User talk:Drmies

"Drmies is the only rational editor here."

Note to self

Category:Articles with a promotional tone from December 2017

Compuserve!

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.

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Richard Witschge

Hey there, how's it going? Hopefully well...

Just finished cleaning up/sourcing more this article, but can not quite properly translate the reference #13 (hopefully, all the other in Dutch i translated well)... And this, my dear wiki-friend, is where you come in if you please!

Continue the odissey, pleasant and stormy, regards from Portugal --Quite A Character (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, Witschge! Haven't thought about him in ages. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• You know I'm still wanting to visit you in Portugal, right? I don't care what season. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Well, you did ask....
Message added 15:01, 23 October 2018 (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.

GAB^gab 15:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Restoring trolling means you own it

I have a lot of respect for you, but you should stay out of areas you don't know or care to know about. [1] 72bikers lost their talkpage access because they restored that attack post, after I replaced it with "personal attack removed". They regularly clear their talkpage but preserve attacks against me there since April 2018 while insisting I can't post any response. You reposted that nonsense, so effectively you made it yourself. Would you appreciate me posting a bunch of lies about you? Would you appreciate an Admin coming by and making such a post about you? Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• If you do that on your own talk page, and what you say isn't racist or whatever, yeah, I couldn't care less. And no, I didn't "make it myself" but if that makes you feel better, sure. BTW they really told you to stay away? And you didn't? You know we block for that, right? Drmies (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  (talk page stalker)I was recently described as a "horrible admin". I feel kinda proud of that. I worry little about what a problematical editor thinks. And I certainly don't brawl with them on their talk pages. I would ignore them and let them alone. They've got enough trouble.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Exactly. What's funny, though, is that I just ran into Legacypac, where they had the misfortune of running into a sock of a particularly d-baggy editor, on Talk:Corporation--in 2013. These socks are persistent. Now, Dlohcierekim, reliable sources say I'm the only rational editor here, so there you go--and since I don't think you're that horrible, I'm going to leave the place to you for the night. Or you can hand over to Cullen328, if he's already up from his post-lunch nap. BTW, a little birdie asked me if there were editors around who'd be good RfA candidates. Any thoughts? Drmies (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Drimes not only restored the attack that 72bikers lost his talkpage access over, and added on the suggestion I did something wrong. Drimes has no business reposting lies about me. Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, as Elsa (or the other one?) famously said, "Let it go". Drmies (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Since even Drimes is not immune from making mistakes, might as well nominate me for Admin. I've got a hell of a track record on cleanup and my block log is proof even some of the most well known Admins make really stupid mistakes. I'm a little sensitive to being pushed around but that will change when I get Super Mario powers because I'll not care anymore. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

