User talk:Drmies

Talk:Vaginal steaming

Have you seen the argument there? There's a RfC, but it still seems to be the same handful of people arguing about whether or not to include a link to Rational Wiki in the ELs. LadyofShalott 16:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This has moved over to the external links noticeboard, perhaps you would like to drop a note there? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason....

Take a moment and think about it. The sad fact is Wikipedia is full of editors who learn the lingo, learn the processes and learn the 'game. And some are sociopaths that get off by antagonizing anonymous people. They know a person may have spent a good amount of time crafting a text, and they get to disappear it and laugh. Or they have a pocket full of reasons and pull then out one at a time.

Regardless, I appreciated your analysis of the siituaion. But this sort of thing goes on all the time, and sadly it goes unchecked.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• As an admin I have learned to act situationally, meaning I look at the sources and the proposed text. That may well mean I am not the best person to reach out and make things better--there is no doubt that I speak and act from the position I have here, which comes with a thesaurus of lingo, yes. I do not disagree with your analysis, of this situation or in general, but I'm not going to accuse your opponent of driving people off--I just don't have enough evidence for that: I have to refrain from generalizing. That's not to say I'm not feeling you; it certainly is true that acting in certain ways is likely to get one ahead, but that's the case in every profession, of course... Plus, IMO you were right, or at least mostly right. Perhaps K.E.coffman (did I get that right?) agrees with my edit--and if so, you may feel good about being the impetus for that little nugget of (important) information that is now in our article. Without you I wouldn't have noticed. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well there's that. And maybe someone learned a lesson. But I doubt it.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I edited Wikipedia and all I got was this stupid limerick

<clears throat>

There once was an ed from Nantucket

Whose writing got pitched in the bucket

[Something something]

[Drmies something]

But he threw in the towel and said, "Fuck it!"

EEng 05:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• HA! Well done. But no, sorry--he didn't thrown in the towel (or the "jerkwad", as you Americans might say)--he stopped short of 3RR, not being a fool. Well done EEng; I appreciate it. Now, please fix that Oman museum. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• And my thanks for delving into the Oman morass is that now I have to wrangle with EEng? OMG! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• 'ave a shufti at Makran- I can't work out what Makan and Makkuran are. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

What in tarnation are you two going on about? EEng 12:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Makran's an exclave of Oman, which was handed to Pakistan 'cos it's an enclave of the latter. The article on it also refers to Makan and Makkuran without explaining whether these are synonyms or something else. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Who says "throw in the jerkwad"? I've never heard that. Jerkwad is a way you could refer to the person. (Or did I completely misunderstand what you were saying we Americans might say?) LadyofShalott 19:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Reforety

Hi, are you allowed to name the master account for Reforety (talk · contribs), whom you CU-blocked last month? There have been a bunch of socks knocking around Kamma-related articles in recent times and I'm wondering whether that account connects to Rajal naikil but cannot find a prior SPI under which to open a case report. - Sitush (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, crap, wrote too soon because I didn't check your note on Reforety's talk page, just the block note on the contributions page. It will be likely be under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajesh_rao_kumar. I'll try to do a report later today. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The Maltese crusade for irreligion

Thank you for this revert. ([1]) JimRenge (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Estadio Regional de Antofagasta

Greetings.

I can understand the reason of the massive deleted of the article, but i don't get it at all why the list of concert was deleted. It would be good to explain your arguments to me because they are irrelevant. Have a nice day.

--Andre el gigante (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• That kind of content is of interest only to fans, or maybe the owners. On Wikipedia, we typically do not include such information unless something really extraordinary happened, and that needs to be verified rigorously. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dolly Rudeman

Hello! Your submission of Dolly Rudeman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Wikia

Regarding reading your edit summery on Universal Parks & Resort, what is the huge difference between Wikipedia and Wikia? IMO, they works the same way. Especially the point that Wikia is named after Wikipedia. I don't get it. Commented by Wiki-Ikiw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Ikiw (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Wiki-Ikiw: Sorry, your understanding is incorrect. Both Wikipedia and Wikia took the "Wiki" part of their name from a software concept originally developed by Ward Cunningham. The content rules for Wikipedia are very different from those at Wikia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Wikia is really good for this kind of information, which lacks proper secondary sourcing and whose encyclopedic value is easily overestimated. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by

