Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 04:33, 17 August 2015 (→‎In your abundant spare time...: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Template:NoBracketBot

Don't club me plz

Comment

Drmies, i just wanted to say that i appreciated your kind note to DeBerryTexas. Soham321 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking

You're an admin. You know that blanking on a 1RR page without discussion on talk is disruptive. If you want to propose article improvements discuss on Talk:Center for Medical Progress (political organization). Do not violate 1RR. -- Callinus (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice on whether to report potential edit warring

I would like to ask your advice on whether or not I should report Ring Cinema for edit warring, since his editing may not explicitly violate the 3RR, but as I understand it you have had to warn him for edit warring before (around September 19, 2014 that was not an explict violation of that rule. The edits in question revolve around two Michael Caine films, Deathtrap (film) and Sleuth (1972 film) Two days ago I added a sentence to the leads of both of these article noting the similarities of these films, and providing citations of reviews by Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin that explicitly mention the similarities between these films, as well as three published books that mention the similarities. Yesterday Ring Cinema repeatedly reverted these changes on the Deathtrap article. At that point, I attempted to start a discussion with him. Since then, he has reverted the change again. This is his third revert. His first revert was 16:25, 4 August 2015‎, and his last revert was 16:51, 5 August 2015‎. At 16:51, 5 August 2015, he also reverted the almost exact same sentence in the Sleuth article. So while it's two different articles, it is the exact same issue with the exact same editors in the two articles, and he is at 4 reverts of it in barely over 24 hours. This feels like edit warring if not a cut-and-dried violation of 3RR. I have opened a discussion of the content dispute on WP:DRN, but do you think I should also go to ANI/3rr? Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I responded on Winkelvi's talk page. Hope it's of some use to you. I'd check the edit myself, but it's time for a dip in the pool. Admin privilege, you know. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it is helpful, I appreciate it. After reviewing WP:FILMLEAD I got an idea of how I could change my sentence so that it does double duty of talking about critic reaction, which WP:FILMLEAD encourages in the lead, while acknowledging that part of the critics' reaction was to note similarities to the other film. My hope is that Ring Cinema will recognize that as a reasonable compromise, so I'm going to wait and see, and not take further action unless he starts reverting again. I also think if I do have to go to the edit warning ANI board, it'll show I was making good-faith efforts to find a middle ground, not just reverting back and forth. Thanks again. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he has decided to persist in reverting on both pages, so I have decided to go ahead and file a report. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deep concerns about problematic editing/potential propaganda efforts on an ISIL-related article

Hey Drmies, I'm bringing this to you as the issue at hand strikes me as urgent and possibly representative of a major abuse of an article by an extremist group, but my time today is extremely constrained, so I'm looking for some administrative input here in how best to address the matter. This issue concerns Military activities of ISIL and what I fear may be sock-puppet supported efforts to force content into it which glamourizes the organization and their military strength and influence. Over the last couple of days, user LightandDark2000 has re-introduced a lot of content that was previously removed to bring the article in line with encyclopedic tone, and contested a clear consensus on the renaming of the article.

I left the majority of his reverts unchanged until I have time to RfC them or otherwise invite comment to a talk page that has been very quiet since the changes LightandDark is reverting or contesting were first implemented. But one seemed so obviously and completely in contradiction of basic and unambigous policies on what constitutes encyclopedic summary of a topic and the format that content ought to take, that I reverted it back to the stable version and then went to the talk page to post a thread on the issue. Within a moment, while I was composing that thread, the change was reverted by "another" editor with a name strikingly similar to that of LightandDark2000 (LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774). Aside from the similarity of the names and the fact that the revert came instantly, my suspicions are heightened further by the fact that LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 shows detailed understanding of policy despite the fact that the account is not yet two months old and the content of their user page doesn't do a whole lot in assuring me as to their neutral point of view on the topic of Islamist movements.

I think there's more than enough to pass the duck test here, and normally I'd take this to SPI, but for two critical factors. One, my time for pursuing that course and presenting the requisite argument and investigation into the account (which from a cursory examination do seem to be concerned with largely the same general type of topic) is incredibly limited just now. The other factor is the seriousness of the circumstances and the possibility that one of our articles might be co-opped by an extremist group with a massive and aggressive online presence in order to exalt it's military strength for those who would be drawn to such a display; certainly the edit in question seems to me to be a kind of military fetishism that goes well beyond what we accept even for our articles on formal militaries that dwarf ISIL in scope.

Under the circumstances, I was considering taking the matter and my concerns directly to ANI, so that others with more time than I have at present might look into the issue in detail -- so the entire purpose of my post here and elucidating the details of the matter is to get your impression on whether you thought I'd be jumping the gun in doing so. Normally I'd wait days or weeks through the content dispute process (or at least pursue a sock investigation) before even considering such a move, but given the profile of the article and the nature of the content, my thinking is that every moment it stays up represents a significant issue for the integrity of the project and the possibility that we are being leveraged to try to legitimize the group, at least insofar as celebrating their military strength by representing in in a non-neutral and non-encyclopedic fashion. Any advice would be appreciated. Snow let's rap 23:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting, Snow Rise. Ha, "military fetishism"--don't let the folks at MILHIST hear that term. (I sure hope The ed17 is not listening.) Personally I think that such a list is indeed just that, but if other, comparable articles have it, well, then military fetishism is wiki-allowed. (Ed, is this accepted widely?) Now, if there's a clear consensus, somewhere on the talk page, reverting "per consensus" is fine--"stable version" is, for better or for worse, not widely accepted, as I'm sure you understand.

    The socking business is probably more straightforward and you could simply file an WP:SPI, briefly present some behavioral evidence (and you want to look for similar phrasing, similar edit summaries, same sources, same spelling habits, etc.) and ask for CU to look into it. That may take a day or two (or three, if Bbb23 and Ponyo haven't returned from their tryst in the South Pacific, or wherever CUs go), but if it turns out your hunch was right then the sock will be blocked and the master too--and if the master isn't blocked, at least they will have lost all credibility.

