Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 11:09, 1 October 2019 (→‎Is this promotional?: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talking

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

ARBCOM

Hey Doc, how y'all doin? I did glimpse at the ToC of your talk first, and apologies if I missed it, but .... Would you consider another go 'round as Arb? I know it's a tough gig, but good arbs are hard to find these days. So I thought I'd take a shot at asking those few folk I trust - would you? — Ched (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ched, I appreciate the thought, but I'm going to decline. I don't think I have enough time to devote to it, plus, I didn't get voted in the last time, so I don't know if I'd have a better chance this time around. We make more enemies every year... Plus, Fram helped tank me the last time and I don't want to go through that again, also because of privacy issues. Take care, and thanks for asking--maybe you should run? Or what about Writ Keeper? It's about time he got busy again. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me? I'll take that as a rhetorical kindness, but Heavens No. I don't have the patience or temperament to deal with protracted disputes. Since I couldn't support myself in such a position, there's no way I could ask anyone else to support me. Besides, I wouldn't enjoy it, and I much rather work on some content these days. But thank you for the kind reply. Writ Keeper - yes, I could support that - no problem. — Ched (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Township Article created

I saw you were interested in the Alameda County articles before, so I wanted to tell you I created a page for Eden Township. @Uncle G

Eden Canyon for example, and Eden Canyon Road. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ranchos articles are interesting, and I didn't know we would have those because I hadn't seen a way to find them. I would like to see all ranchos articles, and possibly the geography articles (Amador Valley, etc.) accessible from the corresponding township page. Remaining articles to be written are Brooklyn and Oakland townships (Alameda township is essentially the same as the city of Alameda). I did see an article about a town of Brooklyn, which was absorbed into Oakland, but I'm not sure if that's the same as the township.--
-Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Township

Washington Township, Alameda County, California is now here as well. All three of these articles are incomplete. There is a lot more that can be written on them from the sources available. Naddruf (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in Michigan where townships are still commonplace. It seems that townships were also commonplace in California in the second half of the 19th century, but as far as I know, there are no more active townships in California. That leads me to believe that this form of government has been abolished in California, but I have not been able to find any reliable sources to that effect. I do know that the powers and authorities of incorporated cities and towns are identical in California law, and each municipality can choose which of those two terms to describe itself. Many smaller incorporated communities choose "town" to help them maintain a small town atmosphere, perhaps. So, I am wondering if anyone with better research skills, such as Uncle G or anyone else, can find out if townships are no longer part of the government structure of California. If so, when and why did that happen? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The US Census has the answer. See "Census of governments". This links to a separate PDF which announces on page 32 that California has no township governments. Though the name 'Washington Township' may no longer have any official status, the name of the township lives on for some purposes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Black Cloth

On 25 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Black Cloth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the folk tales in Bernard Binlin Dadié's The Black Cloth express the "African sense of community" and the "wisdom of an ordered society" in the face of French claims of moral superiority? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Black Cloth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Black Cloth), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeanon409 again