Hey I have been working on "List of songs recorded by Shinee" in my sandbox for a while now. I was trying to make it more reliable and make it fit other lists like the one of Taylor Swift but I have noticed a lot of this kind of lists have been redirected by you so I wanted to know if I should keep up my work or stop it?--Thebestwinter (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, thanks, but I don't believe in such lists at all. Esp. for K-pop artists it seems to me that they are part of the machinery where every thing gets its own article--discography, list of awards, etc., whether that's necessary or not. Given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Trisha Paytas, I wonder how User:Tenebrae feels about this--IMO "furthering the brand" is applicable here. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your fast answer. I was trying to improve the current article because it is really a mess but I guess I can use my time to improve more important articles then. It is taking way too much time anyway and honestly I also don't really see the use of such lists but it was already created so I thought I could improve it.--Thebestwinter (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I appreciate it; every effort to improve is appreciated. I left a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists; perhaps you'll find that of interest. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Response: There is nothing promotional about what I have written in regards to my article. Any form of promotion would have better use on an actual promotional site, and would be a waste of time to be trying to do it here. The information listed is backed up by sources, since my page is explaining information about the cannabis industry all of the information about the subject has been taken from various magazines and news articles, none of it is saying to hire this person, or join their company. It is just explaining the fundamentals that went into someone wanting to create a wiki page for them. To inform people.

• Let me guess--are you the one who wrote up two advertisements for someone who sells kind bud? Drmies (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

Requesting full article protection for the Book of Daniel. Newly registered editor is ignoring warnings and seemed to ignore my response on my talk page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this is no longer WP:ANI 2.0. Please ask at WP:RFPP? Drmies (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ricky Rodriguez

...some "heavy shit" inserted- pretty wild stuff. Could you take a look? I don't mind being wrong, but could do with a second opinion. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 04:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think I've been there before. Hey, I need you (and everyone, really) to look at that and other associated articles--I think I've removed links to this wiki before; it would be good to get a second and third opinion and do something about this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Will do, I thought it was a conspiracy-kind of site. — fortunavelut luna 04:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni mainspace page

Since you blocked the user that created it, would you mind deleting and considering my personal request to salt it per IAR (I assume I'm a living person and haven't done anything notable enough to warrant a page here, so it would likely only be a troll target). Thanks Doc. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Goddam it! I missed it by 1 minute! EEng 01:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It was rather boring "Hippos eat logs". Whomever tagged it as G10 was being, shall we say, overprotective. Still, I agree with Drmies that I'm a pretty obvious A7 candidate. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the article didn't make on obvious claim to importance... Drmies (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Every time I see your username this song goes through my head. Stop it. Now. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? 1957? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Heh. The user name comes from my not being able to spell Bologna ten years ago. And Drmies, I am apparently a case study in some dental textbook somewhere from times in my youth. A health sciences library might be better than JSTOR. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, sorry! Yeah, it's done. When I get back to the office and I have easy access to JSTOR I'll write you up properly. BTW, kind of amazing that it took so long for this editor to get blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it, we should take him to DYK. Perhaps a rhyming one, something to do with ravioli... ;) — fortunavelut luna 04:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (South Perry Street, Montgomery, Alabama)

In fact, here's the prod for your convenience, "Bossie". –EEng

Just a head's up in case you hadn't seen the prod. LadyofShalott 03:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Lady. Yeah, not the greatest student. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

K-pop SPI

Hi Doc. If you have any time please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Netizentown. The guy was editing his sandbox enough times to be confirmed and then popped up at the article to edit-war through recent semiprotection supporting the sock IPs. I think it may be a sleeper account since he had not edited since 30 June. Thanks. Dr. K. 03:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Ok thank you and if you can please try to voice your Opiun on the matter RfC: Should we include career diplomats? Well what I herd from some of the Oppose people the CFO's have no Related Party and John R. Bass has no (D) or (R). So I won't take him off again and you do know some others will try to take him off. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not really my field of interest. You need to take care of this on that talk page, and I suggest you do it in a new section, inviting all the previous participants, and keeping it clean and orderly in terms of layout and indentation. I found it hard to follow, but I did note that there was no final consensus. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael Capponi, redux