    That's two cents. I'm working on a big plate of sweet potatoes and hot sauce, with pulled pork and jalapenos, and will be glad to look more carefully in a little bit. This is important enough for us to pay attention to. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, there's this. BTW, all those flags--that's fetishism too, as if weapons somehow "represent" the countries they were made in. It's like the Olympics of guns. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for an SPI--this is a ridiculous amount of overlap, considering the Limitations account is what, two weeks old. And I think they might be playing good hand, bad hand on Light's talk page. Go ahead and file it, and ask for CU. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Thanks for the attention and the advice. As you feel that SPI is a better first step than ANI, I'll proceed in that fashion and try to find time to format and open the request later tonight or tomorrow morning. I do have a concern that if this is a socking issue and an effort at direct propaganda -- and to be clear, I'm not certain that even if it is that the parties in question would be directly involved with ISIL; I AGF on the intent of any parties for the moment -- but were it a matter of socking by someone working on that group's behalf, I should think they would have the technical skills necessary to complicate a CU. But I suppose that doesn't mean it shouldn't come first in any event. As to the military fetishism aspect, I don't think that all of this content needs to necessarily go away part and parcel; I proposed on the talk page that it be summarized in prose and that this, depending on how it was approached, would likely constitute useful and neutrally-presented information for our readers. But these massive tables, complete with images for every form of armament, large or small, that any single source has speculated ISIL might have, are way overboard and, I suspect, meant to sell an image of righteous warriors, and I know of no article under the umbrella of MILHIST that uses this approach, even those for major modern militaries. There's a few different sections that violate WP:PROSE that LightandDark2000 is reverting back into the article, but these are the most problematic. Snow let's rap 00:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. And meating is a possibility too, of course. Perhaps (since Ed hasn't shown up--perhaps his bike had a flat tire) you can leave a note on the MILHIST talk page. And perhaps sourcing is a serious problem as well. I mean, if basically all your organization does is steal other people's shit, we might as well list all the shit in the world, no? My typical advice in such cases, if we want to AGF and call it a simple content dispute, is to get an RfC, a decent and clear consensus on the talk page, and take it from there. Good luck with it, and keep me posted if you like. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but there's some obvious problems here, if you get your stuff by stealing it (at least partly). Really? Y'all are cool with those lists, with pictures and all? Who writes these articles and sets these guidelines, Ed? Thirteen-year olds who still play with their plastic war toys? (I always thought the MP44 was the coolest gun in the world.) And I'm glad you got some exercise--editing Wikipedia makes one pudgy, as my doctor indicated today. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The ed17:, a few thoughts in this context. A) the reason that there is no "Military of ISIS" article is because consensus from recurrent discussion on the topic has consistently found that this would be in blatant violation of WP:V/WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT; there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of sources on the topic of ISIS, and yet it's almost impossible to find a reference which represents a WP:RS that classifies their fighting force as a military; they are referenced as militants or terrorists primarily and a whole slew of other terminology but (presumably because the world community and nearly all sources do not consider ISIL a state) their armed wing is not regarded or referenced as a military, by either primary or secondary sources.
B) What other military articles contain lists of this nature, other than those for which the explicit topic is military hardware. We're not talking about an article like List of assault rifles, which is 1) a list article and 2) specifically about military hardware. We're talking about a military force, and as far as I've been able to discern, there isn't a single article on this manner of topic on all of en.wikipedia that contains such an exhaustive list. Let's look at our articles for the worlds top ten largest militaries: Military of the United States, Military of Russia, Military of China, Military of Saudi Arabia, Military of the United Kingdom, Military of South Korea, Military of Germany, Military of Japan, Military of France, and Military of India. These are all high-quality articles on important topics of deep interest to a great many of our readers and editors and correspondingly they are massive, including in-depth detail on these institutions, but not a single one of them attempts the kind of exhaustive list-style approach of detailing their armaments in the non-contextual and military "eye-candy" approach of the content which this editor is trying to force into the ISIL article. And as well they should not. These articles are meant to supply an encyclopedic and neutral summary of these armed forces and their social and military relevance as human institutions, not revel in the minutia of their hardware in a manner that is quite clearly in contradiction to numerous principles of WP:What Wikipedia is not. These are military forces that dwarf ISIL's in scope, in history, in direct ties to military engineering and, crucially with regard to sourcing which confirms their hard assets. If it is not appropriate to create such an exhaustive list in these top ten cases, surely it's not for an encyclopedic summary of ISIL's military strength. This is not a list article; any discussion of the group's military hardware should be presented in WP:PROSE and should be limited, per WP:WEIGHT to a summary of the major points of their acquisitions as verified by multiple reliable sources.
C) We have a clear obligation here not to allow our articles to be skewed towards non-neutral representation, especially when we're talking about an article about an extremist group being bent towards what looks like a subtle advertisement for the group, by fetishizing it's military hardware for those who might be inclined to view this as a sign of strength and legitmacy. I honestly cannot imagine content that is less neutral and less appropriate for an article of this nature. And frankly, I'm surprised you don't see it the same way as I'd expect editors with a strong interest in military history to be more likely to see these issues, not less. Do you really want there to be even the slightest potential for one of our military articles becoming a promotional tool for such an organization?
On a side note, is {{u|}} working again for pings? Snow let's rap 05:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have split the military-fetishistic wankage to Military equipment of ISIL, following the pattern of many such articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should, like all those articles, come with a parental warning. Thanks. Yes, Snow Rise, I think the pings have been working. Ha, I'm glad they're putting so many of our weapons to use; it would be a shame if they'd just be sitting gathering dust and rust. I think we need to make and export more weapons and give them away--no one should be deprived of them, the right to bear arms should be universal, like the right to healthcare and education. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good split, although I'd disagree that it's "military-fetishistic wankage." It's basic statistics akin to listing the contributors to a tv show or a list of cities in a geographical area. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: I was joking a bit about that. These lists can be useful, although sometimes I have to wonder about the selection of information. It's highly relevant (and upsetting) to know ISIL might have 52 M198 howitzers, but most of the SALW stuff is cruft - who cares if they use AKMs or M16s? I wouldn't want to remove that information, but it's only likely to interest buffs. Also, it's fine to say that they have 200 or so tanks, but I'm sure they don't have the logistical capacity to operate more than a few, so this gives me no indication of how many they are actually using. These lists also often omit some of the most highly relevant but less sexy equipment, like radios and other electronics. And pistols, really? Might as well tell us what brand socks they wear. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update on this affair: a new suspicious account (Dannis243) has begun reverting still more changes, including Sammy1339's move of the article to a new location, per the consensus reached here; said consensus was overwhelming and the policies in this regard are pretty unambiguous in any event. In reverting this, I made a right mess of the move on a technical level but the article, TP, and redirects should all be in order now, except that the new home is "Military activity of ISIL" (as opposed to "activities"; activity was the result of a mistake, but I felt it worked just as well or better, so left it there). I continue to feel that the behaviours of these accounts are highly suspect and I'll be launching the SPI (and probably ANI discussion) without a doubt if there is further revert against consensus. I've only held off as long as I have because my time is incredibly limited right now, and, as you know, I allowed myself to get distracted by an issue that was less deserving of attention than this serious concern. Hopefully, these users (or user, if they are in fact one party) take the warning to heart this time, but I am not optimistic. In the meantime, Drmies, it's worth at least one admin being aware of the continued activities there. Snow let's rap 06:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic IP editor

