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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Music

Remember the violinist whom I heard? More memories today: a choral conductor who inspired us, beginning with a Bach chorale, - that won my heart, of course. Chorale or not - that is the question in my FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, you remind me of a perpetuum mobile. Good luck with the FA; I hope Schonken manages to stay out of it. --Oh, wait, it's that one... Drmies (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could just write a review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I even called you to the scene, fondly remembering one of your reviews. Copyvio is in the air - or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homechallenge55

I see you told him to stop yelling. No offense, but I don't think u should bother with him now. He has same issues and he won't take any criticism from anyone when ever we tell him to stop. He also blamed me for having issues which is not true at all. 2600:1000:B03C:C10E:D9A0:CDB:4BF9:DB4E (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cave man$97

Cave man$97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Not asking you to actually do a CU or anything, this is just an observation, and that's a convenient template for it. I've got a mixture of a gut feeling and suspicion that this could be a sock of someone I've seen recently (another short-lived nonsense disruptive / vandalising user). I just can't immediately think of the other username for a SPI.

Murph9000 (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't run CU on that suspicion, nor does it seem to be worth it. If their next edits are like the previous ones they'll be blocked, but it's likely a throwaway account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Steven

There are three versions of the article: User:Brittany 316/sandbox is the article that was AfDed (closed as draftify after 2 days), last edited on 18 April 2016 and shows as started on 14 April 2016—it was both AfDed and PRODded, I'm not sure in what order; Brandon Steven was started on 19 April 2016; and there is also Draft:Brandon Steven, also started 14 April 2016. A fine bureaucratic mess. The name also rings a bell with me, but I have no idea why, I can't find myself in the history. Maybe there is also a deleted version, or maybe tehre's someone else of that name? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Y. I merged all the histories and sent the thing to AfD. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I'll try not to completely balls it up this time!!! ;) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you in there somewhere, Fortuna, and chose not to investigate further lest I find more complications. :) Drmies (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carried away

Sorry, I got carried away. All of the answers I got kept ringing hollow, and I kept going, expecting to get a real answer at some point. Maybe I accidentally killed one of his sacred cows, but since he wouldn't explain what was bothering him, I wasn't sure how to appease him. Not sure where I should have stopped. Guess I was hoping someone with some sense would jump in. In the end, you did. Thanks. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I can't really help the two of you with that article, though. Maybe dispute resolution is best. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What it all boils down to....

The Old Coot Consolation Award

As much as I hate it, the truth I do bring,
We're not young enough to know everything;
So like other old coots, we keep getting screwed,
Dismissing the notions we want to preclude;
Like when flapping our wings for the whole world to see,
We're not flying high like we once used to be.
There's one exception to that which we know,
About being popular where'er we go,
We may not be watched as much as we think,
But we're better at keeping our traffic in sync.
^{Atsme📞📧} 17:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Me Down

I am reading the new biography of Martin Luther King. I am up to the spring of 1961 and the Montgomery (Alabama) Police Department is mentioned in not an altogether favorable way. So I went over to their page and noted there is no misconduct section. So I went to the talk page and see you and I were noodling on this about four years ago. Do you still hold that a misconduct section is uncalled for? I do not want to walk down the same road again if you think I am making a mistake. What do you think? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I left a note at Talk:Montgomery Police Department (Alabama) and hope other editors will pitch in. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Stagg nomination

I heard that you nominated Simon Stagg for deletion. When the articles for deletion article is started, I will contribute to it where this discussion will determine the fate of the article. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to explain what it means that "you heard" this? Drmies (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rtkat3 means that you, or a Twinkle-type script under your control, mentioned the deletion nomination on Rtkat3's talk page. MPS1992 (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magical username

Hello Drmies, I hope you are well. I was about to leave one of my templated friendly welcomes on the talk page of new editor User_talk:*.*.*._Bnt_Sattar but I discovered that I cannot, because this editor has chosen a very unusual username.

I think as an administrator you -- or one of your administrator associates that gather here -- may be able to create the user talk page of this user and leave either a welcome or some other message. You may also have views on whether their very unusual username is a good idea or not. MPS1992 (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Drmies. @MPS1992: I've created the page. The account creation filter and title blacklist should ideally match up. Someone should look into this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page gnome) I will not spam the direct link here, but this reminds me of Xkcd's "Exploits of a mom" story (Little Bobby Tables)

. — Paleo Neonate — 19:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, zzuuzz. I am curious with regard to the comic. Do schools in that country not have computer backups? MPS1992 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out...