Back in June, you helped out with this user, who was engaging in personal attacks whenever people stopped him from his, well, particular sort of POV pushing and DARVO attacks on other editors, by giving him a do this again and you're out of here warning. Well, he's been pretty tendentious about this stuff, and I just came across him still engaging in the same tactics. I'd appreciate your input. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your oppose comments, at the RFA. It's always a little unnerving when there seems to be behaviour that no-one else can see. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • Ugh. Drmies, I'd forgotten all about that ArbCom election questions fiasco. I'll still support the RFA for other principles that I consider really important, but I kind of feel like I owe you an apology for doing so. To be clear, although I'm supporting, you were 100% in the right and Fram was 100% in the wrong there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Floquenbeam, I understand that completely. How the WMF handled this, regardless of who it was, was unacceptable. It would have been easy for me at that time to pile on and go "but yeah he was abusive", but I didn't. This RfA, I just saw it go by in Recent changes and thought WTF? already? And I had actually forgotten about the "banned editor" comments, but when I saw those again I felt like I had to comment. BTW I am not sure I knew already that so much of his commentary had been oversighted; I have tried not to dwell on that episode. You don't owe me an apology or anything: you do you, and that's fine. Haha, one funny thing--there may be some people still, or again, wondering what I meant with the good thing I did while on ArbCom: I'M STILL NOT GOING TO TELL YOU, haha, but breaking a lance for Guido den fucking Broeder wasn't it. Take care Floq, Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sigh - I was determined to stay completely out of this - but Floq you strike a nerve there. So many people are supporting this as a referendum against WMF/T&S intervention in en-wp affairs. IMO, an RfA is simply that - a request to determine if an individual is suitable for Adminship. Nothing less, but also, Nothing more. It wasn't designed to support "other principles" (although I agree those are worthy principles to support) I honestly believe that anyone thinking a mass of support votes at an RfA is going to have any influence on how the WMF do business going forward, I think they are sadly mistaken. Saying "A" is wrong, so I'm going to support "B" (regardless of the suitability) is simply misguided devotion to anti-A.
An RfA is not a referendum against WMF or T&S behavior. It never was. It never will be. And - it isn't now. I totally agree that the WMF and T&S should mind their own business of doing business for the foundation, and that their partial ban and desysop was completely crossing the line. But that is all fodder for an RfC, not RfA. You know it's seldom I'll buck against you Floq - but I simply don't agree with you here. — Ched (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ Floquenbeam - Fram had used the same tactic on my Arb candidacy, a few years previously. Whether it was successful (i.e changed the result) is hard to say (and I can't remember much detail) but a number of editors said "not supporting someone involved in a stupid feud like this". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: I'm not defending Fram's behavior, especially not from years ago. I'm saying that from my perspective, there is a bigger issue for me, and while I'm not really apologizing for it (it wouldn't make sense to apologize if I don't change my vote), I'm at least expressing regret to Drmies (and to you too) that it looks like I don't value the pain of your experiences, and acknowledging that that pain was legitimate. If this RFA had come after a fair and open ArbCom case that had removed his admin bit, I likely wouldn't support. @Ched:, when you say "An RfA is not a referendum against WMF or T&S behavior", what you mean is "I don't think an RFA should be a referendum against WMF or T&S behavior". I understand that point of view, but disagree that it's such an open and shut fact. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: Thanks for that, I don't think this is simple, I never had a fully working hypotheses of what Fram was trying to do, certainly not a charitable one. I didn't follow the Arb case once there seemed no possibility of submitting open evidence, but from what I know the result was pretty gentle. I objected to WMF's actions on procedural grounds, though I am grateful for the intentions and work of the T&S staff, so to be consistent I have to reserve judgement on ArbCom.
However we shouldn't hastily follow two fiascos with a third. Sysopping someone who is unsuitable would be just such a fiasco. One of the support voters says that there will be no problems with so many people watching Fram's edits. If we need this as an answer to Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? it would be better for those many people to be doing the work themselves.