User talk:Drmies

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149

The Crow Award!

		Crow Award
		Crow has given you The Official Crow Award! For your quick and decisive action on a BLP violation! Crow^Caw 03:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! I looked at a bunch of other reports and was reminded quickly why RFPP is so impopular. Boooooooring! Drmies (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on one of your WP:ANI closures

Resolved

Recently, you closed a discussion at WP:ANI as "done."[1] The discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive914#Admin assistance request: Removing a duplicate thread from an archive.

It would appear that not everyone liked the outcome of the discussion; the user whose questionable edit was effectively reverted in the process, User:Smartse, appears intent on edit warring to keep it in place, as exemplified by this recent edit of his. As you were the closing administrator, I'd appreciate it if you could follow up on your closure and talk to that user and explain why that is not a good idea and that he should've voiced any concerns he might've had over the course of the ten days the matter was open for discussion at WP:ANI. I'd do it myself, but given the deceptiveness of the user's edit summary, which invokes "clear consensus from ANI" in disregard of the fact the WP:SILENT consensus was to do the exact opposite of what he's doing, as well as the ineffectiveness of my previous attempts to discuss the matter with the user, I don't believe I'd be able to get anywhere. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for administrators to intervene. They chose not to do so. In other words, your dearchiving/decluttering was not supported. "I realize the matter is of low importance"--OK then. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, lack of interest, if anything, means support, if reluctant, and not lack thereof. Anything anyone says or does on Wikipedia is assumed to have the support of everyone who sees it but chooses not to oppose it; otherwise, introducing any changes to the encyclopedia would be impossible. We call that silent consensus, the weakest form of consensus but a form of consensus nevertheless. Even if we choose to believe there was no consensus for what I proposed, let me remind you that "[w]hen actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Note that it says "actions by administrators," not "administrative actions." Note also what the WP:SILENT essay has to offer.

Second, "low importance" isn't no importance, and I obviously described it as "low" relative to other matters being discussed at the noticeboard at the time, the idea being that I didn't mind waiting in line so long as there was end in sight. To me personally the matter of having my good name tarnished through having it appear in a WP:COIN thread uncontested is certainly of the highest possible priority, just as it would be to anyone else. Administrators might've chosen not to intervene, but the discussion was closed as "done" by one of them, you, indicating lack of disapproval, and through that silent approval, for the outcome it has come to.

Furthermore, it is a matter of record that the administrator whose revert was under discussion chose not to participate in the discussion, and has now, several days after the fact, reverted the page in question to his preferred version going against the silent consensus at WP:ANI, against the established practice of removing threads from the archives upon unarchival, and indeed against common sense.

The bottom line is, will you live up to the admin task put in front of you and confront the user about his questionable conduct, or not? Does this tedious matter really need to be taken back to WP:ANI? If it does then it does, I suppose, but does it? Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you say what you want in one single sentence? Try it. I have figured it out, but it took me a while, and I want to see if you got it right. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of an ANI discussion you recently closed has been overturned through an out-of-process reversion, and the matter could use your attention. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) maybe not. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it took me a while, and your answer is incorrect: you want that old thread removed because someone mentioned you in an COI investigation and it turned out that apparently you were uninvolved. All that verbiage, an ANI thread, reams of paper on my talk page--for just that. The answer is no; I am not going to let you remove something from the archive. I'll do something else for you, but that's just because it's a beautiful day today, not because your "decluttering the archive" edit summary was in any way honest. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summary was entirely honest and in keeping with Wikipedia's established practices, as was the edit itself. The summary doesn't mention my personal interest in decluttering that particular archive because I assumed nobody would care about that. Why would anyone care about that?

Speaking of dishonesty, how would you respond if any of the following edits of yours, all of which constitute a removal of a thread from an archive upon unarchival, were reverted in a similarly unreasonable way mine was?[2][3][4][5] I think we both know the answer. Don't think for a second you have the moral high ground here. "I am not going to let you remove something from the archive[?]" I presume that was supposed to be an attempt at humor? Be informed that I am not amused.

That said, I am willing to let this edit of yours be the solution to the problem—not because it's a real solution, but simply because I regrettably don't have enough free time on my hands to pursue the matter to its proper resolution. If User:Smartse wants to keep the WP:COIN archive cluttered and is willing to edit war to keep it cluttered, then I'll just have to be the bigger man and let him keep it cluttered I suppose. Thank you for your time and have a nice day. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. First of all, I am pleased you find me interesting enough to plow through my edit history. I hope you had to look long and hard. Second, brevity is the soul of wit. Try it. Third, being an admin has certain privileges and duties. One of them is to maintain some kind of order on ANI and noticeboards like that (you may have noticed that the "A" in "ANI" stands for "Administrator"), and to pull a thread out of the archive if it needs to be pulled out: it's a matter of judgment, and over 200 editors said I should exercise that, but exercise it wisely. You are welcome to start a thread on AN challenging those privileges and argue for each and every one of them that they were somehow disruptive. So no, not an attempt at humor. Fourth, this nonsense about "cluttered" is just that, nonsense. There's nothing that's cluttered. Fifth, what you wanted to ask was "I want that old thread removed because someone mentioned me in an COI investigation and it turned out that I was uninvolved." Sixth, you're welcome; your willingness is just grand. Seventh, if you want to be the bigger man, that is just fine--I'm too old to get into a contest of who has the biggest dick, or the thickest waist, and I will happy to lose both contests. But go do it somewhere else. Be a big man in article development or improvement; this talk page is running out of space for big men, with Ched and Doug Weller crowding the paint. Vaya con dios, Drmies (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy

Hey drmies The amount of unauthentic sources and number of facts backing sources are several in the naokhali page I just removed them can you please elaborate that why do you want black me ....Many of the books quoted are not even existing and any are typically biased of which one have no doubt lack of scholarly references --I.areeb (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look revealed that you were simply blanking content, including the entire lead, if I remember correctly. You may discuss this on the article talk page. I don't want to block you; I don't know why you would think that. But if you keep blanking content without proper discussion or explanation (many of your edit summaries were grammatically deficient and otherwise unclear) you will be blocked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FoxNewsChannelFan

I think we should look at a few other moves by User:FoxNewsChannelFan all done in good faith ..but ....looks like copy and pasting over proper moves. With a quick look I see Circuit City pages are all messed up...the talk page history starts this month. -- Moxy (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moxy--sorry, but I'm about to head out the door. A quick glance suggests that what they did was undone, but that was only a quick glance. What's this person doing? They need to stop. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good left him a note about moves...I am not an admin ..will need an admin looking at this page to review moves. -- Moxy (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Run for it, then! Drmies (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement length

Hi, Drmies. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The total of 788 words does not include the collapsed portion of your statement.

Hey doc, am I allowed to giggle at this? :-) — Ched : ? 21:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ched, I use the standard template, as I'm instructed to. It doesn't allow for much personalization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Ched! All monks should wear the same cowls, to paraphrase a Dutch saying. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thank you. I hope I am less wordy now after some tweaks; taking out "Martin" saved me at least a dozen words. The collapsed part is a response to Hammersoft's question; I believe there is some precedent for leeway when diffs are asked for--as ArbCom knows, diffs should always come with an explanation.
If you think I'm still too wordy, I'll go dig up ArbCom's email address; I should have it somewhere. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz - I do understand that, honest. It's just that given Drmies' absolute *love* of bureaucracy (/sarcasm) - I was having a good old chuckle to myself. — Ched : ? 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cowls? Like this? (shades of Sandstein) Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein...that reminds me of a Novembery day some 25+ years ago in the Elbe Sandstone Mountains... Drmies (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, think of my message this way: the next time (and there is always a next time) an editor complains that admins are not held to the same standards that apply to editors, you can use my comment as a diff to show them that even arbitrators have to follow the rules. Now do have a lovely weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That next time has come and gone; it's probably brewing on ANI already. But where am I now with my word count? I don't mind trimming more. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wordcounter.net says 660 not counting the hat. — Ched : ? 02:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By my count your at 621 (as signatures aren't included). Amortias (T)(C) 10:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not counted the words spent on the question whether BWV 7 should be bolded here (see talk - village pump - classical music). I am tedentious and insulting, DYK? I counted reverts: 4, one by me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Please tell Schonken that it should be "fewer asides", not "less asides". "Its" for "its first performance" is totally unnecessary; the regular determiner is just fine. Second paragraph, "It is the third cantata..." adds a needless anticipatory "it" necessitating an extraposed subject. Having said that, I think his construction is better since it avoids "a cycle planned to contain", a not-so-strong phrase, and it had an incorrect comma (between "cantatas" and "based"). But I prefer to stay away from his discussions. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how not to bold the BWV number in a Bach cantata (almost a synonym for the piece, certainly for readers who couldn't pronounce the German title) would be any better for the reader. I understand even less how, when a bold edit such as changing that (in a GA!) is reverted, you don't go to discuss but insist your preferred version three more times. I don't quote what Ched called alphabet soup, normally, but almost regret that now: WP:BRD. Other letters were AGF. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why a section header "Movements" should be better than "Music", I reverted twice, feeling strongly that we shouldn't have any such technical term as a section header, - it's a standard across FAs and GAs on the topic as you saw as a reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think he just likes to mess with you. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What can I politely say to the proposal to take BWV 243 for an example? (You may he remember that he wanted BWV 243a merged to it.) Came after I suggested to take Messiah for a model. - We sang Tristis tonight, compare, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, I guess that much. Now he told a friend that she made only one edit to the article and that was a revert. I wonder how many edits/revert I would count. (~~30/7~~ 33/8) - I'm not in the mood to let the article go the way of Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her. - Singing the song of AGF to myself to myself to myself, can't hear myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda - with all my respect, heart, and love, I quote a very dear friend: "Ignore, Ignore, Ignore." — Ched : ? 22:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear him and you. But - unlike the carol - it's not an isolated article. One of my ideas is: no word in the TOC that a lay reader may misinterpret (because there's no link to help). Here comes "Movements" for "Music", see above. That's just one example. I called 2016 the year of the reader, - I think of a reader unfamiliar with music terminology, perhaps even with English, and would like to keep things simple. End of Credo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desiderata — Ched : ? 01:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Easter, we'll sing "desiderat at fontes" (desires fresh water). I desire the fresh water of speaking of Music in the header of a musical composition, not Movements, a technical term, and the too narrow, - there's info well beyond it, often putting music in context with other pieces, ideas etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False revert by you