...that this editor continues to follow me, making edits solely for the sake of annoying me. [1]. I've taken the article off of my watch list, as part of my personal policy of not confronting this editor, but I would like the background-level harassment from this guy who once called me "the worst thing to ever happen to Wikipedia" to stop. (Ironically, his disdain for me began when I commented against his behavior in a conflict with Magnolia67, the editor he is supporting now; I guess he's decided to annoy the greater of two evils. <g>) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, you're only a moderately-sized evil, as far as I'm concerned. You may well have a case for ANI there. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy

on linking to graphic material without providing an explicit warning? EtienneDolet just did just that (and EXPLICIT WARNING that twitter link in his comment contains graphic material!), I clicked on it and saw something I really did not care to see. I'm actually fairly pissed about this and, to hell with good faith, I do have a strong suspicion he did this on purpose. He *knows* that I consider al-Masdar an atrocious junk source (they employed a neo-Nazi), we've had NUMEROUS discussions and arguments about it and he *knows* how I would feel about it. I see no reason for him to do this except to troll and fuck with me.

I really really resent being tricked into clicking on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been round the block and here long enough to hover over a link to see where it will take you, quit feigning horror and grief and admin shopping link Govindaharihari (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that hovering over that particular link would be informative - there doesn't appear to be any context in the url for the video that it shows. I've no idea whether it is a pertinent link but, well, it does seem odd that something less pointed can't be found. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that knows anything about the topic would know what to expect by clicking on the twitter feed of TheDaneChris Govindaharihari (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. What about those who know nothing but read the talk page as part of, say, an exercise in dispute resolution? - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the posting of the link but no one else is complaining and the user on request deleted the link. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take over, Drmies. Dealing with all the drama is exhausting. El_C 10:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Govindaharihari, no one invited you to come by here and throw shade. This is not a forum. Sitush is a friend: he is always welcome. VM, I just saw that video, though I tried to look away. No, I am sure there is no policy against that but this will haunt me for at least the rest of the day and much longer. I have gone a long time avoiding watching this kind of stuff; I knew it existed, but I never understood the desire to watch it voluntarily. EtienneDolet, what the fuck is wrong with you? Govindaharihari, I had no idea what to expect, so fuck you very much for patronizing the non-experts. Neither of you need to reply here, unless it's to apologize, and you can do that in three words or less. And in the meantime stop thinking about scoring points on Wikipedia. A human being got shot in the back of the head by some cold-blooded POS, someone thought it was OK to make a video of it, someone else thought it was OK to post that or repost that, and now someone here who we think of as a colleague drops it in the middle of a discussion about Salon as a reliable source--which it is, until the contrary is proven.
El_C, thanks for the offer, but I've kind of enjoyed not having to deal with other people's problems all the time; I got work to do, and no appetite for getting run through the wringer again for all my efforts at diplomacy, so I'm going to lay low for a bit longer. VM, I'm sorry, sorry that you had to watch that (and I'm sorry for me too, and for my girls, whose Girl Scout troop ran a program on Syrian refugees and mercifully never had to see this, and for all the children of Syria, including Alan Kurdi, who frozen in time will always look just like my son at that age), and sorry that Wikipedia is what it is and I can't change it. Drmies (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That entire discussion is over a similar video. Didn't think that sharing another similar video would cause much grief. Come to think of it, I should of at least warned users before they clicked on it. My bad y'all. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) In the Alternet source (it's not Salon, it's Alternet) you can *choose* whether to click on the video of an execution. The twitter link you posted just pops that video right up and starts playing and it goes straight to the execution. You really can't avoid seeing it if you click it. You knew this. 2) You know that I don't consider al-Masdar reliable, that I think it's a crap source (and this actually confirms it) and there'd be no persuasive value in linking it - so why did you link it? 3) Removing the link after tricking somebody into clicking on it is fatuous. The whole point of that is to make someone see something disturbing that they can't unsee. So mission accomplished I guess. 4) Govindaharihari, go stuff yourself. There was nothing in the link or in the comment suggesting what the link would lead to. And it's really not up to readers or other editors to play detective when somebody does this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't fathom why anyone would film, post, repost, or re-repost an execution. I do not remember the tweet saying what it was, and the first still seemed innocuous enough, if I remember, so I fell for it. I don't know what this was supposed to accomplish; wasn't the discussion about a reliable source? What could this possibly contribute to the discussion? Never mind, I guess. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in response to accusations of this being a "surprising" incident. Therefore, I merely pointed out that there's nothing surprising here and that the White Helmets has a history of similar incidents. However, as I have mentioned earlier, I should've warned users before they clicked on it even though there's no policy in that regard. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my watchlist

hi - although you are an extremly high positioned user on this wikipedia and in my opinion you should be open to discussion here and accepting to all comments from good faith users, I have removed your talkpage from my watchlist at your request, friends only commenting for you. link Govindaharihari (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]