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Dr, what I came here to say Floq already said better, as often happens. Your oppose is probably the most damaging to Fram's candidacy, but it's also the most earnest and understandable. If the RfA fails, as looks likely at this point, I would rather it be due to your (accurate) description of the episode you describe and how it affected you, rather than due to some of the petty grudge-bearing and gleeful knife-twisting resurfacing elsewhere in the oppose section. Same result, I guess, but perhaps a more fair way to arrive at it. 28bytes (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • 28bytes, thank you for coming by: this is a rare honor. The RfA has a long way to go but you may well be right. I'm wondering if Iridescent, who has more common sense than most, didn't see this coming. Anyway, I don't know what the WMF knows, what that original complaint was all about. If my experience with them was so bad--and in such plain sight: a lot of editors must have seen the comments before they were oversighted--but didn't lead anyone to take any kind of action, what was it that was reported to the WMF? And by the same token, such "elections", RfAs and ArbCom and whatnot, are frequently less strictly policed for civility etc., which is fine sometimes, but this time it really was not. Which reminds me, 28bytes: there's some people looking to vote for some good candidates for the next round at ArbCom. You: you are a good candidate. And I see now you wrote up "IGY"--DYK that I got to see Donald Fagen perform a few years ago, and it was fantastic? Drmies (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not yet seen Mr. Fagen, but I can imagine he would put on a great show. I did get to see the final Cars tour, although I didn't know that's what it was at the time. :( 28bytes (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if he's still touring--I think I saw him three years ago, here in Montgomery. It was a small band; he played a couple of keyboards, and one of the guitarists also played saxophone. They were young, but they were solid, and it was just supertight. Played all the great oldies, including all the great ones from The Nightfly. If you ever get the chance, you got to go. I wasn't a big Cars fan, but I feel your loss. I still can't listen to Blackstar like it was just any other old album. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, myself - I'm working hard to completely ignore that RFA, but the fact that you quoted suppressed edits in your oppose is really a problem for me as an oversighter. You can make exactly the same point by referring to the same matter at links that are publicly available. To deliberately select diffs whose content you can verify only because you're an oversighter calls into question your fundamental understanding of the purpose of suppression. I ask you to refactor your comments to remove the links to suppressed material - which only 32 people on this entire project can genuinely view - and replace them with diffs or links that are visible to a broader range of participants in the RFA. I could even accept links to deleted content (which 1151 members of the project can view and assess, and which could potentially be undeleted temporarily for others to assess). Using suppressed content in this way gives the impression of using suppressed edits as a form of political control, which is not okay. Risker (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? An oppose at an RfA does not have to meet real-world interpretations of legal process. Drmies gave an accurate outline of the situation in his RfA comment—he obviously felt under attack at the time and there should be no requirement for him to find public text to amplify the attack. Are you suggesting the oversight was in error? I saw the original and was disgusted by Fram's monumentally dumb, hostile and totally misguided attempt to pour shit on Drmies. Fram misused the Arbcom questions page to attack Drmies and someone oversighted it. If you have reason to doubt that, make a case somewhere. However, there is no requirement for all background to an RfA oppose to be made public. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Johnuniq, nobody's talking about legal process. The phrase "political control" comes from the Checkuser policy, which applies to the other major privacy-related tool; generally speaking, most checkusers and oversighters routinely apply the most stringent aspects of each policy to every relevant action they consider. It's an RFA - our project's method of granting heightened levels of authority to individuals, which is widely seen as (at least to some extent, and certainly in this case) a political decision. I'm not saying that Drmies is wrong to raise the issue, but he can and should do so without using diffs involving suppression. I suppose the real irony is that Drmies, an oversighter himself, didn't recognize that a key part of the content should have been suppressed forthwith, and in fact repeated the BLP violation himself, suggesting it should be 'revdeleted'. Hypothetically, oversighters could perform suppressions even when "involved", although most of us wouldn't do so; however, we all know how to request suppressions or even reach out for a fast revdelete. I repeat - I don't think it is wrong for Drmies to raise his issues. I do think it was wrong for him to use diffs that have been suppressed when he could easily have raised the same issue with fully publicly available information. Risker (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Risker, I fully believe you are smarter than me, and if you want, take action as you see fit. I thought I was pushing but not stepping over a line. The asterisks were meant to indicate something that shouldn't be said without saying it--if that's too far, in your opinion, I will not argue against you. As for "revdeleted"--I may have used that term too loosely, but I assure you that I am extra careful when I have a choice to check that box or not. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I talked about legal process as an analogy with the idea that comments at an RfA should follow certain rules. The main point is what I wrote above: Drmies gave an accurate outline of the situation in his RfA comment—he obviously felt under attack at the time and there should be no requirement for him to find public text to amplify the attack. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can tell and unless I have missed other comments, the only suppressed diff Drmies summarized was a comment directed at him that was about him. The comment was made with the full understanding and intent that it would be public. Drmies most likely would have been aware of the accusation and knowledgeable about what it said before it was oversighted. If Drmies did not have the ability to subsequently view the suppressed material, it would still not remove the fact that Drmies would still be familiar with incident, nor would it prevent an editor without the OS permission to link the diff. Drmies chose to summarize the incident against him waiving any protections or benefits from having the accusation redacted. I would compare it to media blackouts where occasionally victims have waived their rights to privacy. In society, we do not go after victims who voluntarily forfeit a protection offered to them. We should not do so here as well. Mkdw talk 23:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Floq and 28bytes, specifically I'll still support the RFA for other principles that I consider really important, but I kind of feel like I owe you an apology for doing so. and Your oppose is probably the most damaging to Fram's candidacy, but it's also the most earnest and understandable. If the RfA fails, as looks likely at this point, I would rather it be due to your (accurate) description of the episode you describe and how it affected you, rather than due to some of the petty grudge-bearing and gleeful knife-twisting resurfacing elsewhere in the oppose section. (minus the "(accurate)" which I don't know enough about to take over). Drmies, upon rereading my !vote subsequent to your reply, I'm no longer confident that it's immediately clear to everyone that my "serious cause for concern" was about Fram's conduct and not yours. I will happily clarify it if it's not obviously clear. Thanks! Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 10:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, as I am still wondering why ArbCom failed completely to pick up on this or whether they considered it and didn't act on it, would it be at all worthwhile asking ArbCom for clarification on whether this matter was ever raised or considered at all? What I want to know is whether ArbCom dropped the ball here, or never had the ball passed to them. Partial justification for asking ArbCom would be that only oversighters can see the material. Secondary justification might be asking for clarification on whether Drmies was justified in quoting what he did (from what I can see [not having the oversight tools myself], he inserted '*****' to replace what was actually said). It would actually be an important point to establish, whether any suppression rules got broken here. Though I fear trying to ask that question would just be seen as adding fuel to the fire. Is there a place to ask that question (about the oversight) without stoking drama? (The aim would be to avoid people using oversighted material like this in future, without clear rules on how it can be used.) Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Going back to I'm wondering if Iridescent ... didn't see this coming, in this particular case no I didn't. Working on memory so this may be slightly off (although I'm apparently theoretically entitled to be given the OS permission on request, I've never seen any reason), from my point of view I don't recall Fram's conduct at WP:ACE2018 being as problematic as you describe. (Stating the obvious maybe but I'm more aware than most that user conduct at the time of that election was under the microscope—and we now know that Fram was also being secretly monitored at the time by people looking for dirt—and AFAIK nobody filed any kind of complaint.) Fram's commentary about GdB was correctly oversighted because he made a specific allegation, but it was clearly an attempt to raise a legitimate concern based on what he felt was legitimate circumstantial evidence, rather than blowing smoke. Regarding your alternative account, Fram was acting like a dick here, but theoretically this was a breach of "Use of the account should be limited to articles and other pages directly related to students and classwork", and it's not abusive by any possible definition for someone to point out that one of Wikipedia's few formal written policies (as opposed to "guidelines") wasn't being followed; your problem is with the fact that Wikipedia has a policy that isn't fit for purpose, not with Fram for upholding it. ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iridescent, no, my problem wasn't really with Fram upholding it, but with him choosing to make an issue out of it at that time, in that forum, and with some shitty comments. That I would abuse my position as a teacher and a Wikipedia editor to get "reviewing credits" or something like that, that is just real hurtful. I have done a lot of shitty things in my life, but I have not abused either of these two position for my own gain. (One wonders how much gain there is in getting a review or whatever.) That review, BTW, counted for Template:Did you know nominations/Mamie Garvin Fields. Look at that article: it's not my article. This is the kind of stuff it is that I teach in composition classes at a university in the South, with a large African-American population. It wasn't "my" article--one of the students wrote it, with the help of a couple of Wikipedia regulars (including Gerda); I think the suggestion came from a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. I have a list of my DYKs--but those of my other accounts aren't listed in there (and if one of them is, it's by accident).