I'm sorry to bother you with drama, but I'm having some issues with 203.109.161.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who you may have seen pop up in Basic income in the Netherlands. The editor is removing categories, templates, and stub tags, then edit warring to maintain these changes. The changes are not really major, but it's turning into petty disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is right and who is wrong? 203.109.161.2 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the edit warrior can be right in the edit and wrong to edit war over it. NinjaRobotPirate, in Basic income, Category:Income distribution is already "under" Category:Income (see WP:DIFFUSE). Same with the other one. As for the stubs, I looked at one article where they instated or reinstated stubs, but having more than one is fine. IP editor, I don't know which category shortcut you meant to link to. Y'all, please, it's a shitty day on Wikipedia already. Let's not make it worse. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not what I would have said, but alright. I'll drop it. It's pointless to argue over this, as any edit I make will just end up reverted by the IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know. If the IP had explained on your talk page (did they?) or given the correct blue link in that edit summary, maybe no one would have been angry with the other. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I see now that you've been doing this for a couple of days

yes, true it is slightly dishonest and a definite waste of electricity on an Energy Flex Alert day. Cheers friend, --User sometimes known as 66,87,119, (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Charles' edits

Charles is pretty adamant that his colors are right... even when there is a contrast issue. In my opinion, if the Snook tool says "sort of...", then I take that as a "no". In the Boise State–Idaho football rivalry article, this edit is hard to read. I think it is hard to read Idaho's colors as well. I'm not sure how many times it has to be told to Charles, but apparently he still doesn't get it. It is starting to get old and I'm tired of dealing with it. I know other users have taken notice of this issue as well. Corkythehornetfan 02:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note. I agree: "sort of" means "no". I'm going to wait and see if they're maybe giving my comments some thought. But isn't it funny, the visibility he desires for the colors makes the actual text illegible for those who can't easily see colors anyway. I've gone through dozens of college football articles, and I'm sick of the Crayola culture in them. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! It is funny, but you think he'd learn and think of those who cannot see like he can! Corkythehornetfan 03:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he may have come up with a solution. As my eyes are getting older, I take these things more seriously--it's a pity I didn't realize it before, but that's how it goes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Estuary English

Hi, Thanks for your advice. I hope I can manage the slight change of emphasis without messing up the basic factual content of the article. I've discussed this with John Wells and he has encouraged me to go ahead. RoachPeter (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent, RoachPeter, thanks for your note. FWIW, I wish my school still cared for linguistics; I guess it's only the big schools that still have certified linguists on faculty. We're a dying breed, since we don't train students in it, and if we don't teach the classes, no one is going to be interested in its academic pursuit... Drmies (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swati Maliwal and subsequent WP:G4 deletion

Pinging @Rahul89f:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @ChunnuBhai: as well.

Drmies,

I didn't particpate in the AfD.

The article was created again, then deleted under WP:G4 by me.

While I might possibly disagree with the outcome of the AfD, as an admin I must follow the consensus.

As an alternative to the niceties and nastities of Wikipedia:Deletion review, should we perhaps create Draft:Swati Maliwal and see what the independent WP:AFC assessors have to say?

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps: <belated 2014 FIFA World Cup observation> I was hoping the Final would be between Netherlands and France. Instead of the trophy, the winner could have Belgium. </belated 2014 FIFA World Cup observation>

This was the forth attempt to create this article as shown by deleted logs. Also another page with title Swati Jaihind was also deleted earlier on. Pinging @Jimfbleak: and @NawlinWiki: ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ping. The version I deleted was tagged for SD by @SpacemanSpiff: and notability didn't come into it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had deleted Swati JaiHind once under G11, but my participation at the AfD is when I got involved with the subject. The coverage is all about a controversy on her appointment to the post and as I opined at the AfD that sort of content belongs in the organization/chief minister's article, not in a page about her.—SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

related to recent IP trolling on your page

Huh? Do you know what was that? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, not really, but it's true--I am of Earth. And I wouldn't call that trolling, necessarily, but maybe I have a higher threshold for that sort of thing, haha. Anyone who actually responds and shows a sense of humor isn't much of a troll: trolls are assholes. Note they made an account. Perhaps they have changed their evil, evil ways! Thanks Staszek Lem, Drmies (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that he's the only one so he should have his own category. The rest of us are all from elsewhere. Geoff | Who, me? 21:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too much honor Geoff... Drmies (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nomming me to the category. I'll gladly be a member until someone decides to make it disappear. Geoff | Who, me? 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After I did it I stole a user box from your page. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's just ducky! Geoff | Who, me? 13:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch article

Aidan Mikdad, a 13-year old pianist, doesn't look notable to me. However, several of the articles listed are in Dutch. Could you check it out.

On another note, I was reading on Mentalfloss the other day that Ilan Mitchell-Smith, one of the stars of Weird Science is professor of medieval English literature at Cal State Long Beach. Bgwhite (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bg, that's not easy. The only reliable one is this (it's highly reliable), but all it does is cite the jury report, "astonishing musical comprehensiveness". He's been on Pauw & Witteman, but that's just another TV show (I mean, it's huge for him, but it's not much in the grand scheme of things). I found one more article from Het Parool, this one, and it's much more extensive--it's an actual portrait of him. He seems to be an audience favorite. Now, if this was AfD, it would boil down to whether those awards make him notable. They all seem to be decent; they don't have articles here, but that's just a lack of globalization. And he has won three, not just one. I wonder if Gerda Arendt has anything to offer here. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not really, offer I mean. Audience favorites don't need an article, no? Well known anyway. But I never supported a Delete. The article should have a shorter lead and don't use first name only, but I have more than enough other topics ;) - We can still dig up treasures. For years a list here had a work by Glazunow: Cantata after Pushkin, for women's choir et. al.. The DYK on the composer's 150th birthday will say that is is not after Pushkin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not factor Talk pages

Please do not factor Talk pages as you did here.

