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 DHeyward (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 20 February 2018 (→More info: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Public School

You know as well as I do that this is a no consensus, leaning keep. It is not really acceptable discount so many opinions as you seem to have done; if this carries on, we may as well just abandon AfD discussion altogether as outdated. Please reconsider or we will take this to DRV. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Necrothesp, I don't know that at all, and your conclusion is unwarranted. Feel free to take it anywhere you like. For the audience, I'll just state that this was not some automated, boilerplate close: these are decided on a case by case basis. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I've tried to explain to you in the past that !votes such as your Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. should be discounted because they are effectively an invocation of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It looks like some other admin has finally had the guts to call you out on it. In that AfD, the same applies to, for example, Doncram's !vote. I'm not sure about him but you definitely took part in the recent SCHOOLOUTCOMES discussion and are aware of the consensus. My mind is boggled that you persist in invoking it and it makes me wonder whether you are fit to be an admin given such a failure to either understand or abide by consensus. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page watcher)Hmm..Echo Sitush.And, Necrothesp, since AfDs aren't ballot counts and weighing of policy/guideline based arguments matter, the closure was perfectly valid.Winged BladesGodric 12:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is amazing how often Necrothesp and friends try to ignore the RfC and claim a consensus that does not exist any more. Recently, more schools have been removed as administrators ignored the long standing shouting and roaring about schooloutcomes that were not policy and/or content based... It becomes time that you start to face the music. The Banner talk 13:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
—and dance, presumably  ;) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice when he first started listening to it instead of completely ignoring the inconvenient truth. The Banner talk 14:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