      Iridescent, surely you understand why, as a professor, it is useful for me to write an article alongside my students and show them what can be done: if I can show them that you can get almost 25,000 people to read your article, I can indicate that writing matters. It is a great pity that this one didn't get on the main page until well after the term ended.

      As for that Loschbour man, who essentially sort of proved that Europeans weren't all that white (a useful observation), that also was directly related to the class: I write these articles with the students, to show them how to do it. In this case it came about because one of my students wrote up an article on a cave. He is from a French-speaking African country, and so he can do this multi-lingual stuff, which is great. I sort of prompted him with another cave, to say, hey, you can translate things, which is also how Loschbour started.

      So, to get back to the original point about that DYK review, if I (the other I, of course) review a DYK nomination in order to have a QPQ for a student's DYK nomination, how is that bad? How is that not "directly related to students and classwork"? (And I am sure that there's someone going through all my edits, and the other guy's edits, to see if they can catch me slipping up: they are very likely to have found me slipping up once, or twice, or more.) Drmies (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh, Iridescent, I see now that you are pointing at the AfD for that church, not at the DYK nomination. Yeah, I suppose you could say that's theoretically a violation of some sort, though that was hardly, I think, what the problem was according to my critic. Well. Does a QPQ review still count as a review if the article is deleted? Drmies (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see it as a problem at all—I think Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy is ridiculously strict and that as long as there's no disruption or intention to deceive we should be turning a blind eye to alternative accounts—but by a strict reading of the letter of the law it would probably be a violation. Dropping it in the questions at Arbcom rather than raising a concern privately (or asking someone else familiar with SPI if they thought there was an issue) was inappropriate, but if we desysopped people for making stupid comments at Arbcom elections we'd end up each year with zero arbs. Taking 7 March 2018 (Fram's promise to dial it down) as the cutoff, if the most problematic things anyone can find since are 'asked an inappropriate question at the Arbcom elections' and 'said "fuck arbcom"' then for someone as active as Fram that's an astonishingly low miss rate—I'm sure if anyone went through your or my contributions over the same period they'd find worse. By talking about oversighted material at the RFA, you effectively gave the green light for people to make "no smoke without fire" and "if it was oversighted it must have been really bad" insinuations. (It's not as if we didn't already know that this was a case in which people were prepared to intentionally misrepresent and fabricate evidence.) ‑ Iridescent 19:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I never wanted him desysopped at all; it's hard for me to just take the WMF's word for much in this case, with its strange circumstances (even as I am emailing harassing emails from some longtime abuser to them--just got another one). I just have no opinion on what led to his desysop and block, because I don't know. Nor do I care about "fuck ArbCom", really. How I feel about him as an admin, that's another matter, certainly after what he said to me, even without taking into account what had to be removed. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Iridescent, it's not a breach if the first account is stated on the second account's page, as it was in this case from (as I recall) 2015, so the diffs you pointed to are fine. SarahSV (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @SarahSV, that's how we usually treat things, but that's not what the policy says (then or now), hence my comment about "by a strict reading of the letter of the law". The policy as written is explicit that to be a legitimate alt account for teaching purposes it needs to be identified on its userpage and "use of the account should be limited to articles and other pages directly related to students and classwork". It's a badly worded policy that doesn't reflect practice—and an Arbcom election isn't the place to raise concerns—but as I said above, I'm not going to blame someone for correctly pointing out that an action is technically violating policy. ‑ Iridescent 17:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Morning Musume

Hello! Sorry to bother you again. I was thinking of merging Morning Musume auditions to Morning Musume, but Talk:Morning Musume suggested rationale that it was better to have the article deleted. Would you recommend I submit it to AfD? lullabying (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

  • Wikimania
  • We're building something great, but..
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • A Wikibrarian's story
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Penbat (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this promotional?

Hi Drmies, Could you perhaps have a quick look at this edit? I'm tempted to revert wholesale (at a minimum, I think that all the "references" have to go), but would like a second opinion before I do that. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I have 7, 33, and my old high school teacher was a big fan of 40 (well, in Dutch of course)... This is an incredibly important series for Critical Theory--Minnesota was the one everyone looked at in the 80s and 90s. It is entirely possible that there are secondary sources, scholarly articles, that explain and verify this, but I don't see any of that in the article. The "references", as you indicated, aren't references: they're just bibliography entries. I grabbed one at random, "Toward an Aesthetic of Reception", and JSTOR gave me three reviews for that publication--so of course the individual books might actually be article-worthy. To me it's just another directory-style list, a catalog, and should be removed immediately--but what's so shitty is that we have tons of articles that are just like that, expect their anime books or records released by this or that company. Shoot, there was an article that listed all the publications in this book series, one of these series of embossed hardbacks of famous books that you find in your grandfather's study (well, mine didn't read), and I culled that. But yes, we do have articles that have such lists. I don't think they should stand. Promotional...well, yeah, sure, but the series is over, so that's sort of minimal. What I think the article should have is a paragraph on that series, with good secondary sources, and as far as I am concerned you are welcome to delete that list.