Regarding the current storm in a tea cup at Featured Pictures you seem intent on bringing to the WP dramah boards, I responded to Crisco here and copy it below for the benefit of your page followers:

My reply was this:
  • There's no block evasion. I have a legitimate account. But after the histrionics over the WPPilot business, no user would want to trust their account to this user's threats and histrionics. That's a legitimate use of an IP to be found in WP guidance. Stop blocking me or I will take you to an ANI. As for that user an obvious diva is obvious and it's high time he was put to the test and asked to explain himself. It's simple too. 138.199.77.183 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

138.199.75.213 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Amsterdam)[reply]

I see Drmies has protected the page. Really I should bring this to ANI, but I am frankly concerned for the well being of the user concerned. Really I would prefer to keep this within Featured Pictures. I shall wait until the nomination finishes and then decide what to do. Unless this user has made a satisfactory explanation and made (if need be, but it surely must needs be) an adequate apology, then I don't see how I can do else but bring the matter to the attention of the larger community. An obvious cabal is obvious. 138.199.75.213 (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Amsterdam)[reply]

In my view this user is extremely vulnerable. He hasn't edited since I first brought the issue up, and while evading scrutiny by absenting himself is past pattern behaviour, on this occasion I do feel a degree of alarm. He has been indulged far too much for far too long by a group of editors and I fear his world is collapsing around him and he can't cope.

I should have hoped for a more mature response from you. 138.199.69.243 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Amsterdam, @ a big office - walk long enough in the same direction and you come back to where you started)[reply]

  • Ah, Amsterdam, a lovely city--the most beautiful in the world. Of course, I've never been to Rome, Venice, Naples, Barcelona... Let's pretend I don't know who you are, and that you actually have a legitimate account. And let's pretend that WPPilot was not blocked for egregious violations of just about everything, and let's give "this user", Hafspajen, a name, and let's make clear that they are not guilty of "threats". This is all very strange, you know. You speak of Drmies as if you're not talking to me, and you talk about "this user" who is extremely vulnerable--that "this user", is that Hafspajen you're analyzing/baiting? I suppose that NeilN is part of the cabal too.

    Now, I'll be glad to engage you in conversation, the moment you stop talking shit about me off-wiki. A little birdy has told me that you said on a certain website that a certain someone is getting paid by the WMF to get their students to write articles for Wikipedia as mandatory assignments/unpaid labor. You're too smart to believe that, but do you think your audience is really dumb enough to believe it? Enjoy your time in Amsterdam. Get out of the office if you can (I hope it's not in Zuidoost or Diemen) and try out the nieuwe haring. Consider attending service in the Westerkerk this Sunday, with soprano Elena van Slogteren and Jos van der Kooy on organ. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it is (and I've been to all those other places). I have a home there and also Dordrecht, which is where my family on my mother's side hails from. We go back generations. Amongst other things we helped construct the Kinderdijk polder system. We came over to England during the last war and I'm British. I'm not WPPIlot, though I do know the drama. When I was referring to "Drmies" I wasn't being schizoid. That's a copy of stuff I sent Crisco. And I do damn well have a legitimate account (several). I don't talk shit about you off-wiki. You need to replenish your aviary. I never said that about you, although the thought has crossed my mind looking at other university instructors of Wikipedia who require their students to write an article.
As for H (and he does make threats), I do think he needs counselling. It's hard to know whether this latest effort of his is an editorial lapse or a deliberate hoax. I see he's still absenting himself. Don't feel bad about not engaging in conversation with me. 138.199.74.200 (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got a bit confused by the royal "we". BTW, I didn't live on the Prinsengracht, but I appreciate you following me so closely. Badmouthing me behind my back with half-truths and innuendo--well, aren't you glad someone invented the internet? Drmies (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Stupid cunt"? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Input Requested

Hello, I noticed you recently edited La Salle College High School. I have created a talk page discussion to discuss the issues related to the page, including the Public Relations campaign waged by the school and the "pool mass" topic. Your input would be appreciated. Talk:La Salle College High School

Thanks! 70.192.131.83 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity of other editors

I need your advice. One editor (Joy) wrote a comment in which he wrote his speculation about my ethnicity (diff). Let me remind you that this editor was blocked after I pointed (diff) at the issue with his actions. He reported me immediately after he was unblocked, and based on his report I was banned. I politely asked if it is allowed to comment other editors i.e. their ethnicity. Based on his reply I conclude that he believes that it is allowed to write comments about my ethnicity/nationality (diff) because of the topic area of the ban. Is he correct? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find that very, very problematic. I mean, it's one thing to say "Antidiskriminator is clearly biased towards Serbs [insert group], because their edits prove it", and quite another to say "Antidiskriminator is clearly biased towards Serbs, because they're Serbian". "Some Serbian people (including AD)" seems to me to be on the edge, since no direct accusation is made of cause and effect, but, Joy, I believe you should stay well away from that edge, if only because it invalidates your argument. Speaking personally, I detest such generalizing (by ethnicity, class, gender, etc.), esp. on the internet. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drmies. What about speculations about ethnicity of other editors? Is Joy really right when he say that he is allowed to speculate about my ethnicity because of the topic area of the ban? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. In my opinion, no. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow! This is completely nuts! There was nothing improper about mentioning that factoid, because that is the locus of the dispute - whether AD's ban for pushing egregious Serbian nationalist tripe on Wikipedia should be rescinded or not. To anyone who has ever dealt with AD on Wikipedia, there's no doubt that they're Serbian. He edits extensively in the topic area, frequently cites Serbian (Cyrillic) sources, etc. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of that per se, because there's literally hundreds or thousands of people like that. On the other hand, to anyone who has ever dealt with AD on Wikipedia, there's also no doubt that he espouses the positions of a Serbian nationalist, and the case in point is a perfect demonstration - he has advocated the stance that Pavle Đurišić has not received that Nazi decoration and caused massive disruption on the article and its talk page. It's not possible to characterize this position fairly as anything other than a product of some misguided effort to whitewash the history of this Serbian person during WWII, a well-known flash point of contentiousness in the topic area from which AD was banned.