If this is the case we may as well completely abandon the whole AfD procedure, because AfD has always been about discussion and opinion on a case-by-case basis. If opinions are disallowed and the minority are allowed to override the majority then I see little point in the whole process continuing. It's a very sad state of affairs that Wikipedia has come to this and that certain editors think it's an improvement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the "minority". Why on earth are you suggesting that AfD is a vote? Honestly, the more you dig your heels in here, the more it seems that you have no right to hold the tools. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You, frankly, should be ashamed of your comments and personal attacks. Because I express an opinion that you don't agree with you don't think I have a right to be an administrator? Appalling. I restate what I said above about it being a sad state of affairs. What has Wikipedia come to? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You will also note that I was talking to Drmies on their talkpage. Not sure why you stuck your oar in in any case. If I take it to DRV you can have your say there where everyone can see your incivility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And where every one can see the flimsiness of your arguments... The Banner talk 14:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attacks? Honestly, if your skin is that thin then it is another reason why you should perhaps consider resigning the tools. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sad state of affairs is in fact that a minority is fighting a losing battle to keep a non-existing consensus based on pov-non-policy-non-content-related arguments alive. The Banner talk 14:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_invoking_SCHOOLOUTCOMES_at_AfD. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So here's a funny thing: a different "Evergreen Public School" at AfD, a different admin (DGG), and a same-but-different argument, "on the basis of the schools compromise". In this case the argument isn't relevant because it's an obviously non-notable primary school. But what is this "schools compromise"? Isn't this just the same as arguing "per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES"? Seems like déjà vu all over again... --IamNotU (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess the thing was that it was not clear what Northamerica meant with "per SCHOOLOUTCOMES"? Drmies (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify to anyone seeing it, it was my argument to delete/merge a primary school article (& the RfC closing did not even mention primary schools) , not and argument to keep a high school, and the consensus at the AfD closing was to do just that; I often specifically look for opportunities at AfD to try to find some common ground with people who disagree with me on a general issue. I did not quote anything, but I explained the compromise in my posting, and gave the reasons for it. The reasons remain a valid argument. Some people still follow it, & I've included in my comments on school afds yesterday that some people think otherwise.
People at AfD are allowed to argue their own interpretation of guidelines, like the notability guideline. (some of the earlier comments here and elsewhere seem to be under the impression WP:N is policy, but attempts to change it to policy have been repeatedly rejected by the community.
It is my consistent practice as an admin -- and I think required of all admins -- to make decisions in accord with consensus interpretations, and to give advice based on conservative interpretations. (accordingly, I frequently close afds against my own opinions, and my advice to anyone trying to write a school article would be to make sure to have excellent 3rd party independent substantial references.)
It is my consistent practice at AfDs to present what I think to be the correct interpretation . The latest schools RfC in essence amounts to two findings of non consensus--no consensus to use the school outcomes argument by itself, and no consensus not to routinely keep high schools. I consider that in practice contradictory, and a contradictory proposition logically implies anything. More specifically, it permits a wide range of interpretations. Any editor may argue for whatever interpretation they think appropriate--and, if anything, an admin has and should have a certain freedom to safely take unpopular positions, which is the basic reason given for our not requiring confirming RfAs.
It is also true I consider the first part of the closing wrong on its face. It was based on WP:Arguments not to use , which says at the top "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." To use that to imply a guideline or policy is an error. People too often quote things without reading them. To say, as I do, that WP, being an encyclopedia, should have a certain amount of consistency, and this is best done by keeping (or deleting) all of a certain class of articles is a perfectly valid argument. To say it is good practice to go on as we have been doing is the sort of conservative position I support.
My way of dealing with persistent disputes is to try to compromise them, not exacerbate them. I see posting this here as an attempt to do just the opposite. I have of course no need to respond here, but I don't like to miss a chance to explain how I see things. I don't expect to convert my opponents, but I do hope to convince the audience. And perhaps then I can persuade even my opponents to compromise. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I may be misreading this but it looks like you are basically doing exactly what Necrothesp has been doing and which he has been told to stop? And you are trying to justify it even now? Why are you different? - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am just going to answer your question,not argue general issues: I was suggesting how to deal with a particular article on a subject that was not covered by the relevant RfC: the close did not discuss primary schools. My recommendation was exactly how the AfD closed. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to cause stress, nor to make an accusation of wrongdoing at AfD. I posted here because I'd been here for a totally unrelated reason (the section just below this one), and I saw this, and I thought it was all sort of a funny coincidence, with the identically-named "Evergreen Public School", just a couple of days later. Just idle chat really, and also wanting to understand the issue better. If there's any difference between arguing "on the basis of the schools compromise" (whatever that is) and "on the basis of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES", I can't see what it is. So I asked some people who obviously know more about it than I do. To be honest, I find calling me your opponent and accusing me of attempting to exacerbate disputes (if you were talking to me), just because I asked a question on someone's talk page, seems a bit ironic. One other thing, there's now an example in "arguments to avoid" that specifically says not to use WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in connection with primary schools, so it's not accurate in general to say that the RfC said nothing about primary schools. In any case, I didn't come here to participate in a dispute, I was just curious to hear what people thought. It's interesting to see how things get worked out and to hear the different opinions. Thanks DGG for taking the time to explain your point of view. --IamNotU (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{U|IamNotU}. I apologize--}I'm sorry if I implied you have been principally involved in pushing the viewpoint. You have not been. I wrote my response thinking more generally. Controversies tend to overgeneralize, and this is an example. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Abbatai 11:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Land Change

DrMies, there was never a reference on the original land measurements for Alabama. I also got the information off of census.gov, an official website. I'm not the best with Wikipedia so I do apologize but it was a minor, but correct, change. 2013AtlantaBraves (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't matter, Braves fan--you made a change (actually, you keep making changes) without a. leaving an edit summary and b. providing a reference. See WP:CITE on how to do this. I blocked an editor today for making unverified and unexplained changes (indefinitely--it was a chronic problem), and an IP got blocked yesterday for the same thing. I don't like placing such blocks, and I did see you were warned for this before. I mean, you can at least just give an edit summary, can't you? And if you know the source, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to do this, and there's plenty of editors who can help you with this. Plus, you'll be an appreciated member of the community and if anyone reverts you, you have the high ground. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you just reverted again--just don't do that. The next admin may not look very kindly on this, and your edit looks like, well it looks like it could be made by a vandal, since nothing signals that you're editing in good faith and with good sources. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I understand. I will learn how to cite better. My apologies for not being able to right now. I do appreciate you being kind to me, it will be remembered. You have a good day! Oh, and Roll Tide. I'm ready for the 2018 season with Najee Harris and Tua Tagovailoa :D Roll Tide again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2013AtlantaBraves (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case reminder