Hi Dr and talk page stalking admins, this just goes on forever, with COI accounts attempting to remove well sourced content that they don't like. I'd appreciate more eyes on this, and any objective input will be welcome. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. I've requested indefinite protection, since the manipulation by COI accounts has been going on a long time. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Okay, got it [2]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, notwithstanding the allegations that we're all shilling for Dan Biederman, that bio is a puff job, too. Just saying, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, if I don't get to it first. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I will defend your accusations. What I think is interesting is how zero editors were interested in Michael Capponi's bio until AFTER an off wiki dispute happened between him and Dan Biederman. I believe Biederman is directing people to trash Capponi's bio. All of a sudden random editors, who all back each other up and gang up on anyone who reverts their edits, spent $20 each to buy a book that discusses his past friendship with Chris Pacello. And only after the boating accident is Michael's past drug use important. Why didn't any editors care about him until recently? And it wasn't just removal of PR content, it was the addition of things about drug use taken out of context. LSD mentions, homeless in NYC, linking him to a mob person. It seems to me like purposefully painting the subject of a BLP in a negative light to satisfy one man interested in disparaging him. Settherecord (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Fool. I made no accusations except that you have a COI. It is you who accused me; kindly show me evidence of the payments I received, either in US tender or in cocaine. Your off-wiki spat is of no interest to me at all, and neither are your beliefs. Eat your crow first. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Inform

I want to inform you that I have recently moved Muhammad Iqbal to Allama Iqbal because it appears to not have any references regarding Muhammad Iqbal and common names are used on Wikipedia? If you are opposing my move, you can remove but please tell the reason. SahabAliwadia 09:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to question you as to why Drmies is the person that you decide to inform about this. No, seriously! MPS1992 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I frequently wonder about that myself. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No offense intended, but if you were a recognized expert on two-nation theory, or anything like that, then perhaps I would understand. But your expertise seems to lie elsewhere? It is very very strange. Perhaps I should teach you about the politics involved. You might find it very interesting. MPS1992 (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You and I possibly have the same number of edits in that article (which has a crazy number of edits!), but mine are fortunately unencumbered by knowledge. I know a thing or two about the two (or three) nations and the attendant problems, of course, but yeah, no expert. I really have no idea how these editors come to me--do the look at all the editors in the history and then pick the admin? I don't know. And I have no opinion on this move, but if you need admin involvement, MPS, let me know. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Spirit of the Confederacy

Thanks so much for your work on this brand new article! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not at all--I see you have been busy. Thanks. Hey, this is tailor-made for DYK. Let's get it up there. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes revert/drug use editing

Hi Drimes,

I noticed that you removed about 11,000 characters on Amanda Bynes bio about her past drug use/arrests. On Michael Capponi's bio, you restore all the edits related to drug & alcohol use. On what basis do you decide whether or not it's ok to discuss past drug use, at length in a BLP? I think you are giving Michael Capponi's past drug use undue weight. Also, the early life section is not neutral at all. Could you please restore some of my edits? Thanks! SetTheRecord — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settherecord (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry for reverting you on Amanda Bynes - I know you to be a great admin. The section about Amanda Bynes' arrests and mental problems that led to her retirement have been discussed thoroughly over the years. See the talk page archive and the extensive article history of people removing unsourced or gossipy content. It's about as brief and sanitized as possible. Deleting an 11k section that has been there for years without consensus is not a good move. Please see WP:BLPN for the sections Hillbillyholiday started to complain about not just about Amanda Bynes but also Britany Spears' mental issues (another article that has been discussed to death already). I don't want to get in a revert war at all but I believe removing this much of an article that has been carefully monitored for many years really needs consensus. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikimandia, I went ahead and restored most of Drmies removal per what appears to be a rough consensus against the content being included at BLPN. Since the fundamental principle of BLP is that we do no harm to the subject, WP:ONUS should be applied here and consensus gained to restore specific instances. I've also posted more at BLPN, but wanted to give both you and Drmies a heads up. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - removing some content I don't have a problem with, especially if it's discussed. Deleting the entire section to make it seem like none of it ever occurred is not the way to go. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:Wikimandia, I'm fine with that--at least you provided an argument, unlike the others. Mind you I did not invoke the BLP, nor did I claim some sort of administrative privilege. My main problem was that a. those things should be taken seriously and thus b. unexplained reverts simply won't cut it. Your summary had an explanation, so I'm fine with it. I am going to leave the content discussion for what it is, at least for now--thanks, and take care. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response. On the BLPN, Hillbillyholiday complained that he/she is "out of reverts" - I didn't look at the history of the people who were reverting, but probably some people who are more casual users felt Hillbillyholiday's removal of so much content was blatantly wrong and didn't know they need to explain why. (Maybe WP should make it a requirement that you cannot revert without leaving a summary.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Sometimes it's obvious, but all too often it's not. If I had a dollar for every time an editor referred someone to AIV without explaining how certain edits were vandalism, I'd be waiting on my Lexus to get serviced, not my Toyota. And of course I myself am guilty of that too; only the other day an editor took issue with my edit summary, even though "wut" typically means "rm primary source (video link) reported on wholly unreliable website (a wiki) by way of an inline URL", no? Drmies (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Fin al punto