Please don't fall for this cheap trick, a piece of wikilawyering that tries to smear me for no reason other than to avoid talking about the actual relevant facts and circumstances of the topic ban.

Heck, this pattern of abuse, goading me just before I was blocked (for overzealously enforcing policies against Croatian+Serbian nationalist edit warring at the Vukovar article, another well-known flamewar target) and now using it again as a talking point - this basically confirms that AD has been engaging in a WP:DEPE campaign against me. If I wasn't such a thick-skinned old fart in terms of withstanding Wikipedia abuse, I'd actually be upset. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Joy, if you cannot differentiate between "Editor X is obviously German" and "Editor X obviously edits with a bias that makes him promote German", you have no business discussing bias. You can argue the latter kind of thing, not the former. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can differentiate between the two, but the distinction is meaningless in this particular case. I was not making any sweeping statements about ethnicity or bias, I was referring to specific facts of the matter at hand. AD himself talked about this controversial issue and introduced several purported sources to advance his position, but they were all Serbian and they were not deemed reliable enough to be able to contradict the preponderance of other sources, which were definitely not all Serbian. From the information the user presented, it was apparent that they were trying to make Wikipedia rely on Serbian sources. I don't remember any other more generic but still distinct unifying characteristic of those sources other than that, so I mentioned that characteristic. If there is one, I'm perfectly willing to use one.
You can read more about the specific issue that I was talking about at Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 4#Iron cross controversy, where incidentally my sole contribution at the end was actually to lend a bit of conditional support to one of AD's sources! I was trying to explain how they can make sure they find a source that is comparatively reliable, in a manner that adheres to both the text and the spirit of relevant Wikipedia policies. (As opposed to the flawed way AD was introducing that source, which in turn is why it was rejected.)
If this was any other discussion, with any reasonable person, who also assumes good faith, nobody would take such an trivial description and grouping as an insult. This case is special because AD seems to like to grandstand, and disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Note that he still hasn't responded with anything useful, no admission of guilt, no remorse, no promise to reform. Just more of this.
Thanks for reading. I imagine this must be very tiring to follow. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"To anyone who has ever dealt with AD on Wikipedia, there's no doubt that they're Serbian." (diff) wrote Joy after you stated that speculations about ethnicity of other editors are not allowed and after you advised him to stay away from ethnicity based generalisations. Drmies, can you please advise me what to do now? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this edit (diff) of Joy another comment which contains speculation about my ethnicity?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, I might add, editors that openly speculate that I must be Croatian because of any number of reasons they've dreamed up in their heads. Strangely, only those who take a consistently pro-Serb POV ever clash with me. I work well with several editors who claim to be fluent in Serbian Cyrillic, it's just that they accept consensus, don't flame war, and discuss calmly without edit-warring. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI headings

This puzzled me. Every ANI heading is an assertion of misconduct, by its nature non-neutral, to be disputed by the other party. Could you clarify this for me? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Ethnic slur" is a really loaded term, and in fact my attention was drawn to the thread when I saw an edit in that section (by Abecedare, I think) go by in Recent changes. Naming it thus, as if it's a fact, is of course not neutral. "Accusation of" would be be much better. I will grant you that frequently ANI headings are not neutral, and I've probably made some non-neutral ones myself, and I will grant you also that this was a judgment call: in my judgment, that particular heading was too assertive. In the current climate, the accusation of having made an ethnic slur is very loaded. Does that help? I can't hope to fully convince you and everyone else, of course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I have no objection to changing the heading, I was just puzzled by the statement that "they should be neutral" given that ANI headings are routinely non-neutral in my experience. Just look at the current TOC. Thanks for the clarification. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this matter, there is a middle ground between neutral and inflammatory. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think there's a significant difference between that one and "Editor X refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page" or "Bad faith editing at TV articles by User:Y". Sure, one could say those aren't neutral, but the charges there are more directly related to the edits, to the project. Ideally, those could all do with some tweaking, sure. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective redaction.

You redact this and leave the main section-title List of highest grossest Indian films, which insults 1.2 Billion Indians, alone !!! J'accuse !!!! Admin abuse !!!!! Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Hi Drmies, I came across 2015 Miss Supertalent of the World Season 6 today, and wondered if it's substantially the same as this [1], with the attendant blocked user issues. For when you have the time. And hello, it's 99, looking for something to do while under the weather. Best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First: Thank you. I asked you because you deleted and blocked previously, which turned out to be a convenient rationale for saying hello. Also, you'd be able to see the old deleted article, whereas I can only have a hunch as to whether it's the same; likewise the identity of the editor. Potentially disturbing for this editor is the knowledge that skimming algae off the top of your pool's water somehow evokes a memory of me. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not something to take personally; I grew up much farther south, and make the trek a few times a year for family reasons only. Some friends from Tennessee--one of whom I'm writing an article about for publication right now--just visited here, which reminds me that a nice case of ale is always at the ready, should you decide to journey northward. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if Mandarax can come too. He lives out west, of course, and so he probably has a Tesla and it'd be cool to hitch a ride with him. Make sure, please, that you stack up on vegetarian pork rinds. But yes, 99, it's a fun thing to contemplate. Many people here, particularly old Mandarax, I've known for years. With Kelapstick I have the feeling that we used to hang out or something like that. Maybe we should all meet up somewhere in the middle, though halfway between Kelapstick and me is still South Dakota or some other bleak place in Canada. Halfway between you and me (or between you and I) is...Dennis Brown! And I'll pick up LadyofShalott along the way. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheezus, South Dakota. We have got to do better than that. Mandarax is always invited, as are LoS and the others--though I don't know them as well, I'll have to trust your say-so. I once drove through Pennsylvania on the way to West Virginia--in my life, this qualifies as a major adventure--and saw a great deal of beautiful country that was a revelation to me. Posh on the veggie rinds. Remember, we've got lobster rolls. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, 99 and Drmies.
    99, I hope you're feeling better. It's always nice to see you around. I hope you won't be offended if I don't refer to you as "2601". BTW, if you edit articles on my Watchlist and I welcome whatever IP you might be at the time, but you want to remain anonymous, please feel free to not reveal your identity.
    Drmies, your "y'all" above makes me wonder how prevalent that is in your part of the world. I recently saw a group of people talking on TV, and every sentence included at least one "y'all". My ears were litterally bleeding.
    Both of you (yes, just plain "you") are probably aware that I never use Facebook; however, I'm constantly getting emails from them asking if I know the listed people. Well, I was stunned to receive notices about both of you! Facebook sees all and knows all. Facebook is omniscient and omnipotent. Drmies, when you first mentioned Facebook to me years ago, I looked for you. I initially found someone, but was pretty sure that wasn't you; eventually I was able to discover your real identity. Oddly enough, I've tried to find me and have been completely unable to do so. I did take a look at your page a while ago, and the photo of your younger self reminded me very much of an actor I've seen somewhere or other, possibly Kyle Howard. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, when your name popped up among the Facebook suggestions, it was easy to recognize, with no prior stalking required. As for keeping up there, the problem is that I almost never go there, and I've never written a single word on my or anybody else's page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should've been more precise: the younger you reminded me of a younger him. Well, actually, this was a while ago, so to be even more precise, the younger you reminded a younger me of a younger him. (At least I think it's him; it's possible I'm actually thinking of some other actor who looked like both of you.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd enjoy a meet-up with some of my favorite Wikipedians. As for other online ventures… I am on Facebook, and Drmies and Kelapstick know my identity. If either of them were to suggest a connection with another friendly 'pedian, well, that would be fine. LadyofShalott 16:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elvey

