proven reliable is damning in general. This is not a matter where we can go "reliable until proven otherwise"--that is not how the web works. But don't take my word for it: bring it to the noticeboards, if you like. As for me, I would revert additions based on that sourcing. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Need an admin conversant in Taliban, etc.

Do you or any of your TPWs know an admin conversant in Taliban, etc.? I have a stealth vandal doing damage but I don't want to report at AN or ANI because I'd have to notify him. It seems like almost every one of his now-21 edits is either vandalism or completely uncited [7]. IMO he should be autoblocked. I did leave an "only warning" just now. I am not conversant enough, and don't have time to figure out, which of his other edits to revert (besides the three latest ones I just did). Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't--I can tell you this: this is not a clear sock of any known editor, and there is no evidence of IP disruption, and that's a relevant thing to know. But for vandalism and uncited info, simply giving warnings and then reporting for vandalism if need be may do the trick. Maybe they'll actually talk to you--and you can certainly tell them that their edit summaries are insufficient. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask you for your assistance and to stop an edit war?

I don’t know who to go to but you did have me advice from before. If you are not someone to go to, can you direct me to who. I made some credible edits and there is someone removing them and saying they are original research when they are not. I posted on the talk page of the credible sources. But that person has now posted a warning on my talk page when I was improving the article and doing the right thing. It has turned into a edit war and I was only posting information from credible sources. It is from the animated shows themselves. If they are original research then all of Wikipedia is base of original research. This is on this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(given_name)

And this is what I posted on the talk page before I got a unnecessary warning on my talk page. https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/tv-shows/Sofia-the-First/Princess-Maya/

https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Mary-Long/. (Voice Actor for Maya in eps 103).

https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/tv-shows/Sailor-Moon-Super-S/. If you look will see the Maya from eps 142 as Mayako with a Japanese voice actor. Cloverway made it Maya where viz and Japanese sub is Mayako.

Below is pictures of all three Maya’s. The other two are screenshots of viz episode summaries containing Maya for eps 103 and Mayako for 142. I did have pictures from Sophia season one eps 8 saying Princess Maya is voiced by Mary long but the snapshot of a black screen. However, the link above on Princess Maya or this link on Olivia Grace, has a green check mark with Maya. Should suffice enough. https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Olivia-Grace/

https://ibb.co/WDnsYKW https://ibb.co/rFXzrWR https://ibb.co/RQ3YVN5 https://ibb.co/yWvwvS9 https://ibb.co/4M3XjNt FedualJapan (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)