    And yet...finally someone on Wikipedia gives a fuck about some real stuff... Update: I can confirm The Resistance to Theory is here in my office. So this series put Minnesota on a par with publishers like Chicago, Princeton, Routledge, at least for this series, this field. Maybe DGG has an opinion. Thanks Randykitty... Drmies (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Randykitty, I looked at that edit again and undid it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Yeah, I agree with all you said above, that's why I hesitated with deleting that list. Not my field, but it looked notable. That editor is new, when I have time tomorrow, I'll write a note on their talk page, perhaps they can come up with some secondary sources and write a paragraph such as you suggested. Of course things would be different if these were really important works, such as an anime series... --Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, *lesigh*. It's a sad and beautiful world. In other news, almost every Lego kit is still documented on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking at some articles on JSTOR while outside the world is burning. I learned a new word: "unrebarbative": "which are far from easy to read. The works by Nikolai Trubetzkoy brought together in Volume 72 are, in conceptual terms at least, comparatively unrebarbative". Yes ma'am. This is pretty funny, and pretty accurate. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is reasonable to mention the series, though, to be honest, the sort of literary criticism it is devoted to is the sort I mostly avoid. I however share the doubts on the utility of listing individual titles within the article.Such lists are done for genre fiction, but the fact that we have not been able to prevent the pop culture people doing it does not mean we should imitate them. In any case, it would be much better to do it as a separate list, for all important academic series.--and at the least, the basic necessary context is the date of the original & the name of the translator.--the dtae is in the footnotes here, but not the translator. Such lists for series of original works could be defended, because every title on it is likely to be notable; it's harder for reprint series like this, because in general the individual reprint editions will not be themselves notable . Anyway, its unreasonable to list some series only especially when thery are not the most important ones in the world, so if we do it, we should do it comprehensively.I could very easily add about 100 of major publishers series--some will have hundreds of items, and for most I could show the series as a series is notable . But there is a better way now, or at least a potentially better way, which is Wikidata, which is principle able of including all published books and their relationships. Able in theory, that is--I suspect it may not yet have the capacity.. But it might be a shame to do it on an individual basis now when our efforts might be about to be superseded by somethign more systematic. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion: this discussion might be better continued on the article talk page. Also, Randykitty said "That editor is new, when I have time tomorrow, I'll write a note on their talk page, perhaps they can come up with some secondary sources and write a paragraph such as you suggested." As far as I can see, that never happened (though the editor started editing on 13 May 2016, which doesn't make them 'new'). At the moment, the article only has this: "The University of Minnesota Press also publishes a significant number of translations of major works of European and Latin American thought and scholarship, as well as a diverse list of works on the cultural and natural heritage of the state and the upper Midwest region." That is not sourced. I've added an external link for now and started a discussion on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Rx

Huh? I was expanding the lead. Yeepsi (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, and I think that was excessive content (even if some it may be verified later)--stuff like "As the group typically followed their feelings, they soon became inspired to make a new album" and "Following the realisation that pain was a running theme" (both phrases are chatty and make "interior" statements in Wikipedia's voice), and all that detail about announcements and teasers... Expanding the lead is great, but your edit conveys the chattiness of the article (which needs some editing) and moves it into the lead as well. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeepsi, about this--you don't have to worry about that when you're editing (or pruning, like me): there is a bot that repairs those things very quickly. It's very useful. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Hasmath

FYI, also:

- MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not another pesky FRAS!

Hallo again - please forgive my trespassing on your Talk page, but I've a query that I hoped you might spare a minute for. I've just read Patrick Moore, an article about an English amateur astronomer who was famous on this side of the pond for his many space-related books and TV shows. Apart from covering his career, the article goes into many of his various likes, dislikes and bees in the bonnet, including chess, Star Trek, homosexuality, cricket, Iceland, cats, feminism, the xylophone, political correctness, Liechtenstein, the Iraq War, race relations, AIDS, golf, homemade Christmas cards, the Monster Raving Loony Party, fox hunting, Dr Who, Ronald Reagan, sex discrimination, capital punishment, Pink Floyd, Norway and others which, perhaps fortunately, have escaped my memory. Three things about this article struck me. First, it's almost exactly the same size as Frederica von Stade. Second, the amount of the personal life, human interest, non-career stuff in the article is considerably more than there ever was in the von Stade biography. Third, Patrick Moore has that enviable little green icon pinned to its top right hand corner - yes, it really is a Good Article. In the light of this, might there be a case for allowing readers of the von Stade article to learn about her hobbies and interests again the way they used to? Best wishes.Niggle1892 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, what can I say. I just cut a whole chunk out of it. The article looks fine and not necessarily overly detailed, at a glance, but the references are really below par: it looks like 2/3 of the content is sourced to his autobiography. The reviewer who passed it for GA (see the review, Talk:Patrick Moore/GA1), this is the second time in a week or so that I run into an all too cursory review of theirs. You can consider a review; for the process, which is a bit cumbersome, see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock

Hey Drmies, would it be possible to get you to take a look at a pair of single-purpose accounts? They're both brand new, and they've both sort of edit warred over the same content at Sam Harris. There's clearly other issues here, but I figured it might be worth asking if they're engaging in sockpuppetry before I spend more time trying to explain the other problems to them.

Thanks! And if I need to file a WP:SPI instead just let me know, I figured this was minor enough that I could just ask directly. Nblund talk 21:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Nblund: Most admins would be willing to block these, per WP:DUCK, but it's still useful to file an SPI, to see if a) there's a more prolific master, b) if there's sleeper accounts, and c) to document this, so if they show up again, we have the history in a logical place. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vanamonde, that's a good point. I've opened that investigation here. Nblund talk 21:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nblund: Thanks. FYI, I repeated another editor's question on the supposed sock's talk page, not expecting an answer; however, they did answer, and said straight out that the other account was theirs. It still wouldn't hurt to ask for a CU, because the editor wasn't upfront about the alt account initially, but this reduces the urgency somewhat. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely agree. The first should be a milkshake. Should I tweet Katherine? I ran the check and blocked without realizing that the second account claimed they had lost their password. So, now the question is do I unblock the second account? I'm mightily suspicious of their editing, their usernames, and their style. I suspect there's an earlier account out there, but I can't find one (or think of one). The user hasn't made a formal unblock request, and I don't think I'll do anything until then, but I'd welcome input from you and Vanamonde93 on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies is waiting for either NO or Dallas to score a touchdown, and chances are they will be in bed before that happens. In bed, yes, with Among the Lost. I don't know why I was saddened that Estela was doing lines of coke--it's not like she had any redeeming qualities to begin with. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinions: haven't looked at the matter. I will if you'd like me too, but I haven't had dessert yet. Yes, do tweet Katherine (whoever that is--a power player, no doubt). Drmies (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: It's partially my fault, I suppose, I should have left a notice at the SPI. I find their editing mighty suspicious, too. That said, my personal inclination would be to give them rope; if they're agenda is what it seems to be, they'll be indeffed soon enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: For the moment, I've responded to the user's somewhat aggressive unblock request. I'm going off-wiki for the day soon, so this will have to wait for tomorrow. In the meantime, if he has time, Drmies can study the situation and give us his opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater crocodile

Excuse me, Drmies. I have three sources here: https://projectorangutan.com/salt-water-crocodile/, https://marinebio.org/species/saltwater-crocodiles/crocodylus-porosus/, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/7806139/Crocodiles-surf-ocean-currents.html, https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-heaviest-living-reptiles-in-the-world.html. See if they are reliable or not. --Manwë986 (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. --Manwë986 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me --Manwë986 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Telegraph is a reliable source, but why would you want to cite a newspaper for this kind of stuff? Marinebio, that website looks...well, great, maybe for kids. I wouldn't cite any of these. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey back

Still here trying my best, still not having fun anymore. The person that stalked ("monitored", "he said, she said", whatever) me seems to have vanished into thin air, as soon as they return i'll split.

Cheers, keep it up --Quite A Character (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the original stalker no sir, but another "friend", at Lass Bangoura: would you consider saying a region where a team/club comes from "flowerly language"? This other user (not all the time like the stalker, but on several occasions already, i edit and they perform their "cleanup") does! --Quite A Character (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu all over again...

Hi. Re [1], you might be interested in [2]... Cheers. -- Begoon 03:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, Doug Weller took care of it. Thanks. -- Begoon 08:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=919014196"