Hi Doc. Have you logged Elvey's topic ban anywhere, and/or linked to the ANI discussion? I don't think "topic banned from COI, broadly construed" is completely clear in itself, but a link to the discussion that led up to it would probably help. I'd add one myself on Elvey's page, except that s/he has removed your topic ban notice, so I don't quite know how. Compare also this request. Sorry to raise such things at this time of year. I will now re-join the mad dogs and Englishmen out in the midday sun, or rather out in the shade of the crabapple tree. Bishonen | talk 12:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

  • Yep: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. The link to the ANI discussion is in there. I thought I put it on their page too, but apparently I forgot. They requested a pocketing? Well. I'd never heard of them before, I think, but that was one hell of an obvious result; the mystery is that it was still open. And yes, the wording is a bit vague, perhaps, but I don't think it was up to me to define it, and I think the discussion, though lengthy, should be clear enough--it included discussion of COIN, etc. Thank you, dear, for your comment. DYK that today is Drmies's twelve-year wedding anniversary? Drmies (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool then. You made those hordes of kids in just twelve years? You deserve a barnstar or something. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Yep. Well, hordes...enough to keep me busy, yes. No barnstar necessary, but I'll take cash, cause they eat more than me. Oh, Rosie (6) tried sushi tonight! I'm very proud of her. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Seneff

Hi Drmies, I saw your ping but had no time to look at it then and now it has already been archived. I looked briefly. This person seems to be a notable computer scientist (if the h-index is indeed that high, she'd sail through AfD), even though to the general public she seems to be more known for unconventional ideas on autism that have not generated much scientific interest. The article is rather unbalanced, I'll post a note on the talk page, but have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved more than that. --Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh man... Hey, that comes with being one of the top admins here. People just think that another word for "admin" is "Drmies". I'm a "Drmies", you're a "Drmies", she's a "Drmies", all admins are "Drmies"! --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Achievement Hunter

I have restored the article to the version prior to your pruning as its pruning was controversial, please discus it on the talk page. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 21:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, taking a step back here. I jumped the gun and let my fanboy-ism overcome me for a moment. I still think the timeline should be there, but you're right about everything else. Mea culpa. I fucked up. Still don't appreciate you templating me, however. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 22:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine. I understand. But please look at that content, in some detail, and at the edit summaries I wrote the first time around. The article needs to be better than it is, but it cannot be done like what it was before. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Death Be Not Proud

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night part 2

An English Bonfire (2008)
  • 22:52, 7 August 2015‎ Drmies (→‎Threaded discussion: per tyrannical, dictatorial administrative fiat)

See the history of the talk page article. I don't think as an editor of the page you ought to have responded to the ANI. But now that you have, I think you need to stop the continuing edit war (Says he taking out traditional Nov. 5th food and settling down for the show). -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • PBS, I'll be glad to have a look, once I'm done with a very important cleaning operation. As for my response to the ANI, and for closing down that silly thread in hopes of preventing blocks on both sides, you're welcome. I am firmly of the opinion that administrators can act neutrally in articles they might be claimed to be invooooolved with; it's context-bound, for starters. Surely you agree that stopping a bunch of people from yelling at each other can be done even by someone who has edited the article (have I actually edited it? cool!). Drmies (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, PBS, you were right--what silliness. I left a message for AnonNep rather than blocking them; I really do hope that all these editors see the light. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for helping out with that confounded Bollywood bio, Drmies. Sometimes I get exasperated with myself, and I didn't want you to think I was peeved with you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catflap versus H88 drama

I'm sorry to bug you, but can you please actually enforce the iBan? Or else they will be back shortly. Every single time I visit ANI there is a report about them. There is no point if iBans given as a final warning are not strictly applied. This should have been dealt with at the very first violation of the iBan: At this point I don't think either of them can think rationally - if one breaks the iBan and gets away with it, you are challenging the other to do the same thing. I am sure I am not the only one who feels this is a premature close. I understand from your "lack of service" template that you clearly do not have any more time to spend on these two, but I think this really deserves admin attention. I am happy to request ArbCom weigh in, as I do not think ANI may not be capable of handling these anymore... I have a feeling that one could Hiri88 could report CatFlap for reverting his past 500 edits and both would get banned (or vice versa) because it seems everyone is so sick of them it doesn't matter anymore who actually does what. Thank you. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to, but I don't want to--not for that report. I'm caught up in the "one last warning" cycle, I suppose. Catflap's report was not followed up on, and Hijiri's was so full of old diffs that it was ridiculous. I suppose I should update the "lack of service" note, but I can't be the only one enforcing this. On the bright side, I'm getting to the point where I'm ready to start blocking. I understand your frustration, but believe me, I feel as much as or more than you: I've been involved with this situation for quite some time. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Bendre

Hi Dr; she's returned from the block for more of the same. It's hard to call this straight vandalism, but it might be time to lock the article. Cheers 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, yes--thank you for asking. You know, if you ever venture up here, I suspect we'll have some good stories to exchange re: family and professional life, with Wiki business a pale topic by comparison. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My professional life is far from exciting, 99, and my personal life...well, married for 12 years, haha. But we have a new puppy... I'm happy to hear about the most part. Not all can be well, of course, and there's always Trump. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop Al Khazar

How do you all find me?