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now! 52 (UK)

I created a new page for Now! 52 (UK), then it got redirected. I'm trying to know why the final decision was to redirect the page same thing with Now! 51 (UK). Please reply ASAP. Thanks! Dat!45 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is a Hungarian invention!

And I am a spammer...[1]

I suspect that User:InterCity(IC) has his edits set to default to minor, which is annoying (I like to turn them off on my watchlist). Is there a template for this? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Guy Macon: there's {{uw-minor}}. clpo13(talk) 19:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Just what I was looking for. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is at is again.[2]

That article says:

"The turbo generator was invented by a Hungarian engineer Ottó Bláthy in 1903. Unfortunately for Bláthy, Parsons had already demonstrated a DC steam-powered turbogenerator using a dynamo in 1887, and by 1901 had supplied the first large industrial AC turbogenerator of megawatt power to a plant in Eberfeld, Germany."

And (big surprise here) he continues to mark his edits as minor after calling the warning template spam.[3]

I am going to correct the unsupported "The turbo generator was invented by a Hungarian engineer Ottó Bláthy" claim in the article, but I would like some advice about how to deal with InterCity(IC). He clearly is not here to make the articles follow the sources, but rather is here for the sole purpose of attributing as many things as possible to Hungarian inventors no matter what the sources say. Should I take this to WP:AN and ask for a topic ban? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Guy, I suppose that would be a good next step. I reverted a few of their edits again considering their personal attacks, the edit warring, the poor sourcing and explanations, and the obvious POV editing. (You can quote me on that on AN, if you like.) Martinevans123 could weigh in as well--thank you Martin for your work. InterCity(IC), you really have two option: either you continue down this path and I or another administrator will likely block you, for a shorter or longer period depending on your other edits; or you explain your edits without the rather silly personal attacks ("spam" makes us question your competence; "idiot" makes us question your team spirit) on various talk pages or in an AN thread, if Guy decides to go that route. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close on Racial views of Donald Trump

You had a few questions it looked like in your closing statement here that I was hoping to address.

He said she said. That was in reference to Durbin vs Kirstjen Nielsen (The she who was at the meeting), Tom Cotton, and David Perdue. Cotton and Perdue both confirming "sentiment [attributed to Trump] is totally phony"
With regards to Graham's statement, Graham refused to confirm or deny hearing Trump's words stating "[I] said my piece directly to [Trump]."
The denied vs recalled, Cotton and Perdue's first joint statement was did not hear him say that. Which they later clarified to it's totally phony.

All this information is currently in the racial views article in the "Shithole countries" countries section with appropriate sources to each. Does that clear some of that up? PackMecEng (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. If you have another go at it (obviously many editors had a problem of one kind or another with your phrasing, but that's easily handled) it would be a good idea to include relevant evidence when you make your case, yes. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User: Ehtech2000

I'm a relative newbie to the community, and I've read a lot of Wikipedia policy documentation recently, yet I admit I'm not cognizant of a lot of the 'community' based stuff. Forgive my ignorance of the norms of editors in this community. I am learning as I go.