Remember the DYK when I met you? I didn't know the composer personally, but am still sad that he died. (Today, I would split that hook in three.) "The calm already contains the catastrophe".--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Vaguely--I had to dig deep to find it. Old friends! I wonder what happened to User:Robert Clausen, whose Großgaststätte Ahornblatt was the reason I reviewed that article anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I wrote a sing song for Killmayer, open for review, pictured Peter Härtling who also died recently, - I almost met Härtling but on the one occasion, he was excused for being sick. (Writing it was an act of defiance when I was told that his bio wasn't referenced well enough to appear under Recent deaths, but it's there now.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

I guess we are part of the conspiracy now. I am an atheist potato, so I think that that is quite an achievement. On a more serious note, thanks for your help. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, I am on sabbatical so I don't do serious notes this semester. Also, potatoes have eyes but not fingers or voices, so you're not feeling anyone. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The sad thing here is if we had users spending half as much effort into cleaning up the existing articles on papal conclaves, you would find much more interesting stories than this conspiracy theory. Domenico Toschi wasn't elected pope in the Papal conclave, May 1605 because he said cock too much, for instance. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • And that led to a fight leaving a member of the conclave with broken bones. Thanks, Tony, for the interesting reference. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

• Library card
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
• Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants

Assuming that you are Superman and knows everything of Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants... (In the unlikely case that I am wrong, I invite others to act as the all-knowing Superwomen or -men). But this template is going straight down to an edit war, as the other party claims "But in Zh-wiki also have a lot of details, why don't you cancel Zh-wiki? I just refer to Zh-wiki practise". I was flabbergasted when my reply "But this is the English language Wikipedia, with its own set of rules and regulations. What Zh-wiki does, has no influence on EN-wiki". I think I need help... The Banner talk 18:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• "The times of getting No.1
  The percentages of getting No.1 (%)" ? Huh? Drmies (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

According to the guy, you had damaged the template with you revert. I have added some explanation to his talkpage but the next time he reverts, I will request protection. The Banner talk 09:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It is better to add it, it is not details things, it can concentrate withdrawn competitors this row. If don't add it, it will misleading.特克斯特 (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That kind of details belongs to the articles of the actual competitions, not to a navigation template. The Banner talk 09:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

But the detailes have added into the articles, included the reason and influence of TV and competitors, but some competitors even not appeared on the TV, some said that he is competitors some said is not, so it is better to add it.特克斯特 (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not. A navigation template is for navigation only. It is no article. The Banner talk 09:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

But don't add the few words, it will misleading, it will Navigation error.特克斯特 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

What you added is not even proper English and completely irrelevant for a navigation-template. The Banner talk 15:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• OMG Banner this is getting out of hand. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No, there are relationship with the template, can show which singer withdraw the competitions, can know that he /she is not completely finish the competitions.特克斯特 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • You're going to get blocked for edit warring. Once that happens, or once you stop reverting, we'll explain this to you again, the difference between templates and articles. And what MOS:FLAG says. And how military folk who died in 220 don't participate in Singer 2017. And that we don't fill articles with trivia, and that proper English in our articles is a prerequisite. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

      Fictional military folk, even. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

      • This guy was in both, no? I need to read that romance. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

      • What is the trivia? Zhao Lei is a singer. The flags is help to distinguish the singer relationship. I am going to get blocked and I also going to release it.特克斯特 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
        • 特克斯特, click on the fucking link: Zhao Lei. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
          • Although the link is wrong, you also can see the article is it has this singer, your brain is fucking brain, totally stupid!特克斯特 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This guy really has no clue. Seems to think that we are his personal slaves now. NO WAY! The Banner talk 07:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not often you run into this level of cluelessness; he's heading for an indef if he keeps this up. Hey, Banner, at least I have a fucking brain, dude. Or my brain is fucking a brain? Anyway, don't respond to him, please. 特克斯特, one of the things I told you is that your English was problematic. I am in fact an English teacher, but I am not your English teacher. If you cannot figure out why this is a problem, you shouldn't be editing the English Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought is had to be written as SeaSon, as Son of the Sea? The Banner talk 19:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A question