See that is the issue, you have to start by not caring. PackMecEng (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, I recommend that you cool down and read Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be). Then listen to the song, about seven times. Calm down and move on. That editor is blocked for a month (though I concede that Drmies has asked for clemency). Upon unblocking, I recommend that they stay away from you and you stay away from them. As for the severity of the personal attack, gimme a break. He called you a liar? Some creep threatened to kill my infant granddaughter for some routine Wikipedia editing that I did. He even attached a photo of her to the threat. As for you, Drmies, you know how cute my granddaughter is. I am 66 and self employed. There are days when I work hard three hours and then take a nap. I am the boss. Today was not such a day. My son and I completed a difficult project near Stanford University. That involved about six hours of driving and five hours of hard work. So, no nap for me today. Next week, maybe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure your grandkid is cute. I'm not heated up at all. As a responsible editor who has a deep understanding of the issues they cause from dealing with them for 6 months, I'm a useful part of the solution. I dislike Admins that assume BOTH regular editors are part of the problem and NO Admin ever is. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, the grandkid is adorable. In my case, it's my daughter who is threatened by various trolls, and one of our LTAs wrote to denounce me to the president of the university system, the chancellor of my campus, and my various other bosses. It took me a few days with HR to convince them that it was just a disgruntled idiot. So being called "liar" really means little, in the scheme of things. If you run for admin, and you get those special glasses, you can read the rev-deleted items in my talk page and user page history, for shits and giggles. And then imagine how much worse it gets if one is an editor or admin with color and/or without penis, cause comparatively speaking Cullen and I have it easy. User:Dlohcierekim, I see those names. Hickory is on a roll. Binksternet is an old-timer with solid knowledge. CLCStudent is in the Hickory/Oshwah category, as far as I know, and shows good judgment too. Serial Number probably has too good a sense of humor to ever make it through RfA, but I'd support them. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Admin candidates-- we have many that would do a great job. None I'd subject to an RfA in it's present condition. HickoryOughtShirt?4, Binksternet, CLCStudent, Home Lander, Robert McClenon (tried not long ago) and Serial Number 54129 all come readily to mind. Trouble is if your RfA fails, you are required to wait like 20 years before you try again. I'd hate to ruin someone's chances by having them try too early.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What PackMecEng said--. Even back when I was an aspiring Admin candidate and it was fairly easy, one needed to demonstrate the ability to rise above the unhappy aspersions of those editors who have problems working in a collaborative environment. Not brawling and knowing when to drop the stick and knowing that opinions are like anuses-- everyone has one and some of them stink-- and we still need to accept that and move on. You need a certain centeredness within yourself or else the pressures of the job will crush you. Non admins have no idea how stressful this job can be. Because you are under much greater scrutiny as an admin and you have to maintain the trust of the community to remain credible. That does not mean other editors are going to agree with you all the time and it does not mean some are not going to be very unhappy as they Monday morning quarterback your decisions. And resent you because the community may not be as incensed over your decisions as they are.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course you can be part of the solution, Legacypac, but I suggest that you should shed this kind of "liar" comment like water off a duck's back. Focus on what is truly disruptive to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, IP shenanigans continue at Corporation. More eyes, please. bd2412 T 11:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:BD2412, I blocked that most recent IP--obvious evasion from the same sock. I don't have much time right now. User:Dlohcierekim, I think you're smarter than I am: could you have a look to see if there's ranges that can be blocked, if there's proxying going on, etc.? Link to the SPI is on the talk page, and the history of talk page and article will give you some of the IPs. Or, if you think that's wiser, semi-protect either one? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the whole thread, for reasons given in the really long edit summary. Just posting here to clarify that when I said I'd block indef if this is restored, I'm obviously talking about 72bikers, not you Drmies. You, I'd only block 2 weeks. 3 tops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, I trust and accept your judgment. I hope 72bikers sees the light--I am sure you offered some advice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Alas and alack, I never mastered the skill of rangeblocking. The math makes me cross eyed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Only You (Cheat Codes and Little Mix song)

Regarding to the revert you made on this article because the IP think it's the same Yazoo song which it isn't according to other editors, it looks like someone is doing the same thing on LM5 (album). Do you think you have time to look through the article and maybe protect the article? Thanks. Raritydash (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

• Library Card translation
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

I thought I'll never get out of that lunatic's face!UltimateHope (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm yes, sure--but you can't go around calling people lunatics here, and you can always disengage... Drmies (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I never go beyond WP:1RR with lunatics. Oh, and I try not to call them lunatics anyway. It's such hard work! Gotta keep an eye out for the position of the moon at all times. MPS1992 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Good point. Let me check. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Guess what, MPS1992--they were both socks. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Of each other? And the check-user gadget proves this using lunar observations? So bizarre. The Goonies is on television right now, also. MPS1992 (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
        • No, not of each other, though that's happened. As a CU myself I prefer solar observation, but I'm an outlier. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Schmerling Caves

I did a quick editing pass. Mostly the meaning seems clear. A bit more context, past controversy, and modern commentary would be nice additions. I assume those were not in the original French article. It's probable that much of the past discussion is in French and/or Dutch instead of English, which means I can't help with finding it. I'll make sure this page gets added to the list of fossil sites (notable hominin finds are still included in that list, though an argument could be made for spinning them off into their own list.). Thanks for thinking of me! Elriana (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, thank you--I love hearing from the experts. Yes, all this is straight from the French article: I haven't even looked at the sources yet, except for the two database entries (I'm kind of interested in the quarry too--I am not interested, really, in translating the articles on those official cultural heritage classifications, since that's so technical and boring...). I just discovered User:Fraenir/Missing Europe, which is a fascinating list, and Fraenir already added it to one of the relevant templates (thanks!). But yes, I may just browse around a bit more to see if I can find more material, maybe get it on the front page. Again, thank you so much, and I hope I can call on you again next time. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Paul Butler (professor)