Hello Admin, please stop Al Khazar. He is edit warring on Type 99 tank

Thank you.

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When i first noticed on Drmies talk page, i saw that Al Khazar Edit warring on Type 99 tank, and i feel suspicious. Whakaoriori (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alford Academy

Drmies why did you edit the Alford academy page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.160.8 (talk • contribs)

Johan Simons

There's much more on an interesting person in Durch than English. Why best now: Ruhrtriennale will open 14 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

additional opinion needed

At this afd. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnynephew1182

Thanks for blocking this user. Looks like you might want to also block their talk page access..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the item that prompted Dbrodbeck's concern. MarnetteD|Talk 01:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent reply. An actual LOL from me. Well done. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I thank you for blocking Al Khazar since i reported it. Whakaoriori (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dog collar

This user has lost their moose. Have you seen a moose wandering around?

Can't remember if you watch any dog articles, but if you do you should probably add this one. Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A m00se once bit my sister.... No realli! She was Karving a post on the WP:Great Dismal Swamp with the sharpened keyboard of a Raspberry Pi given to her by her brother in law 0laf, star of many lovely Arbcom threads: "Gamergate II - this time it's pers0nal", "Manning the Passion Fruit" and "I left my Inf0box in San Fransico...." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Are footsteps a means of transport? Asking you as User:SpacemanSpiff told to ask you. Check at Tirupati#Transport.--Vin09 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tirupati

There are some grammar and copy edit. If you are free can you. I did some. If you are busy, then not a problem.--Vin09 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles, history re: PowerISO

Hi, just wondering if articles that get deleted are actually still viewable from a historical point of view AFTER they are deleted as i noticed you deleted the Power ISO article and I was hoping to see what the deleted articles content actually was. It is also a shame that when articles are given the time to be discussed for deletion, that there isn't a better mechanism in place that basically allows people like yourself to actually push bad articles in the direction of the few that actually add to wiki. Admins are very useful on wiki but also article editors and creators are and it is a shame that both work detached from each other when it comes to articles ending up being deleted due to lacking content or being straight repeats of info on products official sites etc.

Hope you understand where I am coming from and that you don't think I'm criticising you for deleting it - I do understand why you deleted the article ;o)

Regards, wellen1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.88.29 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a quick reply. Thanks for the info on user spaces. Rock on \m/ wellen1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.88.29 (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Fiorina and "Fortune 20" company

I don't know if you have seen this discussion, but I thought I would share it with you. Best, --ML (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. We'll see how it goes!--ML (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturning unanimous consensus

Hey, what's the big idea overturning a proposed definition that enjoyed 100% support? Hrumph.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Though the discussion was indeed like speaking to a brick wall, on June 8 I went ahead and proactively made the best link, which has stood untouched since that time. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your abundant spare time...

... perhaps you can lend a hand with an admin who's having a slowmotion meltdown. Other than what you see here, I have no idea where this is coming from. Can you try to snap him out of it?

  • [2] "a clear demonstration of your congenital inability to drop the proverbial stick (but perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh ... like far too many other Harvard legacy admits, you've got it too far up your ass to reach )"
"Keep up like this, and one of these days you're going to be sitting in front of the ArbCom, nervously twitching as they decide whether you will have any future at the project to speak of."
  • [3] "as for you, as the common expression ends ' ... I would have farted.'" (Apparently there's a clever saying, "If I'd wanted to hear from an asshole, I would have farted.")
"I believe your further presence in this nomination is toxic and objectively disruptive, as I no longer believe you can be considered to be contributing to it in good faith, based on your sniveling..."
  • [4] "OK, I see everyone's point, especially now that EEng has stepped off."
"Could someone (other than EEng, whom I don't trust to do this honestly) please..."
  • [5] "How obtuse are you going to be?"
"... the way they're formatted makes your widdle Harvard-educated head hurt"
  • [6] "[EEng's] ongoing temper tantrum, and since I am in every way a better person than he is, was or ever will be, whatever he thinks he's entitled to think about himself because he went to Harvard" (Note that in this post, the text "I have realized he has one mildly legitimate concern" links to a page headed "Jerkass Has a Point".)
  • See also my edit summaries here: [7][8][9]

EEng (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey EEng, are these all on your talk page? I looked at the first diff, but that way of listing diffs you use doesn't allow me to hover and see where it is. My internet connection is slow and my laptop old. And are they all related to Daniel Case? Daniel, that exchange in July was far from cordial or collegial. (Though, EEng, that note about watchlisting--I agree with Daniel, that pinging or dropping a note is the right thing in case of such extensive commentary, though I probably frequently forget to do so myself.) That head-up-ass commentary and the Harvard bit, it's allowed, I suppose, and I imagine those words were spoken in anger, but still. Mixing that metaphor (EEng has a stick up their ass?) also isn't helpful.

