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 ViolinGirl (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 8 February 2017 (→‎AJPH landmark articles: thanks!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


That's right y'all.

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
Drmies!
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Your Opinion Please

Hello there

Hope you're doing well?!

I would like to know your opinion on this edit, where User:Esszet insists to delete the whole content of a section due to non-neutral. But I've read NPOV a few times and can't see a reason for an act like that. Can you help and guide me please, as you did before? Thanks a lot! MetalS-W (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I thought I was doing OK but then I read this and now I'm asking myself all kinds of questions. Rainbow! Sure, I'll have a look, unless that's too masculine and patronizing. I've always had a problem with "Starstruck", by the way. I'm certainly not ordering coffee for Ritchie Blackmore. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm OK--the sourcing is pretty poor, and the opening sentence is not neutral enough... The last bit, about that Iranian band, that's not well-sourced enough to prove any kind of relevance; if a more notable/reliable magazine had published on it maybe, but a Deep Purple fan site, no. This Schmier guy is (encyclopedically speaking) nobody, but Rob Halford is somebody and we appreciate his opinion. So, Byff and Halford's comments are relevant, if the whole thing is phrased much more neutrally. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now I got "Man on a Silver Mountain" stuck in my head--thanks a lot! Drmies (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I've learned something new today. I am sorry if you don't have a good taste in music but that's alright, we are all different ;)

Thanks again anyway, may I suggest you this or this and hopefully you will feel better?! Peace! MetalS-W (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh! I adore them both, I thought you were sarcastic! I take my word back, Sir. You have a very good taste in music! :)
    • BTW I've Googled and I found an article about that Iranian band on Bravewords but I can see it is already there, maybe I added it previously but I can't remember atm.I think Bravewords can be considered as a reliable source. MetalS-W (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MOS-ALBUM. It doesn't say anything about including other musicians' opinions on the album at all. The entire section just seems like an attempt to make the album look good; what does it add to the article? Esszet (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is about the 40th anniversary, which came with that SHOCKING tour. I think we should find a way bring that back into the article. Just check out the poster and you can see what I mean. MetalS-W (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Esszet, if the people commenting on the album are notable, and the comments are relevant and reliably sourced, then I see no reason to exclude them--it becomes a matter of editorial judgment. An Iranian band, maybe not, but that depends on the quality of Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles and the depth of coverage--not to mention the importance of that one band. The singers of Saxon and Judas Priest, yeah, their opinions are likely to be notable, but there also it depends on the source and the depth. No one cares for a passing comment, of course, but if it's more than that, perhaps. I'm not going to draw many conclusions from the poster, and some coverage from Blabbermouth is also not enough (too much NOT a WP:RS), but if the Byff and Halford references are valid, then why not? Or we could ask Blackmetalbaz (who knows metal and Wikipedia like few other people), or more generally Dan56 (who is likely, I think, to take a more conservative approach, and has wrote up more FAs than Blackmore had keyboard players). Drmies (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply because you don't need a 40th anniversary reflection section, even if the people commenting are notable. Look at articles for other famous albums from the 60's and 70's: Revolver, The Doors, Led Zeppelin IV, and why not even [[Machine Head (album}|Machine Head]]. You might find some retrospective commentary, but a) it's generally from professional critics b) it's not for a specific event like the album's 40th anniversary. And MetalS-W, I looked at the poster, and I don't see what you mean. Even if you personally found the tour "shocking", you'd have to find a lot of other people saying the same thing if you want it to be included here. Esszet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Esszet, I find it very refreshing to see an obvious fan who is not eager to put such information in. However, if notable people find it relevant to comment on the occasion of the 40th anniversary (if that's what's going on), then, simply put, that 40th anniversary has become notable. BTW I do not base anything I said here on a poster. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, simply because they're not critics and it's critical opinion that matters here. Reducing it to a single sentence in the "Reception" section would be fine, but you certainly don't need an entire section for it. Esszet (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, I don't know much about Rainbow at all. I was led to the page from Sad Wings of Destiny, and I haven't heard much of their music at all (if any). Esszet (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, those early albums are really good, and the live album, On Stage, is excellent--a bit noodly for some, maybe. Anyway, we are not limited by policy to "critics only"; that would also beg the question of what a critic is. Musicians can be critics as well. I've said already, I think, that I would suggest limited space. But if some terrifically notable person says such glowing things, yeah that's important enough. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that these people are notable, but not for their opinions on other people's music. Their opinions thus generally aren't notable. Esszet (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Esszet, you're repeating yourself, and so I shall too: this makes no sense. To some extent they are experts in their fields, and it is prima facie ludicrous to not have a musician talk about which other musicians have been important to their music. Have a little common sense. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? You certainly wouldn't put "Rob Halford" in the ratings box, and if they're talking about influence, then fine, but reduce it to a sentence like "Musicians such as [blank and blank] have cited it as an influence" and move it to the "Release and reception" section. You don't need a "40th Anniversary" section just for other musicians' appraisals of it; it would fit in just fine in the "Release and reception" section. Esszet (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, sometimes my judgment is a bit clouded. What I was getting at is that such comments are notable, but not notable enough to warrant an entire section dedicated exclusively to them. I reduced it to a single sentence and kept Snowy Shaw's comments in; that should get the point across without sounding too biased in favor of it. Esszet (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ß--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Andrews