I wanted to ask a question relating to talk pages. Firstly, feel free the refer me to another place to ask but i thought an admin/arb is as good a place as any to ask. But anyway, while i realise that users own their user talk pages to a degree and can demand others not post there, does that hold true for discussions under unblock requests? Obviously i was asked to do so and i will heed the request either way but i just did not know if it was actually permissable to ban others from commenting in said unblock discussions. So i got curious about that specific case but had no idea where to look for an answer. In a sense i could understand if it were ok to do so as it still is their user talk, yet in another it would seem sort of odd to be able to basically tell anyone noting behavioural issues and their potential/probable continuation to go away. The user asking me to stay away was indeffed for a whole alphabet soup of things and i gave my impression of the encounter, not that it matters to my question. So, are unban discussion still regular talk page territory or are they an exception and allow posting by anyone no matter if "talk page banned" or not? (in a reasonable way obviously) 91.49.65.186 (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Interesting. The funny thing is, last time I looked (but I may not have looked very well) there's no policy or guideline that says "Users are free to ban other users from their talk page"--but it's certainly common practice. From my point of view, I'd say yes, a blocked or banned user can ask another user to not post there, and I would block for it if a user kept pushing the point. I'd call it either harassment or disruption; probably the first. You're talking about the Joobo talk page--I looked and it reminded me of something, and then I realized I was the one who blocked them the first time around. Yeah, in such cases, as an admin I'd also urge you to stop; I see you said so, and that's a good thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, had not actually noticed that you did even haha. Probably should look at the block log better next time to not ask someone "involved" and be so obvious as to what/who i was refering to lol. Assumed my IP had changed a little again so it would not be in my contribs... alas it was. *note to self, be less obvious* Just thought of you as a helpful person and knowledgable of the rules. And yes, it is not about me wanting to keep on "bothering" him, just a general question that came to mind due to his request under the circumstance. As i said, i can see why it should be ok to demand it and reasons why it could be questionable to do so(only in specificaly the discussion under the unblock request of course). And as you noted there is no actual policy that i have seen in regards to talk page bans yet it still is a quite established process so i thought i would just ask because i was plain curious about it. But anyway, thank you for indulging my curiosity somewhat. Hope you did not mind me keeping names out of my question either, i prefer to keep questions mostly like that if i have some to not distract from the actual question and the like. Not about having my way in the end but genuine interest in the process. Might actually be a good idea to outline how exactly the talk page related things work so nosy people like me have somewhere to look but... not that important overall i guess or maybe it even exists and i just do not know about it. Have a good evening anyway and thank you again for the answer. 91.49.73.179 (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. Mind you, I'm usually fine with others trying to help others out; in this case, it seemed that they weren't really receptive to what you were offering. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Why?

Hi Doc, why did you delete my request here [3]? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Clicked the wrong button and couldn't leave a summary: "not enough recent disruption etc." Note I threw some warnings around--the IP is, I am sure, the same person as the account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Damn buttons. You have, like, a whole console with hundreds of them, right? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No--not really. The admin buttons are in a pull-down menu, the same you could have if you signed into your damn account. I got confused between the two rollbacks--we have one rollback that just rolls back, and another that allows you to choose between "rollback vandalism", "rollback AGF", and "rollback", and with the last one you can leave an edit summary. But if you look at someone's edit history, for the second set you don't have "rollback AGF". It's silly confusing for old people like me; I picked the one where I couldn't leave a summary. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this account, too [4]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for all of your work at AIV. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 02:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, thanks--but it's folks like the IP editor above who do the real work. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It's called Division of labour, huh?! We make the reports, you drink the coffee :p — fortunavelut luna

Message from metalreflectslime

Here is the source:

https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/education/students/highschool/olympiad/process/competitions/2016-usnco-program-summary.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalreflectslime (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Metalreflectslime, that is a primary source, and while it can be argued to verify that some of the information is true, maybe, it cannot help establish that it is of any encyclopedic value. This and other such articles contain way too much content that is of interest to the organization and its members but cannot be said to have encyclopedic value for a broader readership--and this is evidenced by the complete lack of secondary sourcing. I am going to revert, because at best the article is bloated with improperly or poorly verified information whose importance cannot be established; at worst, the article substitutes for the organization website. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Biology_Olympiad

The USA Biology Olympiad page has placings and medals of each member though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalreflectslime (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. That doesn't change anything, except that it means I'll be cleaning that up too, I guess. And please sign your messages on talk pages. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael Capponi