I made an addition this evening to the Patchwork Man article, that I thought would benefit other users. The edit added note that a character called "patchwork man", having many similarities to the DC Comics Patchwork Man appears in the new Netflix series Altered Carbon. Within less than a minute -- in fact, it was probably less than 5 seconds -- my changes had disappeared, even though Wikipedia responded with a success message. I made the edit on my phone, I clearly explained in my comment the what and why of my edit. After about 2 minutes, I discovered that the edit had been reverted. This segment shows the pertinent revision history including my comment on what I contributed:

  • (cur | prev) 02:01, 10 February 2018‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,662 bytes) (-41)‎ . . (→‎Plot: the usual verbosity) (undo | thank)
  • (cur | prev) 02:00, 10 February 2018‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,703 bytes) (-450)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 805533963 by Jtalledo (talk): Rv: unverified trivia. (TW)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
  • (cur | prev) 01:59, 10 February 2018‎ Ehtech2000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,153 bytes) (+450)‎ . . (→‎Plot: Adds popular culture section and reference to patchwork man and Russian twins in Netflix series Altered Carbon.) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)

So, now I have a few questions:

  1. I have visited both user Talk pages for User:Drmies and User:Jtalledo and they both are very confusing in their structure. For instance, as I believe that my contribution should not have been removed, I am trying to find away to communicate with the user that removed it.
  2. Where is the appropriate page to ask the user (in following the advice of this help post: https://ask.wikiedu.org/question/175/my-edits-got-deleted-what-do-i-do/) why they reverted my edit? In normal society I would try to communicate in private channels, but I can see no way to do that here (no 'message user' or any such thing).
  3. It appears to say that Jtalledo reverted my contribution, but the comment left is very terse "'unverified trivia'". This requires clarification. It is not trivia because it IS important new information.
  4. Based on the " TW link, I think some bot/software/app auto-reverted my change and left the 'unverified trivia' comment. How do I tell a software bot that it is wrong and that it may not be 'verified' information, but I'm watching it unfold in front of me??? Yes, that is frustration ... but, as long as Wiki has been around, I'm sure I'm not the first wiki editor to be frustrated because a robotic software zapped them.

If I did something wrong, please let me know clearly so that I can avoid that mistake in the future. Also, how do I cite a TV show I'm watching right in front of me? I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm not asking for pity. I'm just trying to understand.

Any help is appreciated. -- Ehtech2000 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to explain, it deserved to be removed

I've read too much crap lately and ran across yet another opinionated piece disguised as facts. I don't care enough to explain more and certainly don't want to waste more time on wikipedia, feel free to do whatever. Btw if you don't think NYT publishes some fake news, you are just ignorant. AnthonyCheng (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, thanks, I suppose, that you cared enough to leave me this. You don't seem to understand what "fake news" means. Errors or whatever aren't fake news--deliberate falsehoods, that's fake news. And the burden would be on you to prove that that particular article was incorrect, but I see you didn't care enough to make that case. If you change your mind, you can explain the matter on Talk:Hong Kong Canadians. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Örebropartiet

Hi. Sorry to disturbe you. I am too new on enwp to know where to ask for an article to be deleted (I do not know the procedure). I found an article about a very small Swedish party not updated since before last election and it have never had an article on svwp because it does not meet our standards. If you agree with me on this talkpage, please help me. Else tell me and I understand. Best regards Adville (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the book

"Provocative and highly controversial, The Nazi Hydra In America presents an overview of the fascist influence in America. While Eisenhower's troops defeated The Third Reich on the battlefields of Europe, the war against fascism was lost on the home front, to the same cadre of American elitists who built Hitler's war machine. At the center of this small confederacy two firms stand out: Brown Brothers & Harriman, and Sullivan & Cromwell. At the very eye of this oligarchy one family name stands above all others. Spanning over 90 years and 4 generations, the Bush family has chosen to ally themselves with Nazism and warmongering at home and abroad, ever willing to advance the Nazi agenda of global corporatism."

These days anyone can publish a book, you just have to know how to register on Amazon or Smashwords. The publisher of that book "Progressive Press", should be known as the bullshit press.

You can find "sources" like these all over Wikipedia. Instead give me a statement of reference actually involving Henry Ford where he shows his pro-fascist credentials.

It's interesting that this book states that the "oligarchies" in the US are due to fascist influence, when Henry Ford was against patents, he was against state intervention, etc etc.