I'm not sure where to bring this up so I'm parking it here. Two years ago this article was AfDed and deleted, when it looked like this: [1]. It received a DRV which endorsed the deletion. Now it's back again with some slightly better notability, but it's bloated (and some of it is sourced to things on the order of Wordpress and GoodReads) and needs a trim, as well as extra eyes. (For instance one editor is militating for a restoration of a clearly inappropriate and non-useful Criticism section which was merely soapboxing in disguise.) I'd do the trimming myself but the subject bores me. Could some of your lovely (I notice 99 gets a lot of traction when he calls your TP stalkers "lovely") talkpage watchers take a look at it and excise the excess? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's pretty sloppy and promotional. And still self-cited for much of the text. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but I gotta get off this couch. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: DGG tagged the article as a news release; I re-removed the section you had deleted and removed DGG's tag. If the article's editors have gotten the message, it's OK now I think, but if they haven't this article should have a few more eyes, especially admin eyes, on it. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At it again

This editor has taken to editing articles under arbitration - they were warned that they could not edit the article as an IP address, but after 2 more minor edits they moved to the talk page. According to the arbitration notice "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." I'm not sure this editor (per the history here too) is really trying to be productive, especially this comment. Is this worth bringing up at arbitration? Garchy (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Garchy I don't know if that's worth the trouble. As you said, they're on the talk page now, though less productively than I had hoped. If they continue in this vein (and I don't mean just editing articles that are off-limits) they are headed for another block, for disruptive editing. A DS block is certainly an option, but I'd rather not be so heavy-handed right now; I am convinced they wish to improve the project though their methods aren't always so good. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! I was thinking the same thing after checking out the contributions today. I'm convinced of WP:DUCK, but I can certainly find more productive things to do than wait for the editor to screw up :) Thanks for the advice! Garchy (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing that now - looks like that businesses section had an advert tag going back to 2015, so it's been long overdue. Although this editor has been a little pesty and rude I'll have to remember IPs are human too! Garchy (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That last thing there, just back there

...righto. But not only was the speedy tag added twice- it was removed both times by the article creator- and since they're not allowed to do remove tags themselves, that justifies its replacement...? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 19:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) One of those removals appears to be by another editor, hence why it was moved to draft space. Garchy (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortuna, that's the edit I saw too. It makes sense to remove that tag once you move it into draft space. Interesting--if it is moved back in to main space, I think in principle editors should be allowed to tag it again, with the same tag, since the idea is that if it goes through draft space it is a "new" article, or at least a new attempt at an article. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both, well advised. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious to know if something like that has ever happened, and how the community deals with it. It's not the first time that the moving back and forth obfuscates the history, to some extent. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see something like this about once a week. It is sometimes due to confustion, but sometimes by deliberate attempts to circumvent the rules. But I would not tag it again unless it showed no signs of meeting the problem. The proper course would be AfD if it gets into mainspace, (or MfD before that, if it doesn't even meet the looser standards for G11 in Draft space) I'm very conservative about applying IAR to speedy deletion, tho there are a few times I have used it. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DGG. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Loudon

I am fielding an inquiry at OTRS regarding Gina Loudon. You deleted the article on 18 October as a G 10. It clearly was at that point in time but it looks to me like the entire contents were replaced by attack language. The version as of 20 February 2014, on first glance, doesn't appear problematic. One possibility that this is a simple as you saw the content on 18 October and agreed it should be removed and miss that it was replacing a valid article; another possibility is that I am missing something. Would you be willing to take a look at it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(For my records ticket:2016123110008515)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to restore the underlying article - I agree it isn't great. Let me know if I misunderstood your view.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did not. Thanks User:Sphilbrick, and my apologies: I should have looked harder. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal. I have removed many an attack page and while I try to remember to check the history, I can't guarantee that I've done so always so won't be surprised if I've done the same thing myself at some time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There was canvassing"?

