Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anarchangel (talk | contribs) at 04:25, 14 December 2019 (→‎Progressive Conservatism recreated after AfD deletion). 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.

Mike Hill (sportscaster)

I just removed the unsourced assertion of USAF academy. I didn't get an edit conflict but it looks like I added something back you removed. Not sure what is going on. MB 04:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you unsubscribe from a list?

Just puzzled. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, they've changed something in the matrix again! Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 15:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why i pinged you

You had previously opined on Aidayoung's behavior. Sorry to bug you. Feoffer (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feoffer, I did? If it's about behavior, that is a discussion that really should take place on ANI. And BTW, I don't know what discussion that was and what the other editors you pinged said, but you can open yourself up to a charge of canvassing, so be careful. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, now I see what this is in relation to. I read the ANI report as well. User:Aidayoung sure uses a lot of words and paragraphs. I think your job is to link to places where there's consensus about sourcing--if such discussions exist. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

Boy, you're fast! I hadn't even had a chance to report them yet! Praxidicae (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed

Could you put some sort of restriction on 2012 Delhi gang rape due to a slew of attempts to add unhelpful edits. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

🎶🎶"...musical interlude..."🎶🎶

File permission problem with File:Bradford arrest report 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bradford arrest report 1.jpg, which you've attributed to Montgomery Police Department. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc () 17:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bradford arrest report 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bradford arrest report 2.jpg, which you've attributed to Montgomery Police Department. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc () 17:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • AntiCompositeNumber, thank you so much. Does this apply to the other file (see above) also? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm...that one's a bit more complex because of the fingerprints. Your actual fingerprint can't be protected by copyright because it's a work of nature. Under Bridgeman v. Corel, replications of 2D public domain works are also public domain. Fingerprints could be argued to be 3D, which means that the originality analysis is a bit more complex. According to Feist, there is no originality in works that are "obvious" or are the result of a "mechanical or routine" process without any human creativity. Thankfully (for us) the process of taking fingerprints is simple and must be repeated the same way each time. This process is too mechanical and doesn't include any human input, like framing, composition, or lighting. Therefore, that image is also {{pd-ineligible}}.
    Assuming the report was published around the time of creation and that it didn't have a copyright notice attached to it, the report would also be in the public domain due to noncompliance with required formalities. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this goes way over my pay grade. I'm simple: my tax money pays the Montgomery Police Department, haha--but they do have a history of racism and incompetence. So what's next? Thanks--I really appreciate your help... Drmies (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

Well, hello there. I assume we have both forgotten about my little misfortune a while ago. Anyways, LissanX has continued his hostile behaviour / personal attack fiesta ever since his block expired [1], some examples being: [2] (first link has loads) [3] [4] --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate a protection

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the proper course of action, so please feel free to point me to the right forum if need be. I came to your talk page since I saw that you provided some protection in this edit to the Eddie Kaspbrak page for persistent vandalism. I came to ask if you could reinstate it. Since the protection expired, the same type of edits have started up again. The Richie Tozier page has been continuously vandalized in the same manner, but it has never been protected. Can both pages be protected to auto-confirmed users for a longer period of time? Maybe through... March next year? Giving it just over 3 months after the home video release of It Chapter Two, which is scheduled for today and could lead to another upturn in these edits. I just chose 3 months on a whim, but maybe you have a better idea since you actually administer these protections. Thanks for your time! -2pou (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute at Black Sabbath (album)