I'm not too familiar with the talk pages I'm afraid, so yeah, not sure how "respond" to something other than edit. Wikipedia adventure is just too silly for me. And I don't use wikipedia a lot, for obvious reasons, Wikipedia told me that the Battle of Camden was an American victory among other things. Chronicler87 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting one. If a publisher is a "vanity press", i.e. will publish people's nonsense in print form just because they pay for it, then one can usually confirm this just with a Google search. But I'm not finding anything of that nature for "Progressive Press". So seems like a legitimate publisher...? MPS1992 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the discussion is at Talk:Henry J. Kaiser regardless of the comments about talk pages above. MPS1992 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MPS1992:

I'm not sure a publisher that calls themselves "Conspiracy Realists" and mostly seem to publish books online (and only about the "new world order" should be considered a good publisher, or the people it publishes should be considered authorities in their subjects. Anyhow, I don't care if someone is an authority or not, I care whether or not what they write is based in fact, and if it's even something that's possible for them to know.

There are too many anti-fascist instances in Henry Fords actions to accuse him of being a fascist. Mussolini basically shut down Ford in Italy after Ford refused to deliver trucks to him after the Invasion of Ethiopia. Rabbi Franklin also got Ford to sign a protest against Nazi actions against Jews in Germany (another example), etc etc. Ofc people cherry pick, Fords pacifism and isolationism made him refuse to make Britain war materiel for example (he was also opposed against imperialism), and people use that as an "instance" of him supporting fascism.

Ford even opposed patents etc, and invited people to see how his plant functioned. He opposed the New Deal, most state intervention, was a republican in the Coolidge mold.

Anyone can make books, we can discuss what makes a publisher legitimate all day long, it's obvious however that Progressive Press is mostly just publishing people that cherry pick things to suit their conspiracy theories. Chronicler87 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff actually made a good post now in the talk section of the Henry Kaiser article. I didn't realize the book was actually self-published and then republished by Progressive Press. Chronicler87 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cordless Larry (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refreshments

[4] got a good laugh from Mme Acroterion. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I've just gritted my teeth and rewritten our article on Atheism Conquered, including bringing back a point and reference that were present in the first versions and had been removed. Copyvio from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was introduced beginning with this edit. Could you or one of your admin talk-page stalkers please check that I've successfully avoided it and if so, rev-delete from there through my second edit, with the edit summary starting "Began rewrite"? It should be ok again from my third edit on. I hope. Thanks in advance, Yngvadottir (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Revdeld. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Yngvadottir (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin status

This'll sound like a loaded question that is being asked to try and set up some sort of ill-planned "trap" for someone, but it's genuinely just a point of curiosity for me. Yesterday I saw a long-term editor, with whose (good) work I'm well-acquainted, described as an admin. The editor has no admin template on their user page, but when I checked the admin list, sure enough the name was there, as were some other folks I know but hadn't realized were admins. I had always been under the (obviously mistaken) impression that admins were always identified on their user pages, usually through an admin template or with the "Wikipedia Administrators" tag in the Categories list on their page. Now that I see that's not the case, I'm curious about the reason, if there is one. Is there some rationale or discussion that resulted in a deliberate decision to not require admins to self-identify, or (more likely) is it just a case of "it never really seemed necessary so we never worried about it?" Grandpallama (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) It never really seemed necessary, so we never worried about it. Some admins self-identify and others don't, but as you've already discovered there is an inbuilt method for checking whether any account has sysop rights (or any other set of userrights) so forcing admins to self-identify is redundant. If you're very concerned about knowing whether or not any user you're interacting with is an administrator, you could try out the adminhighlighter script, or I'm personally fond of userinfo which has more links but requires you to click. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Another tool is Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups which gives the same info as userinfo but on hover.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both! Not "very concerned" or concerned at all, and definitely not looking for any tools to monitor, but just curious about the philosophy around identification. I always knew you could check the list, but only yesterday did I find my own assumption that all admins announced their status to be wrong. Grandpallama (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of administrators do self-identify. I speculate that those who don't, and many of those who do, are welcoming of the concept that the administrator bit is merely a set of administrative tools and is no big deal. Administrators do not, after all, have any special say in content disputes, and content is the most important thing here. And there are some other limits and expectations on their actions. Using the "mop" analogy that I don't see explained anywhere, the janitor doesn't need to wear a big label saying "JANITOR" so that one can see she is the janitor when she is not carrying or actively using her mop. MPS1992 (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These scripts are fun. And will help protect me from an egregious error recently where I confused an Admin with someone more dubious (is that possible?). 20:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