I would have responded sooner, but I haven't been on Wikipedia. You sounded so certain that the now dead "vote stacking" accusations are true, which is convienient given that you closed the WP:ANI discussion immediately before I was about to do a full breakdown of everyone that I apparently canvassed. All of the accusers completely failed to demonstrate how I supposedly knew what all of these editor's opinions were, especially given that I have clashed with some of them in the past. Some I've barely even spoken to. I have, of course, gone into detail about all of this, but the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT at the discussion was legendary.

"Stop doing it or you will very likely be blocked." - I'd suggest coming up with some actual evidence if an admin expects to get anywhere near a block, because repeating "it was clearly canvassing" over and over (and ignoring the many genuine points that I have made) isn't getting closer to proving anything. A block also would not be preventitive in any way, given that this is the first time I've ever even been accused of doing this. You said that like this happens every other Saturday.

In short, I won't be taking responsibility for vote stacking, because I never had any intention of doing so and the so-called "evidence" is flimsy at best. I fully intend on moving on now... DarkKnight2149 22:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence

Just when I thought that things were wrapping up, more evidence just presented itself regarding what I've been saying all along. I am referring to this report-worthy exchange that took place behind my back yesterday. It not only confirmed my suspicions of Curly Turkey's intentions ("He's going to be a major roadblock in cleaning up the mess at WP:COMICS."), but it also confirmed my suspicions of some of the factioning that took place at WP:ANI. Hijiri88 even goes on to offer to allow Curly Turkey to WP:CANVASS him in future discussions, exactly what they accused me of doing ("Well, if you need someone to back up your claims that he dismissed or downplayed non-comics influence on Batman characters, canvassed, and engaged in some pretty blatant IDHT behaviour, you know who to call."). Even when you go back to the discussions at Talk:Joker (comics), Curly Turkey was pulling accusations like WP:NOTHERE out of nowhere in an attempt to undermine my side of the discussion, and later admitted to projecting his opinions of WP:COMICS onto me.