It was proving a bore to ref every scholarly article on this page so when you block-deleted I thought meh. I can't help thinking though that the list you deleted covers a helluva lot of his work over the years, as listed here. He's also written a lot more books than the two mentioned, so I'll list those, but I think his scholarly stuff is as likely to be as interesting, (if readily accessible), as his books. Perhaps reconsider? Mark^Dask 03:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• The thing is, books are reviewed, and thus can be listed with secondary sourcing--both in principle and in practice. Articles typically can not, unless it's frequently cited and thus acquires a noteworthiness that can be verified. Moreover, how long was that list? Three dozen articles? Imagine listing every article a journalist has written, or every poem a poet published in a literary journal. For people in the sciences, who frequently co-author papers, that can be dozens a years. Moreover, any one of those articles will resemble a resume (or tenure file) more than an encyclopedic article. The better route is this, in the text, "Professor X published a ground-breaking article on ____ in [date], a frequently cited article that led to ________"--with "ground-breaking" and "frequently cited" verified by secondary sourcing. A list of publications does no one any good, except for the article's subject. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies - I knew I didn't like lists and now I know why . Mark^Dask 01:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha. I actually do like them, if they're all formatted the same way, and you were doing a really nice job. I thought about these things long and hard, and the above sort of summarizes my conclusion. There are some articles I just don't want to look at, since I'd have to clean them up and thus make people feel bad. But we just cannot have all these resumes up here. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

More r/d?

Please take a look at these and see if they merit removal. Best wishes for your and your families Halloween week. MarnetteD|Talk 02:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. That range was one of those webhost shitholes long used by racists, and I've blocked it for a long time. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome and thank you for removing that crapola. MarnetteD|Talk 03:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you "take the guesswork out of dry, sensitive skin"

... but I think this might be a different "Drmies". Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ha! Probably more profitable than my line of work, which is to get under people's skin. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Why just the other day Doc was talking about lotions and having soft feet again: User talk:Drmies/Archive 105#An article possibly related to your area of expertise. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, that's true, I remember that. Thank you. As it happens, I can do with some tender foot care--unfortunately the WMF budget has set nothing aside for that. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

    Hmm, I heard the WMF is running a wishlist. If you do wish for tender foot care.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Bought the farm

I recently came across an editor called Bought the farm; noticing that they seemed to be advocating for some rather outside-the-mainstream viewpoints related to the whole mail bomber thing, I thought I'd speak to them on their talk page. However, once there, I noticed that you had imposed discretionary sanctions for them for all US post-1932 political topics; I felt that, given the bomber's apparent motivations, this certainly applied, and thus thought I would let you know. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and they have a special focus on defending and pushing conspiracy theories. They need a topic ban on that topic, as their influence is clearly for WP:Advocacy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked this editor for a week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We need another Trump-focused editor like we need a hole in the head. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, now you are being quoted by one of the most extreme Trump supporters. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Dang it BullRangifer Wikipedia is not a battleground. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

How true. Here's the issue. We don't allow advocacy of fringe POV. If an editor's comments and editing are backed by RS, then there's no problem, but this BS isn't good, and defending it isn't good either. You need to think twice about whom and what behaviors you're defending, because defending this type of stuff is using Wikipedia as a battleground for fringe advocacy. Defending RS and the integrity of Wikipedia is not battleground behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I am going to leave it here out of respect for Drmies but you really should review WP:BATTLEGROUND. Calling other editors extremists is not exactly civil and could be seen as a personal attack. PackMecEng (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Softlavender, "Trump-focused" is one thing--and it's not the same as "Trump-obsessed", for instance. We need Trump-focused editors, just like we need speleology-focused and math-focused editors. BullR, I wish you hadn't brought Winkelvi into this matter, since I really don't want to make this a two-way street. Winkelvi is either focused on you (and your fellow travelers) or on me, and I find both options to be distasteful, but I don't need to be reminded of it. And yes, please don't go around calling other editors extremists, certainly not on my talk page (which is, as you know, a happy place)--thanks. Moreover, I've blocked many an editor for POV editing, and whatever you want to say about Winkelvi, they're not that bad. AGF please. PackMecEng, thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't bring Winkelvi into this conversation; his talkpage quoting me was linked by Bullrangifer, so I'm guessing your comment was addressed to him. Yes, obsessed is a better word. Softlavender (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Now evading block as IP . BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty of blocking the IP for 72 hours.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Please see my note at User talk:Bought the farm, Cullen328. I think Drmies narrowed the ban to only apply to BLPs in American politics. Drmies? Bishonen | talk 09:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC).
  • Commented there, Bish. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Drmies is the only rational editor here. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC).
      • And yet I can only dream of attaining Bishness. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