110.54.164.75 and 110.54.150.220

Sorry to bother you on St Valentines Day, but I have noticed that the contributions to these two IP addresses (both used by the LTA My Royal Young) has made the same disruptive behavior as the ones you've removed earlier on this year. I am requesting the revisions to be moved from public view in case that they would be seen in the future by others viewing the page histories of those affected. Iggy (Swan) 17:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time, two revisions are still viewing the same type of editing as the ones which were removed today - this and that. Hopefully the filter will prevent that from happening again. Iggy (Swan) 20:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GB fan. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Gerard Corben

I have been going through articles with multiple issues and this article came to my attention. There are eight issues mostly related to referencing and content. What do you think will be a good fix to some of the issues in this article? Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, do you think it should be nominated for deletion? I don't think it meets the general notability guideline at the moment. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be notable with quite a few hits on Google. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOLYMPICS

Artikelen over deelnemers aan de olympische spelen zijn toch altijd bekend genoeg onder WP:NOLYMPICS? Kan ik wel in het Nederlands schrijven op deze wiki? --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 16:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Van mij wel, but for other readers you're putting up a barrier. I know, every civilized person should know the language of Slauerhoff and the Statenbijbel... Yes, I agree. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you talking about stuff you ran into on Sander van Ginkel's page? Drmies (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may .... yes, I can read the Dutch ... several of Sander v. Ginkel's articles were so sloppy, they accused living athletes of committing crimes, with absolutely no justification. I sympathise very much with the desire to keep articles on notable topics, and although I am not a sports person at all, I've edited two Olympians' articles today (or maybe today and yesterday, I lose track of time here) because the sports experts are stretched thin just updating infobozes and tables. And I believe I fixed up a couple of v. Ginkel's articles back when this was happening. But look at it this way. If there's an inaccurate, unsourced article about a notable athlete, whether malice was involved or just incompetence, it just does harm to their reputation and misinforms our readers. If on the other hand there's a red link, those who know how to create referenced and accurate articles on athletes know they need to do one for that person. The same as with all the Olympians from earlier decades who don't yet have articles. (I did one once.) Either improve an article so it can be saved, or write a new one, or add prose and a reference for someone's achievement in this Winter Olympics. Sander v. Ginkel meant well, but messed up. Notable doesn't mean any old article will do, especially for a living person. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About deletion of few contents from page Kuldeep Pai

Sharan (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Hi there,[reply]

I see that you have deleted few contents of page Kuldeep Pai- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuldeep_Pai.

1. Referring to the Titles, Awards, and Recognition- you have deleted them due to insufficient proof to substantiate the same. How did the wiki admins approve pages of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Subrahmanyan hailing from the same genre of music? There seem to be no citation or proof for any of the awards received by him? (Just 2 citations for 40 awards mentioned?). There is only a warning note on the page...but the contents have not been deleted.

2. Even the 'Touring' content mentioned on the page has been removed by you quoting - 'not a resume'. New writers like me look at pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahathi with similar background and genre for reference purposes. Why was the touring bit not removed from these pages while similar info was removed from the page I created?