This [6] is a mistake and careless revert by you. Did you check the cited sources? Did you read my message on talk page of article? The guys started edit war and falsified referenced content. Now you just restored wrong revision. --223.223.110.236 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up on the talk page. 24,226,940 is a ridiculously precise number. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our reptilian friend

I've just created Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Reptilian Agenda. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, please don't compose headers like that again. I already have a hard enough time with mammals. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who posts jokes about snake habitat on "social media". Gotcha! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving voice to the underprivileged, Cullen. Feel the Bern? Drmies (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telstra-IP-socks.

Here is a collection, User:Huldra/Telstra-socks, is this enough for a WP:LTA? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

65.186.95.8 + 99.249.130.248

65.186.95.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
99.249.130.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Found two IP socks of Renameduser024 (talk · contribs). Continued harrassment on the same users' talk page. 172.58.32.83 (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

97.95.216.105 was NOT vandalizing. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Civil Liberties Association

There is an ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#192.235.252.195 regarding editing at Ontario Civil Liberties Association. As you have edited the article in the past you may have some experience that you can share regarding the issue. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Vera Songwe

On 29 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vera Songwe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2013, Forbes listed Vera Songwe as one of the "20 Young Power Women in Africa"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vera Songwe. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coffee! And thanks Rosiestep and all the other redlinked women editors! Drmies (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding your recent edit on OCLA

Question is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeme free (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Marco Rubio

There is an ongoing RfC at Talk: Marco Rubio which you may care to weigh in on. Spartan7W § 15:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOH really. Well, that should be fun! Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softy!

OGTurin was created by Castalia Communications at 16:10 UTC with a stupid comment.[7] That's what you get for your nice soft block. I'ma watch that user. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Don't tell Bbb. He hates it when I soft-block. I looked through those edits and didn't see the user name pop up in them, so I did not have direct evidence of spamming. I see that it's in this new edit, though. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I softblock in those situations too. I expect a little more gratitude, though! Bishonen | talk 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  - No good deed goes unpunished. If the doorbell rings tonight, it's probably the tulips I sent you. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I hear it now! (This is tonight here.) Tulipomania! Bishonen | talk 21:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
      - Bish, I'm in the Atlanta airport, on my way to deliver you the belated V-day roses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.101.157 (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New list

Help to expand List of restaurants in the Las Vegas Valley if you're interested. See the talk page there for more info. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, Vegas? Sorry, that's not one of my usual haunts, but thanks for the note. Hey, is there such a list for Minneapolis? Drmies (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWE listcruft

You've been around the block a few times on wrestling articles, haven't you? I've got two here, List Of Gore And Perkins WWE World Heavyweight Champions and WWE Raw 2/22/16 that seem to be fan-generated lists of matches. The problem is I can't easily think of a CSD criteria that they fall under, A7 doesn't really apply to lists of things, A11 is difficult as what exactly was "made up" isn't easily demonstratable given the sea of bluelinks in the article, same for G3 and A1. So they're sitting out the full week at PROD or AfD, which I think is a bit of a timewaste as I can't see any possible way these fanlists will ever be of encyclopedic importance. Have you got any ideas other than just letting the AfDs run their course? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not offhand, no. Sometimes fan articles are copyvios. For that list, you could argue A1 since the title of the article is so...vague (to put it nicely), but it takes semantics to explain why, and the moment you have to do that the "speedy" part is really out of the equation. Wait--what? This is a list of matches played by gamers? Sorry, I thought this was real rasslers duking it out. Well, the AfD will close with a SNOW rationale (funny since I walked around in the snow this morning--hello Minnesotaaaaaaa!), but it makes you wonder--do we have to make up CSD categories for a whole bunch more things? "Doesn't serve importance" is also semantically and otherwise challenged, but it gets to the heart of the matter, just not in bureaucratically acceptable terms. That Raw x/xx/xx article, I think A1 applies. What is it about? Drmies (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case request

Longstanding POV and behaviour dispute at veganism, a case request in which you are involved, has been declined as unready for arbitration at this time. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Miniapolis. Wanna have coffee tomorrow? From Minneapolis, Drmies (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, the Arbcom case has been declined because they believe that further dispute resolution is required. Most of the uninvolved editirs who commented on the case page (namely Mangoe, Resolute, Softlavender, Snow Rise, and Martinp) believe that there is a significant POV problem on the page. It does not seem right that I will have to participate in this resolution with a topic ban. I therefore ask you if you would be prepared to lift this ban so that I can take part in the dispute resolution proposed by Arbcom, whatever form it may take. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]