I'm not about to sit here and pretend like I know more than an administrator (you've been at this a lot longer than I have), but I feel like this is why you shouldn't just assume one side of the argument is true. I'm really conflicted on if I should file a report or not. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens from here. DarkKnight2149 18:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • That note by Hijiri is not an invitation to "canvass". That you chose a select group of individuals to send your message to was stated by a significant number of respondents in the ANI section. I closed that thread because there was some agreement on the matter, and because a. I figured that sending you a signal that this was not OK would be strong enough and b. you seemed to be in a hole, continuing to dig: I was doing you a favor. Now you're digging again. Whatever you have to say about the content of some article or the behavior of Curly Turkey has no bearing on the ANI thread or its close. If you want to complain about Turkey's behavior, don't do it here--take it up on ANI, maybe, if you think administrative action is warranted. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, how is a biased party offering to help WP:FACTION in future administrative discussions not canvassing? And those "select users" were not selected based on their opinion. I had no way of knowing what their opinions would be. In fact, many of them were either already involved (some disagreeing with me before I alerted them), from the Wikiprojects, or have disagreed with me in the past. DarkKnight2149 18:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC) (NOTE: I should probably mention that I will now have to largely avoid inviting people to discussions altogether, just to avoid more accusations; it's sad to say, but true). Also, that behaviour does have a bearing on it when the user's motives for filing a false report are called into question. DarkKnight2149 21:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just when I thought that things were wrapping up DK, please give it a break already. This is literally the third time you have unilaterally dredged this dispute back up, and the third time you have blamed me or Curly for it being dredged back up. I chimed in on ANI because I had personally experienced you engaging in the same kind of disruptive behaviour on a page that had nothing to do with Curly, and I have offered to point the same thing out again if it ever comes up. I also offered to point out that you are engaged in pretty gross IDHT regarding your canvassing behaviour, because that is the case. It's ironic that you would use the word "biased" because in reality what you mean is "involved", and notifying an already-involved editor can't possibly be canvassing; not notifying might be inappropriate, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"This is literally the third time you have unilaterally dredged this dispute back up." - Ha, what?! When were the first two times? Because I'm certainly not the one who kept bringing it back up at the deletion discussion.
"I chimed in on ANI because I had personally experienced you engaging in the same kind of disruptive behaviour on a page that had nothing to do with Curly" - When was this? Are you holding a grudge for our completely unrelated disagreement at Talk:Vulture (comics)? If so, you should know that Wikipedia is not a battlefield and you should take another look at our citing sources policies.
"It's ironic that you would use the word "biased" because in reality what you mean is "involved"" - Still continuing to lie. You were not involved in any way, shape or form when you commented at WP:ANI. And serving as a meatpuppet for your friend is indeed disruptive behaviour, as is suggesting that he WP:CANVASS you in future discussions (I've already linked to that little discussion). DarkKnight2149 21:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) and uninvolved editor here. Darkknight, I would take a break from the discussion, as nothing constructive can come from continuing here. If you see a continued issue I would reopen at WP:ANI, but be aware that if the issue is considered closed that may boomerang right back at you. Cheers, Garchy (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a bad idea. The reason it was brought back up is because I haven't really been editing lately and was unable to defend myself against claims, while people are also continuing to insist that I canvassed (despite my overall clean track record from nearly three years of editing). I should also note that I did initially revert my message at HiJiri's Talk Page just to slow down the conflict, but he reverted the revert. You can read his reasoning in his own words at that Talk Page. In terms of the new evidence that has arrived, I'm probably just to see if anything further comes from it before filing a report (though I already have all I need). DarkKnight2149 21:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A pair of doozies

Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, any thoughts about or assistance you may render at Frank Spotnitz and related article Big Light Productions will be appreciated. They're both press releases, largely tended to by a WP:SPA. A lot of unsourced and gratuitous tables of credits, and possible copyright violation content; the net result is puffery. They do appear to be identical, so once the dust settles one can probably be redirected to the other. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some bold work at Frank Spotnitz - let's see how the editor responds! Garchy (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Garchy. I'll have another look at the bio within the next few days--I think the tone of the prose may still be an issue, and now we know that it's been an autobiography for a long time, an online resume. As for you, Dr, I like to drop an archaic word your way from time to time. Can't imagine anyone uses 'doozy' anymore. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked the first for WP:RD1 and the second for WP:G12. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, 99, it's not that archaic; I know it's being used, though I don't agree with it. But then there are a lot of things I don't agree with, and at least this one doesn't single out one specific religion to persecute. Anyway, JJMC89, I think I mostly followed your lead--thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dr, you completely lost me if you're serious. I'm not familiar with the term being used in an offensive manner, and can't find any such reference. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I always thought "doozy" was a shortening of Duesenberg (sp?). Back in the old days the "Doozy" was known as a really high-end car, so that the word took on the sense of a general superlative. (Where I'm from "the Cadillac of [something]" has a similar meaning.) I'm curious about any religious connotations. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And thank you, JJMC89. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not dooziness ;)

O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Webster says it predates the manufacture of Duesenberg vehicles but might come from "daisy," as used in the 19th century to mean "the best." Or Beowulf. Maybe. Geoff | Who, me? 15:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User page used as......

User page being used for advertising here , not sure how or where to report it.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 16:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, in such cases you can do what Toddst1 did, which is tag it as WP:G11, which applies to user space also; if it's not totally blatant spam, have a look at WP:U5. In the meantime, RHaworth deleted it, and I see that DGG deleted a spammy article they wrote up. TJSMSQ appears to be headed for a block, for either NOTHERE or just for spamming. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Lucasneville