Please may I request you to revert the content back to the page, please? Sharan Sharan (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an issue which you may be better able to address than I am

  • 1) Hi, DrMies, sorry for taking up your valuable time, but I wanted to bring to your attention a (possibly unwarranted) concern that I have but which I no longer really feel willing or able to handle myself.
  • 2) Judging by the latest trend in its survey, it now looks like this proposal is now in danger of passing, seemingly without any notification having being given to the affected Wikiprojects (at least where and when I have looked), basically the Wikiproject for every country whose national variety of English is about to be more-or-less-banned by the proposal (India, Pakistan, Jamaica, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, etc, with the only varieties being kept being American, Canadian, British, and a non-existant variety called Commonwealth, whose Commonwealth English article says there are a great many different varieties of Commonwealth English).
  • 3) Other projects that should arguably also be notified are WP:CSB, and WP:WER, at least if we don't want to unnecessarily lose editors from places like India (as well as damaging Wikipedia's reputation in those countries and inviting in a lot of angry disruptive ultra-nationalist editors from those countries, etc).
  • 4) Despite this being more-or-less stated in the proposal, few supporters seem to have noticed that a similar proposal was passed a few years ago and then acrimoniously reversed when those affected found out about it. Presumably this will happen again, but we will presumably get acrimony and disruption whether it gets reversed or not. Or at least that's how I see the issue.
  • 5) As I have mentioned there, I originally thought the proposal had no hope of succeeding and that notifications to the relevant projects would probably just unnecessarily inflame the situation. But now that it looks like it may succeed I think that they should be notified but I am not sure whether this would be banned under WP:CANVASS.
  • 6) I also don't really want to waste any more time on the issue myself (I took it off my watchlist a few days ago for that reason), as my involvement to date seems to have been ineffective and perhaps counterproductive, and I also think this is something that won't affect me, but will affect other editors as well as admins who have to deal with any acrimony and other damage to Wikipedia if it gets passed. And I may well also be worrying about something that is just not worth worrying about.
  • 7) So I thought I'd bring it to your attention, as the admin I respect most, and let you decide what, if anything, should be done about it.
  • 8) Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) "The admin I admire most took the last train for the coast," with apologies to Don Mclean and Drmies - I just couldn't resist after reading trying really, really heard to read the whole RFC. (Whew!) Geoff | Who, me? 16:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, admiration? You don't have to put butter and syrup on a reasonable request, as far as I'm concerned, though I appreciate it. Look, I rarely deal with the MOS, unless it's those damn flags. I always overlook those ENGVAR templates on purpose and try to roll with the flow of the article. Likewise, I am not as aware as others about Wikiprojects and stuff. In other words, I am really the last one who should comment, certainly when it comes to procedure. But having looked over the RfC (not all of the discussion), I do have a comment or two to make, and I will leave them there. Geoff, did you leave any thoughts at the RfC? Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Drmies. And my apologies if my attempt at an honest explanation for why I was picking on you came across as butter and syrup - next time I'll try to think up a dishonest explanation instead . Not that you should let my explanation go to your head - being the admin I respect most is not necessarily much of a compliment if there's not much competition for the title . Also I'm afraid any mention of admiration was not by me but by your friendly local page stalker, who, unlike me, also at least appears for some unknown reason to be hell-bent on implicitly comparing you to the Christian Trinity (if you don't get it, just check out the lyrics of Don Mclean's Bye Bye Miss American Pie and look there for the word 'admire'), though I'm not entirely clear why anybody would think you deserve to be compared to 3 beings whom I am unreliably informed are hell-bent on inflicting eternal agony on me and everybody like me . Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that RfC, maybe it's not a foregone conclusion yet. I was just very surprised at its tone: the first rule of RfC is "write it up neutrally". And it's not even clear what kind of proliferation we're talking about: how many of these templates are there? how often are they used? And that, as I indicated, should be followed by a serious discussion about the validity of them individually, and a conversation about how appropriate the "overarching" (more general) ones are. So I'm really quite puzzled by the whole thing--and typically if there are such problems, the RfC won't be taken as a valid conversation that leads to a valid consensus. Speaking of American Pie, I was in Lubbock one time, where three very American things happened to me: I had a limo ride and a hot tub experience, and I saw that the grass in people's lawns was dead and so they had painted it green. Exceedingly strange. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess I learn something new every day - I thought Americans only painted things green for St Patrick's Day . As for the Rfc, I never thought it was a foregone conclusion that it would be passed (as distinct from thinking it was no longer a foregone conclusion that it was going to fail). My own admittedly very limited experience of Rfcs is that once there is a 2 to 1 majority in favour of a dubious proposal, the decision as to whether there is a valid consensus for it seems to be a rather unpredictable and subjective one by a self-selected 'uninvolved' closing admin. (The admin's decision can be appealed, but I suspect this hardly ever happens). But that should no longer matter to me, as this entire issue shouldn't really be a concern of mine any longer - your comment at the Rfc describes me as 'desperate' but a more accurate description might be 'feeling guilty at irresponsibly just walking away from a possible problem'. If I hadn't been walking away from it, I would have had to ask some admin (almost certainly you) for advice on what I should do. But since I was (and am) walking away from it, I just felt the responsible thing was to mention the perceived possible problem to the most suitable admin I could think of (as I have now done above), and let them in their wisdom decide whether or not anything needed to be done about the matter - but the matter should then cease to be a concern of mine. After all, it would be very foolish of me to in effect say "I neither know (nor greatly care) what to do about this possible problem that doesn't really affect me, so I'm walking away from it, but I'm still going to try to backseat drive what others do about it". (Incidentally, I don't mind either way, but please feel free to refer to me as 'he' instead of 'they' if you find 'he' more convenient). Thanks again, and regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan strikes again