While I hate to change the topic (who am I kidding, I love changing topics), this is a reminder to Drmies that ArbCom elections are upcoming and not to forget to nominate themselves if they intend to run again. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Drmies a "they" now? Is that a distancing, overly formal "they", a rhetorical, talking-about-user-in-the-third-person-while-on-their-usertalk "they", an I-have-no-idea-what-this-user's-gender-is "they", a politically correct "they", or a let's-assuage-Drmies'-gender-sensibilities "they"? Softlavender (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, like I'd stand a chance! YOU should run, K-stick. Everybody loves you, you are a hard worker, you're smart. Run plz. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You're kidding right, I have barely been around all year. Will see what the next two years bring, but for sure not this year. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Head of State being disputed

If you can, please review Talk: Monarchy of Australia, which requires an appropriate response. Travelmite (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. If you have a problem with the removal of that text, why don't you restore it? Maybe it was an accident. And it wasn't much, right? Just this, "PS: Note a related to this matter was held over 2 years ago at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics Archive 17. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)"? GoodDay, am I missing something? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Earlier, I started an Rfc at Monarchy of Australia. About 20 minutes later, Skyring began an Rfc there, on the same topic. I then merged the two Rfcs into one. Then Skyring made adjustments to it, while in the process deleting my link to the 2016 Rfc at WP:POLITICS. I since made another link to the 2016 Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Travelmite suspects that Skyring deleted my link (a Rfc that ended in 2016 in a way that Skyring didn't liked) deliberately, while making the adjustments. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, thank you. Travelmite, does this satisfy? Drmies (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay is substantially correct. I drafted and published an RfC on the topic, but took some time to hit the Go button. There was a cockatoo outside my window clamouring for breakfast, for example. We found ways to merge the two RfCs. I don't think I deleted any reference to the one two years earlier specifically, and I think it is useful to have that as a current reference to this one which is in an Australian context. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

AH THE OLD 'THE COCKATOO DID IT'. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I have carefully avoided any hint of discussing motivation. We had an RfC directly about Australia in 2016, which concluded that "Head of State" was a correct term. Earlier more contentious disputes are recorded. Today (30-October) there were seven edits to remove the words Head of State [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] along with several kilobytes other material deleted. In some cases paragraphs were removed but "head of state" removed in the same edit elsewhere. GoodDay made effort to warn an early stage. GoodDay asks "if I opened an Rfc here & the overwhelming result was to have head of state ... would you still delete it?". You can see the responses. Regarding the questions of me in your response, it's not for me to say. Let's establish that Wikipedia has the issue, not individuals. We had an RfC with a large number of contributors, who resolved something. If that resolution is meaningless, then so will be the next round. Pointless for any rational person to be involved. So may we return to whether today's effort requires any response. Travelmite (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

58.10.107.109

found another one... look at the contribs... Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry clicked the rollback tooooooooooooo fast.... Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl

Jacob Wohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This (person of a variety of questionable decisions) has made the news again. [10] Do you think it's worth re-creating the article? I'd rather not myself, I'm not sure I can handle the volume of alcohol to deal with that level of stupidity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's funny. He's on TV right now, and so is his mother. No, don't do it. It's just a blimp in a news cycle. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A blimp or a zeppelin? Rest assured I'm not going to start it, though someone else possibly will; this is enough coverage to plausibly ignore two AfDs (one of which you started). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh I did? See, I am not always wrong, even though rumor has it some think you are more level-headed than you think. BTW "idiot" is a BLP violation. I'll let it slide because I am not actually convinced he's a real LP. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Are you watching the same thing I am? That Eric Swalwell is a goodlooking fellow. He should run for office. He's no Cory Booker, but still, he looks better than Steve King. And the good thing right now is that this is an interview, so that windbag talk show host can't be talking non-stop and can't do His. Pregnant. Pauses. And Emphasisthings. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I've either missed something or misspoken; the only thing I meant to referred to as idiocy was the state I'd need to be in to want to edit on this topic. And, sadly, I'm getting close. Also, I'm not watching Cable News, I've been having fun live-blogging the Home Shopping Network on IRC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
          • When you say "live-blogging [a television channel] on IRC", I don't even know what you are saying. I should retire from the internet. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Right on. OK, third cable channel program in a row to talk about the boy and his mother and the Grand Scheme. No wonder we get anything done here if we keep focusing on small fry. OMG these are some pompous asses on MSNBC (not Rachel Maddow...). Cullen328, is that a BLP violation? If the dude says "our lead-off panel on a Tuesday evening" I'm changing the channel. I'd rather watch The Voice, whatever that is. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
            • If you're interested in hearing more about a 78-piece flatware set (only $120 for the next hour), read Wikipedia:IRC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Not right now. I'm totally smitten with Ashley Parker, so much so that I can temporarily overcome my aversion to Brian Williams. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
                • Well, if you're willing to take the risk of having to pay $499.99 for this 78-piece flatware set (and want to hear about Roger Stone), go for it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If "pompous ass" about someone unnamed was a BLP violation on talk pages, it would be very difficult to discuss public figures in general on talk pages. Yeah, I've still got a grudge against Brian Williams. For some reason, the Brit word "presenter" comes to mind. But he is making his amends. As for Ashley Parker, I find myself quite infatuated with all intelligent, articulate women who offer insightful critiques of the "state of our nation". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• We have made such great strides since five, ten, twenty years ago, when it was all white dudes commenting on TV. Ha, the thing that gets me now is that all these smart people are YOUNGER THAN ME! And probably smarter too. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If they are younger than you, then they are far younger than me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • If it's a hydrogen filled Zeppelin, it could be brought down with roman candle's. That would be pretty. Of course, it it is lead, it would be impervious to many things, including bullets.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I find this sort of thing fascinating -- although I recently realized that not everyone does. Wikipedia says "Contrary to expectation, it was not easy to ignite the hydrogen using standard bullets and shrapnel. The Allies only started to exploit the Zeppelin's great vulnerability to fire when a combination of Pomeroy and Brock explosive ammunition with Buckingham incendiary ammunition was used in fighter aircraft machine guns during 1916". MPS1992 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Now I'm getting it--blimp/blip. Drmies is a bit slow these days. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, it was really annoying and a wee bit worrying! I realise you have a job to do, not an easy one, and that's why I'd never want to be an admin. Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Your edit...

Thanks for this edit, and for the subsequent translation. While it was obvious that this was not in English, not sure any non-French speaker could identify that this was in French language... Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, I guess that was my Eurocentrism speaking. Nice to meet you, by the way. You've been here as long as God, it seems to me, and yet I don't think I ever ran into you. I hope the welcoming committee for my talk page showed you to the refreshments? It's 9:35 CST, so that's coffee and cake. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lucretia Wilhelmina van Merken

Hello! Your submission of Lucretia Wilhelmina van Merken 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) 00:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Jessup (artist)

Hello, I would agree that he does not fit the conventional description of an artist... certainly not 'fine arts' anyway. Could, or should, the page be moved to (say) 'businessman'? Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Elephant2019

Hi Drmies and Drmies' talk page watchers. I'm wondering whether there's any need for concern about Elephant2019's continued editing of User:MikutronixX3535. I asked Elephant2019 why they are doing this at User talk:Elephant2019#Edits to User:MikutronixX3535 but never got a response. The edits have continued as before, but it's still not clear if this is intended be a draft or is just a case of unintentional WP:NOTWEBHOST. At first, I thought it might be a case of an editor creating an account, forgetting the password, and then creating a new account; Elephant2019, however, is the older of the two and MikutronixX3535 has just made a handful of edits. Neither account seems to have ever been blocked, so the editing doesn't seem to be a case of trying to use one for EVADE. I kind of forgot about this until c:User talk:Elephant2019#File:LargeEggError.jpg was added to User:MikutronixX3535 with this edit. While the other edits to MikutronixX3535's user page might be OK to a degree, adding copyright violating files (even if done in good faith) is not really a good idea. There are also some external links to YouTube, etc. which have been added which might need to be checked as well. Anyway, I just figured some more experienced editors might be able to suggest whether any further action is needed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Racial views of Donald Trump article