Lucasneville (talk · contribs) is the latest to add [2] what I find to be highly questionable content to Josef Joffe ‎ . I was going to leave a blp2 notice before I saw that you'd given him a final warning previously. I don't know what his redacted edits contained, so I thought it best to bring up with you. If you have suggestions on how to address the article, I'd appreciate that as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ronz, I've pinged you in various places already: thank you. This is unbelievable--some hack on the internet who doesn't understand a lick of German posts some bullshit, and a half a dozen more hacks come out of the woodwork to commit BLP violations on the article. Please see if I got all the violating edits out of the history. I placed some user warnings; really, these editors should all have been blocked on the spot. Thanks for your vigilance, and thanks also to Vanamonde93 for the protection. Let's see if by the end of February the trolls have left. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017 at Women in Red


February 2017

Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons
Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not what you meant, I'm guessing

You know as well as I do that CIVIL is difficult to endorse. EEng 05:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Name Society

Another article overseen by COI accounts--you'll love the edit summaries. Advice/assistance from the Dt or talk page stalkers much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No- but, we can do better than that, can't we...?  ;) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rodney felder

Thanks for getting rid of those pages by Rodney felder. Think you missed one... The Chute (2016). :-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what can come of this

Hoping you or some talk page stalkers can help with some advice on this. The discussion at Talk:Deflategate has become a massive assertion of point back and forth, and is taking over the talk page. I'm not sure any kind of consensus will come out of it or if it should continue on the talk or move to AfC? Any suggestions appreciated. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eh...eh... Drmies (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. That's exciting. I suggest you let this go nowhere. There is editorial consensus against their "scientific" evidence, by I think four editors. If need be, if that person starts inserting it in the article again, I suggest you run a quick RfC just on the general question "should we include this kind of evidence", just to get it ironclad. If the editor does not stop clogging up that talk page, you can always ask for a topic ban, a very narrow one. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for the comments - I'll keep an eye on it and hopefully it wraps up soon - at this point Rob Young is outlining points to himself, as no one else is really engaged in this conversation...hopefully he moves on to other articles soon. Garchy (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adriatica McKinney, Texas

Regarding this diff... Are you sure??? They sure look like the same thing to me... :-\ --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, alrighty then...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patriotsontop#Leave_the_adminning_to_the_admins_please

Jeez, just trying to help. I'll try to respect your authority next time. Patriotsontop (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Patriotsontop[reply]

  • How were you trying to help? By falsely presenting the article as protected? Not a question of authority--it makes no sense to put a "protected" template on an unprotected page, or to pretend in an edit summary that you protected an article. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hsiung Feng III

An IP hopper who has been adamantly pushing the use of blogs and tabloids for an exceptional claim despite being repeatedly refuted has been laying siege to Talk:Hsiung Feng III for a few months now. But lo, it appears we've made progress; after realizing he stands no chance he has resorted to (incorrectly) pointing out spelling errors, as can be seen in the RfC section that's now in shambles. Just came to tattle because it's become annoying and disruptive. Lizard (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mean this one? That talk page is not fun to read. If all those letters and words and paragraphs led to a better article with better sourcing, fine--but if editors have to waste their time arguing that certain papers are tabloids and that that tabloids shouldn't be used, that's disruption. I appreciate editors' patience in dealing with that RfC, but it strikes me as needless, and if this continues, this time wasting, we should maybe consider other measures. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean this one, who I suspect is the same editor as most of the other IPs on the page. I should have specified that what's causing the RfC to be needless is the editor's inability to understand the concept of reliable sources. But I'd have no objections if you went and closed it right now. Lizard (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm well, it only just started. I think what you can consider is just pressing participants for a straight up or down vote because that discussion is going nowhere; there's not even real conversation about the second and third issues. And you can, if you like, hat the discussions about the tabloids, which is clearly off-topic. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re: Nerds on Site

I'm not finding much on the internet regarding this company, other than their website, and the Wikipedia article. Maybe we should delete it? Boomer VialHolla 05:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know. It's been here a while, and typically admins don't speedily delete stuff that has some history. But the article history is mostly full of trash. I removed one or two of the tags (there's some claim of importance), but chose to edit it some rather than delete it. If you can't find anything, just leave the tag on and the next admin will judge it. If they decline, then you can choose to take it to AfD (the IP editor can't do that). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be ...?