Speaking with Sabbatino at their talk page, they concurred with my point that, following WP:STATUSQUO, I was in the right to restore content you now removed, content that had existed for six months (with a citation to a reliable source) prior to SolarFlash's original removal this month. And a second reliable source was added following the original removal, as you can see is cited here in the #Genre section of the article. Thank you for your understanding. isento (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Isento aka Dan56: To be clear, the status quo is the version before you attempted to add "goth rock" to the infobox. After that, all hell broke loose and now it's just a mess. SolarFlash (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo (See also: Status quo ante bellum) does not mean content existing for a few hours or a day, which is how long your removal of "stoner rock" lasted before I challenged it. The content you removed had been in the article since June, added by another editor. That was the existing state of the infobox before you changed it and I challenged your change. I hope that clears things up. isento (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Please take a look at WP:CONTENTAGE because "being in an article for a long time" doesn't mean "should be in the article"; content can go unnoticed or unchallenged for years, but once it is challenged it is considered contentious and should be discussed. Moreover, WP:STATUSQUO, in my opinion, refers to the state of the article prior to the beginning of the most recent dispute. For sure, it can sometimes be hard to agree upon which version is the most stable; however, if multiple editors seem to feel that the version without the change you're supporting is the most stable, then that's probably the most stable at that time. The WP:ONUS then is upon you or others to establish that the addition is an improvement and if the consensus turns out to be so, then it will be made. Just a general observation, but the RFC currently ongoing on the article's talk page has, in my opinion, pretty much no chance of achieving anything positive and is unlikely to garner any widespread interest to resolve this dispute. Both you and SolarFlash might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment and try to simplify/clarify things a bit to make it easier for others to follow. It would also be helpful it you two could stop going back and forth at each other in the RfC comments. If you two are unable to stop commenting on each other, then it's unlikely that anyone is going to want to wade through all of that muck and just to comment on the content being discussed. You might also want to seek input from relevant WikiProjects since that's we're you're likely to find editors familiar with this type of articles and music genres. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It actually was noticed. The edit immediately preceding Solarflash's removal was his undoing of an IP vandalizing that particular content on December 5. Is this not a concession by SolarFlash himself that the status quo had been the infobox holding "stoner rock"? Reverting back to the stable version by undoing what they themselves considered genre-warring in their edit summary? But, as I said below, I am done with this subject, and the RfC can sink or swim without my participation, as can the article. isento (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The very next edit to the article after the one you've linked to above was also made by SolarFlash. Isn't it possible that SolarFlash noticed the IP's edit and reverted it, and then took another look at the article again several hours later and decided to remove the additional content in good faith because they thought it wasn't an improvement? Sometimes I see an edit that think is WP:VANDAL or something and I will revert it, but I'm usually only looking at the specific change made. In this case, the genre "doom metal" doesn't seem in accordance with the source cited; so, it would be a WP:INTEGRITY issue and reverting back to the previous version seems understandable to me. However, it also seems reasonable to come back a few hours later and take a closer look at things and then decided that even though the "stoner rock" is cited that shouldn't be there, and then remove it at that time. While in hindsight it might've been ideal to have made both edits together, there could be all kinds of good-faith reasons why they weren't. While I personally wouldn't have labeled an IP whose only edit was to change the genre in an article about an album a "genre-warrior" since that seems a bit WP:BITEY to me, there could be a back story to that that I'm unaware of. Anyway, another editor has restored the article back to a version which includes "stoner rock" and the citation, but doesn't include "goth rock"; so, perhaps that's the most stable version to work off of and try and resolve this matter.
FWIW, there's no reason for either of you to be done with this. Maybe stepping away for a bit to let things settle down, and then coming back when you're batteries have been recharged a bit and others have had a chance to participate will help sort things out. After all, it's not really a matter which of the two of you are right, but whether the two of you can figure out a way to work together in improving the article for Wikipedia's sake. I understand being frustrated, but either of you throwing in the towel at this point is going to seem, to be blunt, like a bit of WP:PRAM. Of course, you both can decide to move on, but content disputes are unavoidable on a collaborative editing project like Wikipedia and resolving them amicably typically means trying real hard to avoid discussions being turned into things like WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:USTHEM. If you're both interested in the same things, then there's a good chance that you'll cross editing paths again; so, working together to resolve this disagreement will almost certainly make future collaboration on improving other articles that much easier. Despite the comments each of you have posted about each other up to now, there's always a chance to tone things down a bit and start focusing on the content being discussed and not on each other. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. Well, I disagree. And I think the reliable source doesn't say what you claim it says. Also, way too much is made of genre. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just coming here to suggest full protection as this seems to be an obvious content dispute between Isento and SolarFlash, Let it be sorted out on the talk page. Found this thread, so I just say it here. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha, but one of them is clearly wrong, haha! I actually haven't looked at the history--was it bad? Never mind, I'll have a look, but I'm involved now. In the meantime I'll light up a spliff and play some doom metal. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, they've both been at it for a few days now. Ah well; we'll see what happens. I'm not going to jump in, but "stoner metal" for a 1969 album is kind of silly. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the discussion, by all means. Isento aka Dan56 tried adding "goth rock" as a genre to the infobox, and he doesn't seem to take kindly to his edits being reverted. He then misleadingly mis-labeled the rfc as an attempt by me to remove content when it's really an attempt by him to add. It's all in the discussion. He's being very deceptive and obstinate about something that really shouldn't escalate like it has. SolarFlash (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isento, you are the one formerly known as Dan56? Wow. Anyway, these additions are useless. You are taking a few passing remarks to prove that these genres existed before they did, when you could have just settled for "forerunner" in this or that genre without anachronistically bloating the infobox. What a waste of time. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your freedom to make disturbing distortions of another editor's words on an administrator's talk page. Alas, I will not be sticking around. isento (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I remember Dan56 We used to go round and round all the time and I also remember so did everybody else, I say 'indef this net negative and be done. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime:. I am sorry you feel I am a "net negative", and that you had to undo all these recent changes of mine (my formatting references previously missing the correct author or page number, my quoting the source directly when the article text was not faithful to the opinion cited, my attributing the genre claim to the source in-text out of fairness to those who have questioned it in vague and opinionated terms, my fixing punctuation, my correcting the track numbering -- all changes justified by guidelines cited in my edit summaries). I'm sorry for my bold actions and viewpoints. I obviously have no idea what I'm doing, if this is the response I am getting -- that I am of negative value -- from seasoned editors and administrators. Perhaps I should reconsider my participation in improving these articles. It is not worth it to me to tread on anyone's territory -- after all, I changed my name to isento (Portuguese for "exempt" or "free from obligation") for a reason. Thank you for your time and patience. isento (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar!