    I looked at the last diff on Template:Did you know nominations/Skintern too--please Daniel, drop the Harvard stick. Please don't claim to be a better man in the terms in which you do. Show, don't tell: if you're indeed the better man, deal with the matter at hand in the most dispassionate way possible. EEng, I don't know, not having followed everything, whether you're taunting or not (and you can answer honestly to yourself), but I urge you to get off the Case. Daniel, please, no more of this. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first is from my talkpage; the rest are from the Skintern nomination. Can you please clarify... "That head-up-ass commentary and the Harvard bit, it's allowed, I suppose" -- it's allowed??? What?
There's no baiting, all my comments are completely serious, and his behavior is absolutely abyssmal. Please, if you will be so kind, look at the diffs, read the DYK nom, and tell me if there isn't something seriously wrong here. Sorry if I caught you on an off day, but if you don't have time to actually look at this, perhaps I should take it elsewhere. EEng (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. EEngie, I think he actually makes you look comparatively good. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC) p.s. ... is that a Harvard stick?[reply]
"Allowed"--yeah, lots of things are allowed... Daniel didn't get blocked for it, ergo... Or, to put it another way, I personally think it's pretty uncivil, but I'm not really in a blocking mood today, hoping also that my pinging Daniel Case and commenting on their inappropriate comments would suffice. (It's not really an off-day, but I think I've seen enough, and I don't think you'll get a block at ANI with these comments, though I will agree that esp. admins ought to be held to a higher standard. And really, if you want a civility block, I'm the worst person in the world to ask. Dennis Brown, do you think there's blockability in these here diffs?) Drmies (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't looking for a block‍—‌that's partly why I came here and not ANI. But the other reason I came here is that I was hoping you'd tell him, in no uncertain terms, how completely unacceptable his behavior is. "Your congenital inability ... you've got it too far up your ass to reach ... your sniveling ... How obtuse are you going to be? ... your widdle Harvard-educated head ... I am in every way a better person than he is, was or ever will be, whatever he thinks he's entitled to think about himself because he went to Harvard"? What disappoints me is that you're making it sound like there are two sides to this. There aren't. I've done nothing but comment civilly and constructively about serious problems in the article he's nominated, and he's felt free to vent abuse in every single post he's made‍—‌not to mention that he seems to have no understanding of basic policies such as OR. EEng (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know how you can with a straight face claim to be perceived as "civil" and "constructive" when this discussion started off on the wrong foot with you (wrongly, as Drmies agrees) mishandled my complaint (which I tried to voice as civilly as possible) about not being notified of your critique of the article (which led me to make most of the changes in any event, despite the brusqueness of your tone). And then claiming you saw no need to apologize—and in the same edit, acting as if mouthing off rudely to someone with the power to block you was some sort of badge of honor.

This was after an AfD in which, while I decided I needed to do no more than speak my piece, you showed no sign of accepting a consensus to keep so overwhelming that it was non-admin closed after five days. Instead, you continued to argue at the DYK nom in a way that seemed as if you were really continuing to fight the AfD. (And I won't even get into what I see as a serious policy violation—as I said, your unique complaints about how I format my posts notwthstanding, you do not have the right to delete them outright, personal attacks notwithstanding.

You have from the first come across as combative, confrontational and defiant. You are one of only two people ever on Wikipedia to have demonstrated such rudeness and disregard in any personal interaction; the other one was later desysopped by ArbCom over an unrelated matter. I'm sorry but I cannot help but see you as tendentious (see here and here especially). You have also demonstrated a strong affection, as I pointed out in one of the comments you deleted, for the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy: "It's someone's blog! Not an RS" "It's on the Washington Post's website" "Well the way it was phrased it was a tease"! It's the Black Night all over again, except it isn't funny.

I have avoided the DYK nom for days at a time because of how intellectually and emotionally frustrating it is to see anything with your name at the end. For the first time in ten years on Wikipedia I understood why people leave—if they have to deal with people like you on a regular basis to get anything accomplished, it just isn't worth it. Fortunately I don't.

I'm pretty sure you'll take this as a personal attack, so it seems like a waste of time to type, but for my sanity I have to tell you this if you really don't understand (or don't want to understand) why I reacted to you this way: You rubbed me the wrong way and kept doing it. I would apologize for the personal attacks but I don't see anything in you that convinces me it would have any beneficial effect. When you started out this way and kept at it needling you was about the only thing I could do that would make me feel like I was still a human being dealing with you, which I did because I want the DYK nomination to succeed. You are not only uncollegial, you seem utterly unconcerned about being perceived that way.

Again, I am not sure whether this is a productive use of my time, but here is how this could have been so much different on your part:
  • "I'm sorry I didn't notify you about my critique of the article; I had assumed you watchlisted it like most people do. In the future I'll be more proactive."
  • "I think some of the things you wrote in that article might be a little OR-ish. Do you think we could fix them and work on it together?" (Using language so sweeping as to just say "classic OR" about an editor whose work you are familiar with is a failure to assume good faith. It's entirely possible that people might not be aware of something when they write it in good faith; that's how you should approach it ... "Maybe you didn't notice, but ...")
  • "I'm sorry Daniel but I find the way you respond interjectively to my comments hard to read as we work on improving the article together so it can make a great DYK hook. I know I'm sort of unusual among Wikipedians since everybody and their brother here doesn't seem to mind, but ... well, I just do. Do you think you could do things differently so we can work together more constructively?"
  • "Would you care to strike that through?"
  • "Alright, I agree that a newspaper's blog is a reliable source and that we cannot apply our own editorial policies to reliable sources like the schmuck who started this AfD did. I'll take a break from Wikipedia for a while so I can think of a better argument and how I can phrase it civilly and courteously."
Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like it says at Template_talk:Did_you_know#To_nominate_an_article, "Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion." People ping each other if there's some urgency or they think something will be overlooked. If you didn't have it watchlisted, sooner or later you'd have checked the discussion and seen my comments. In fact, that's what happened. So what?
  • "mouthing off rudely to someone with the power to block you" – Right, I forgot that admins should be shown special respect. And, sorry, I just want to be sure – this link is me mouthing off rudely? Really???
  • I nominated the article at AfD, and a few hours later listed the OR problems on the DYK nom page. That's not "continued to argue at the DYK nom in a way that seemed as if you were really continuing to fight the AfD". What, because it's at AfD I shouldn't also mention the obvious OR problems?
  • I deleted one of your posts because, as I said elsewhere [10],
your post inserted your words right in the middle of sentences or paragraphs of mine, making a mess which a newcomer could not possibly decode. You've done this repeatedly, and several times I went the trouble of going through and fixing your formatting [11]; finally I warned you [12] that if you did it again I'd simply revert your post. ... You are welcome to reinsert your comments, but in a way that others can tell who's saying what.

As for the rest, I invite anyone interested to read Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Skintern. It's shocking enough that an admin doesn't understand that an article can't say, "Such-and-such appears to have been the first recorded use of the term skintern", with the only supporting citation being a footnote reading, "Searches on different search engines did not locate any earlier uses." But that was just the beginning, and instead of coming to your senses you just kept up your (not very clever, by the way) abuse. EEng (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=676462584"