Hi Drimes,

I noticed that you removed about 11,000 characters on Amanda Bynes bio about her past drug use/arrests. On Michael Capponi's bio, you restore all the edits related to drug & alcohol use. On what basis do you decide whether or not it's ok to discuss past drug use, at length in a BLP? I think you are giving Michael Capponi's past drug use undue weight. Also, the early life section is not neutral at all. Could you please restore some of my edits? Thanks! SetTheRecord — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settherecord (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies would be too polite to mention it, but you are a single purpose account with a mission to set the record straight at a WP:BLP article. How do you think Wikipedia would look if every advocate with an ax to grind could perform whatever edits they wanted? Not going to happen. I know that your question is rhetorical, but in brief, if a person were only known for having a bad habit when young, they would not satisfy the notability policy and there would be no article. If a person is notable for some other reason, placing undue weight on bad habits is not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is worth remembering that a very great proportion of WP:SPAs editing WP:BLPs -- or complaining about them -- are doing so because other WP:SPAs have put questionable material in the BLP in question. Not always, of course, but often. Unfortunately, us regular editors who are not SPAs, do not do a very good job of making sure that questionable material is kept out of BLPs. MPS1992 (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Talk:Bob Masse, added yesterday. Just mentioning it in case the subject complains. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Got added to the article as well. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Short history: on July 14 I started to undo a mass of COI edits [5], involving the addition of promotional content and the removal of negative and well-sourced content. The article has been carefully maintained for several years by accounts who've admitted to their association with the subject, and for much of that time it's been a puff piece. The negative content can not, of course, violate WP:UNDUE, but there's a clear rationale for a proportional inclusion of content related to Mr. Capponi's drug addiction and youthful friendship with Chris Paciello: Mr. Capponi has spoken openly and been quoted frequently regarding these issues. They are part of the public record, in large part because of his--admirable, I think--transparency. This isn't something a public relations team can retroactively erase, and it's the reason I've asked Drmies and others for oversight. There need to be eyes on the article. Always. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Settherecord, remember when you said that I was a paid operative, that someone was paying me to edit Wikipedia in this way or that? Do you seriously expect me to discuss something in a reasonable fashion with someone who said that? But I didn't restore much, as far as I know--what I've been doing in the Capponi article is take out fluff that someone with an obvious COI had been sticking in there, someone who didn't know much about Wikipedia and didn't care much. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And spelt your name wrong, Drimes. — fortunavelut luna 14:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the analogy with Busta Rhymes is obvious, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Drimes, What's interesting is when you "removed the COI edits from Capponi's article" you added bits about his past drug use, a mob association, a DUI, him being homeless. You did extensive research, and purchased books. When you were accused of being a Beiderman shill you edited Dan Biederman's arcticle and removed some PR fluff. You didn't add any negative information about him to his article. I just find that curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settherecord (talk • contribs) 04:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Settherecord, you are such a fool. Tell me where I added or reinserted negative information about your friend in this edit. Indeed, find where I added anything to the article in this series. That stuff was already there--and it was properly verified. "I find that curious"--you should really look more carefully, in the article and in the mirror. And "when you were accused..."--that was you doing the accusing. You still haven't taken it back, though you still have no evidence. Drmies (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

When I said you, I meant you along with the other the editors- Torando Chase, Dianna, etc. To find an exact list of names, check the Michael Capponi article revision history. On June 14th the same editor who trashed his page, made edits to Dan Biederman's page. Of course these editors could be Dan Biederman himself and all of his wikipedia friends. The date of Biederman's article creation matches the time most of these editors have been on wiki.

• Right. So we're all in it together. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC). 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.

regarding previous discussion from a couple weeks ago. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• That is SO exciting! Oh, I think I know what this is about. I hope it's good news! Drmies (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

PolyGram

Hi Dr, can you protect this again, perhaps for a longer stretch? Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Do we know who this jackass is? Drmies (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a clue. Just noticed that protection had ended and the fun resumed. Sorry to interrupt while you're in the middle of other editing, so your assistance is even more appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh I was kind of done with that article anyway--poor article, poor situation. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Then you'll love this edit history. Samuelsshan (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

How'd you do that [6]? That's just creepy. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I look at Recent changes with eyes similar to yours. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So I figured. Gimlet eyed. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Unite the Right rally

Collision is pushing a neutral point of view as WP:BLPCRIME instructs us to. "Attack" is a violation of policy. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)