The Helping Hand Barnstar
Thanks for lending a helping hand to me, a new xcon user. The Lord of Math (Message; Contribs) 04:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page move(s)

Hi there, longtime wiki-buddy, how's it going?

A couple of favours you please, this which i ask of thee is only available for admins now, beats me why :(

Could you (re)move Gabri Gómez to "Gabri (footballer, born 1985)", please? User was topic-banned from performing such actions, but nevermind, they go to the pertinent places and ask others to change it instead. Wrong again, "Gabri Gómez" is a name/nickname compound!

With the same reasoning, could you "accommodate" at Gabri García? Since this is clearly the primary topic (played for Barcelona and Spain), i don't know if "Gabri (footballer)" will suffice, or if "Gabri (footballer, born 1979)" is the way to go.

Kind regards, keep up the humungous work and continue (not) having fun here as do i ;) --Quite A Character (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you like my Cruijff picture? I just read another book about him, his last year with Feijenoord--it's mostly about money and business and contracts. Tedious. Anyway, I can't look into this right now, and I am not knowledgeable enough with such names; I wonder if User:GiantSnowman can have a look, also since I see they've dealt with this editor in the past. Take care VASCO, and all the best to you and yours. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Handsome man there, big ole Johann! You take care also, happy everything :) --Quite A Character (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Conservatism recreated after AfD deletion

You closed the AfD as delete, and yet it was turned into a redirect, listed for discussion as a redirect, which discussion decided it should be retargeted, and turned back into an article. Anarchangel (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral Point of View Noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Thank you.Everettstern (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Stern

Obviously the subject thinks that the article isn't neutral. The subject is not likely to agree with other people as to what is neutrality, but that is his problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=930679724"