See Talk:Helen S. Mayberg#Expert witness section. Just FYI. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.- theWOLFchild 01:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:International microbiology.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:International microbiology.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you OK?

I think that the recent Florida school shooting has effected you more than you realize. I think that you are no longer acting in the fair and impartial manner that is expected of an administrator with over 100,000 edits. Your recent edits to the Colt AR-15 pages indicate that you are frustrated and angry with your follow editors. That you have decided that criminal use and mass shooting must be added to firearms pages at all costs. That your now willing to add contested information to the article, while its being discussed on the talk page. It also appears as though you intend to use discretionary sanctions to silence fellow editors whom you know will oppose your position. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sipos111 for WP:NOTHERE and WP:OUTING myself and Niteshift36 you flipping blew-off compelling evidence that banned user and outside agitator Lightbreather recruited Sipos111 because he's on your side. Sipos111 (with less then a dozen edits) adds mass shooting info with summery like "Kids are dying and it's important for people to understand a problem before it can solve it." Sipos111 then targets user Springee and Niteshift with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:7%266%3Dthirteen&diff=next&oldid=826025253 as if he expected to encounter them. Lightbreather has targeted me and Wbm1058 as well https://lightbreather.com/wikipedias-promotion-of-pro-gun-lingo-more-about-ar-15-v-modern-sporting-rifle-e3b6a7625621 While we disagree on this subject matter, I have never seen you act in this way. It's almost as if your computer has been hi-jacked by another person. I think it would be best if you take a step back, maybe recuse yourself from this topic for awhile. Perhaps take a Wiki-vacation. I know your amped-up right now, but I am trying to be helpful. --Limpscash (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Castelen

Hi there MIES, all well?

Can you please be a sport and translate this chap's reference #12? Not quite sure what's trying to be conveyed.

All the best, thank you very much in advance and take care! --Quite A Character (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CBAN for Krajoyn

On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I have started a discussion of a potential CBAN of Krajoyn which you might have been involved in.

The discussion is linked at WP:CBAN for Krajoyn. Iggy (Swan) 19:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More info

This isn't a bad read and has some perspective over time.[6]. It correctly labels the Orlando shooters Sig MCX as a competitor to AR-15s type rifles and also has some history. Understand that there is no way to define an "AR-15" in a way that isn't later corrected to a model. Legal attempts to regulate it don't actually make attempts to define it rather they lump them into features. --DHeyward (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=826610618"