... an Auto-SPI when you list yourself? It's inre to vote stacking in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Dallas Dance (2nd nomination). — Sam Sailor 19:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sampaolesi line

Hi Drmies, just so I know, could you please tell me why the "Image of Sampaolesi line during Gonioscopy: [1]" is invalid? (Article: Sampaolesi_line). Cheers Jkokavec (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jkokavec, hi--for two reasons: a. "See also" is for links to other Wikipedia articles; and b. even as an external link, we typically don't link to such external images--I see nothing in WP:EL that suggests we should include links to images (see the second paragraph of that guideline). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Can you then suggest how I might alert readers to this important image, without infringing upon Copyright? How else to I indicate that this is an important image for this topic? Thank you, Jkokavec (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's the thing--you really can't, because doing so (you, that is Wikipedia saying something is important) is original research. Things are important if secondary sources say they're important. That applies to images, theories, political statements, records, etc... Now, I didn't look at the link, but I assume there's some context there, that someone published it, someone who knows stuff, someone who provided context for it. That document can be a secondary source (if, of course, it's reliable, published, etc.), and then you have both an image and an explanation--an image by itself is nothing, just ask Cam Ward. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.odpalace.com/images/sampaolesi.jpg

Project

Hello. Can you please take a look around Wikipedia:WikiProject Validate credentials and help out if you want. I don't really mind but if you like the idea it would be good to have you endorsing it. Thank you. Wiki-Coffee Talk 00:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drmies It was an opinion about how you engaged with one editor. I saw it by accident and just thought I would mention it because I felt that attitude could drive away people from Wikipedia, but I am prepared to accept that issue is resolved and move on. I would prefer to move on and it would be good if you would evaluate the merit of the project on the principles and concepts. If you felt that what I said to you yesterday was unmerited, I apologize, but I don’t usually notice something then keep down if I feel it is rude. Sometimes it’s good to get an uninvolved and outside perspective on things? If you don't want to engage with me that's fine but personally I have gone right past that. Wiki-Coffee Talk 03:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies Additionally, I want you to understand that I am seeing things from your prospective. Probably along the lines of “who is this new guy who hardly has any edits coming along and speaking to me who has put so much hard work into this project… in fact it’s my life! Who does he think he is talking with!” The fact is however, that I can speak from the prospective of an outsider who is not as involved emotionally or otherwise with Wikipedia as you are. This is not a bad thing, as editors like you seem to me to be essential to how Wikipedia functions, however it can sometimes cloud vision. You do deserve respect – and some users like the one yesterday might not exemplify something worth showing much respect back for but I think you are one for being able to always take the higher ground. I love the whole idea of Wikipedia and what it does for people, and respect the work people like you do to keep it going. With that said however, edit counts and time spent on Wikipedia does reflect that you spend a huge portion of your life on here which means you might be very attached to it. When an outsider like me comes along and appears to be dictating or lecturing you – I understand how this could piss anyone off… but if you try to understand my vision. I am a Lawyer off Wikipedia and have a history of standing up with minority groups that are oppressed. It’s with this and my own personal background that I find it incredibly difficult not to openly object to something which appears to be wrong – no matter who I am standing up to. I hope that you appreciate that it could be you or anyone else and it does not mean that I disrespect you as a person. It just means that I hope you could do better, just like I hope I can do better and that if I was ever wrong just as I pointed out to you that you would address me all the same. Thank you for your understanding. Wiki-Coffee Talk 04:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I'm sure he apppreciates that 'seem,' there... O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, just wait until he actually reads the essay... Primefac (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Dongargaon ek jannat

After the users last revert, I've started a thread at ANI, thought you may be interested. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Hotels & Resorts