Would you please take a look at the Mein Kamph addition to the Racial views of Donald Trump article. It was first added to the lead, I removed it and placed a note on the talk page. It has been reinserted into the body of the article. I don't feel it to be appropriate and actually am surprised that no editor has backed me up on that. I especially hate to see it in the article because it has been mentioned on Jimbo's talk page and perhaps will draw more viewings. See what you think, I guess I could be wrong. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Gandydancer, you mean this? Yeah, that's totally unacceptable, and I'm glad to see Objective3000 did the right thing--thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ya know, I really have to wonder if the Trump editors/watchers might be getting snowed under due to the incredible amount of noteworthy news this man is creating. Things that would likely end another politician's career and be well-covered here are hardly covered by the press for more than a day because the next outrageous event takes place. And of course here, due to sheer numbers, we skip them completely. I continue to watch over Melania, zero tolerance, and environmental articles, and racial Trump as well, but I assumed there to be others from the original group that mostly wrote it - but it seems that they must have fallen away with so much else on their to-do list. I'll begin to watch it with the idea that I need to step in right away and get backup from you or others as needed - since it seems you have a well-watched talk page of ultra-smart people. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Gee, you sound surprised I did the right thing. Kinda like when I get my physical and my doctor says “you’re healthy”, with an accent on the second syllable and curved eyebrows. I was right once before. I told Caesar to read the damn scroll and stay out of the Senate. No one listens. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just wait until you get your physical and any good news ends with "...for your age." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Shatta Wale

Hey Drmies, if you get some free time soon, would you be able to take a look at Shatta Wale and expunge some of the most obvious puff piece material? I've tried but looks like there's one editor in particular named Wells.grace who is a big fan of the artist and continues to hype them up every time they edit, and who has removed maintenance templates twice now from the article. The lead is way too long, the article contains a lot of poorly written prose and it's just not an encyclopedic tone. Thanks if you can help. Ss112 19:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• no free time, Ss112, but I did trim 25% off the article. Now I want to hear some reggae. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• OK never mind. I'd rather hear, eh, 2Live Crew, and I can't stand them. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Psalm 133

On 5 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Psalm 133, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the complete Psalm 131 and the first verse of Psalm 133 in Hebrew comprise the text of the last movement of Chichester Psalms by Leonard Bernstein? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 133. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Psalm 133), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparent sock engaging in edit warring, disruption, original research, probable COI

Hey Drmies, I thought an admin ought to have eyes on this: while doing some pending changes reviews a few moments back, I reverted an edit by a user (their first made after registering) at Balloon boy hoax. The article has apparently been page protected because of persistent efforts to shape the narrative of the article such as to provide a more sympathetic view to the subjects of that article; looking at the edit history, it seems this is just the latest in a number of SPAs (which I would suspect are COI editors as well) making similar edits recently, a sockmaster apparently jumping from one new account to another, making a single edit which gets promptly reverted, and then trying the same trick a few weeks or a month later. In this case I reverted (without yet being aware of the history described above) because the "sources" in question were youtube videos that did not pass RS muster, and it was clear that this was likely to be a controversial change. I then immediately received a hostile PA on my talk page from the editor in question: [11], followed by another bizarre edit which I can only assume was an oblivious effort to hide their tracks [12]. This looks like blatant socking, likely by a COI editor--but in any event, involving disruption and CIR issues. Not sure if it will go anywhere, given how little sticking power the efforts under previous accounts have had, but I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention all the same. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry to trouble you, Longhair has already observed the matter. Thanks for the quick response, Longhair. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It's been years since I looked at it--what a mess. Glad the problem is taken care of. Thanks to Longhair as well. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The second hot air balloon related thread on your talk page in recent days! Perhaps it is the way forward! See Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304/Airlander 10 although, with almost all of its flights ending in crashes -- none mentioned in the lede -- perhaps it isn't the way forward! MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that was such a happening thing. The See also list was enlightening. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Dominik Bartmanski

It's a different article now. Check out the reviews here. Do you feel it has improved enough for you to withdraw your nomination? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Philafrenzy; that's a nice list and it suggests notability for the book. The person, that's another matter (and I see you added the subject's journal articles, which is a feature of resume-style articles), and I think this should be brought up at the AfD, where User:Piotrus has already commented. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

All academic bios should include the subject's publications including journal articles or a sample if they are numerous. It's a standard feature of such articles. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No they shouldn't, and no it's not. That's what academia.edu is for. And tenure applications. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)