Hello, Drmies - I just happened to see this edit to Hilton Hotels & Resorts, and wondering in what way the previous edit had been "bad", I looked at the previous edits and saw what looked like edit warring, adding, removing, adding, and removing what appears to be sourced content. I don't know who is right, but I thought it was possible, since the article is about a hotel chain, that someone does not want anything unfavorable about it to be there, and I thought an IP editor may not recognize edit warring or know what to do about it. I also thought "bad edit" was not a very informative edit summary. What do you think? I leave it up to you.  – Corinne (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't speak for YSSYguy, though I gladly acknowledge participating in the annual march of the fuck-knuckles (see their user page). I also saw this and I wonder if this is someone we/I know--then again, everyone seems to hate on Sro23 these days--except for me, Sro! and you have a friend in Jesus! And the IP has some history with YSSYguy. Anyway, I think the edit you pointed at is pretty bad--poorly written, bare URLs, incorrect code, poor references, and the content is trivial, as far as I'm concerned; it's the typical "hey this happened at this place"; yesterday I deleted a fight in a schoolyard or something like that. And typically that sort of trivia is negative, or it doesn't make the paper--I just saw this in the same article. BTW, let's hear it from Herman Brood, the godfather of Dutch rock and roll, who we always thought was more likely to jump off the Okura hotel (wonder if they still have a sushi restaurant at the top level). Sorry--got distracted. Yeah, I don't think YSSY is whitewashing the joint, and I don't think this IP editor is much of an asset. Thanks for the note--and now let's play some rock and roll. This is the Brood song, with Danny Lademacher on guitar--so cool, on the P90-equipped Les Paul, with some cool analog chorus, vintage 1978. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I couldn't give a hoot about the Hilton company. Secondly, in addition to the above, the event had nothing to do with the hotel company, which is the subject of the article, it was allegedly about a particular hotel; also the sources do not actually mention a Hilton hotel. One of the sources says, "Police will allege the man yelled profanities at passers-by and then claimed he was going to blow up a building. It’s unclear which building the man was referring to." One of the buildings at that location is a Hilton hotel, a fact which the IP has used to put two and two together to arrive at five. Yeah, I have been following the guy around WP for a couple of weeks, that's because his edits have been shit; plenty of others have undone his edits as well at various articles, but when I see a bad edit to an article on my watchlist by someone, I also check that person's other contributions as well. YSSYguy (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Drmies, for your reply and the links. I had never heard of Herman Brood, but I like rock 'n roll, so I enjoyed listening to the song. I made a few copy-edits to Herman Brood. I notice there are a few "citation needed" tags there. YSSYguy, thank you for your comment, also. It sounds like you are perfectly correct in your assessments of both editor and edits. Even if you're fairly sure your edit summaries will be ignored by that editor, an edit summary that is slightly more specific than "bad edit" might help other editors figure out what's going on. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Corinne--it's been a while since I looked at the article and stuff has changed some. I worked on it many years ago trying to clean it up, but as so often I just half-assed it, even though I'm a heart and soul rock and roll junkie, just like Herman. Any help is appreciated. Glad we got this worked out, by the way. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit revert

Hi Drmies,

The edit you're talking about is not mine. The person who originally reverted the edit, reverted multiple edits, including mine, which didn't include anything about numbers (I didn't write anything about "30 000 ou 40 000"). My edit reorganized the "notable people" section and added details about various people. Whoever made the first revert, reverted my edit as well as someone else's. My edit was completely sourced. It linked to Wikipedia pages of the people concerned and is completely accurate. As far as I know, my edit was reverted for no valid reason, which is why I was perplexed by the revert, and the mention of a lack of sourcing, which definitely doesn't apply to my edit. Thanks. Gelkatn (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am talking about this edit. I don't know what all happened before, and it is possible that stuff happened that became part of "your" edit--but you made this edit, and thus you own it. And the "30 or 40,000" edits, that's in the source. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AJPH landmark articles

Hi there! I'm 146.243.110.117, logged in. :) Just curious about your revision of edits to the American Journal of Public Health. I understand Wikipedia is not a repository for links; however other academic journal articles do list some noteworthy articles in their pages. The articles I added I believed were noteworthy for historic and current event reasons (e.g., the Kawachi article is well-known in Public Health grad programs as majorly contributing to the understanding of social capital as it relates to community health) and far from being a PR campaign was intended to demonstrate the contributions the journal has made to public health. In your revision comment, you said it was not verified. If I am able to cite a reliable source stating the journal considers the listed articles noteworthy, would that be sufficient citation to include the links again? Thanks for your help! ViolinGirl♪ 17:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have a secondary source, an independent one, that says that this or that article as published in that journal is noteworthy, sure--but if some article is important, that doesn't necessarily make the journal it was published in important, or the fact that it was published in that journal and not another. I've looked at many articles for journals, but I don't think I've ever seen a list like that. Here's the other thing: if a journal has made contributions to (in this case) public health, then one would expect that to be verifiable directly. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does, thank you very much for your explanation. I will be sure to cite independent sources to verify the noteworthiness of the articles before I implement them into the page for the journal. I appreciate your help! ViolinGirl♪ 19:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=764404307"