User talk:Drmies

• With thanks to User:RexxS: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Please read and edit accordingly.

Geolocation

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yo Ho Ho

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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

A cookie for you!

I want to thank you for the work you've been doing to uphold Wikipedia's policies and fight disruptive editing, particularly relating to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. I saw some particularly nasty remarks made to you while you were doing your work to defend Wikipedia's policies, and I hope you know that I condemn those remarks and I really support and appreciate your work recently. I hope you stay well and I hope you have a good day. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, I appreciate that. In fact, I expect to be dragged to ANI at any moment, haha, for that very incident you're thinking of, and I appreciate your kind words. One of the things that not all editors understand is that our talk pages are not free-speech zones, and that talk about BLM activists is really a BLP violation, besides a horrible equivocation. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• To be properly relevant, should that cookie not be cooked on the outside with ice cream in the centre? I suspect that Doktoro may have meant "equivalence". But maybe xe didn't. Uncle G (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The doctor was trying to sound fancy. Hello Uncle: how are you doing? Drmies (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I am confident that there is a Old High Gallifreyan rhetorical term if you want to sound fancy. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookies! Granada837 (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Russell (surname)

Since you thanked me about Russell (surname) yesterday, perhaps you could take a look and act as you see fit. The WP:SPA continues unabated, even after I warned them for edit warring (and previously started a Talk thread in which they have shown not the slightest interest), but I am up against 3RR. Agricolae (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ugh. Yeah, I didn't think that person was going to stop. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I did find a source for the 'de Rosel' origin of Russell, but it is in a 1918 book with the ghastly title of Surname Book and Racial History, which appears not to be a work reflecting the sensibilities of modern scholarship. I did find an exposition by Horace Round specifically addressing the Rousell vs de Rosel origins for the prominent Russells of Kingston Russell, which once I read it through may justify a mention as a way of introducing the possible toponymic origin with an actual citation. It is somewhat annoying that I find myself doing the work on documentation, just because the other editor won't stop putting it in without any, but it will probably take less time than getting them to stop. Agricolae (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    • If the editor messes with it again I will block them, and indefinitely block them from editing that article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Henry B. Guppy suggested the de Rosel possibility, albeit only for Russell's in one area of the U.K., in 1890, in Homes of Family Names in Great Britain (London: Harrison and Sons). John Leslie Hotson talks about the Russell in Chaucer, and (most think not very plausibly) linked it to John Russell. Do not pay too much attention to Chaucer's red fox, though, lest you attract English professors to this user talk page. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey

I am sort of temporarily back. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Haha Back in Black. I played that for my kids yesterday; they're not really getting it. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

please block

Hi, there is yet another sock from the AnatoLion's farm -- Moëtley (talk · contribs). Please block them too. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• And a new one: Βυζαντιον (talk · contribs). Semi-protection for İzmir is desirable too. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User Wildcursive

If you are around, I could do with your oversight with user Wildcursive. You previously gave the user a week long block a few months ago after their last round of edit warring / misleading edits. User is unable to edit around the topic of Covid or China without introducing rather obvious levels of bias and edit wars to reinstate various NPOV terms, or misrepresent sourcing and create WP:SYNTH issues. I have gone the obvious path of warning, but the user doesn't approach the talk pages and just keeps pushing unencyclopedic content with edit summaries regularly invoking "Don't cover for dictator China!", "1st Amendment Does Not only protect leftist media who were mouthpiece of that bloody evil China!" or similar. This sort of stuff goes back months across numerous articles. Koncorde (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. I left them a warning. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Moira

Hi, it seems like you remove some of my edits on Moira Dela Torre's wikipedia page. May I mind asking you, why use "unverified" as an excuse when all of the other nominations does not exactly have it's own source as well yet you did not consider those as unverified once? Ylonagaricstar (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• There are two things: content must be verified, and awards must be notable; even in K-pop articles they stick to that rule. If an award is notable, I can expect that coverage at least exists; it just needs to be added. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I could place a dozen more "citation needed" tags in there. If you actually want to improve this article, that's the place to start. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Someone is using your username while giving warnings to other editors [1][2]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Should I be flattered? Drmies (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see someone else using my username, but I am still the only Ktrimi around. Well, who knows what the future brings: one day I might have my own fans :P Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Have dis instead!

	Have this powerful doge!
	I am sorrie about the rifle, I take it back and give you dis, Very stronk doge, Good companioné! -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 02:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'll take the doggo, anytime. Thanks Drmies (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

New year

Thank you for your help with what is on the Main page now: about seeking solace, in a new year's song. - Have a good 2021! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• You too, Gerda; all the best, and thank you for all your good work. It's much appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha material

Drmies, I wanted to take this off the talk page since this is an editor behavior, not content question. Also, I'm open to constructive criticism so if you think I'm screwing up, please tell me now vs at ANI! That said, please correct me if I'm wrong, I think, by your comment here [[3]] you are concerned that I am rejecting the consensus to include the material entirely. To be clear, I'm not removing the basic content since consensus for inclusion was established. Here is the difference between my earlier full removal (reverted by NickCT) and the article after my latest edit to that section [[4]] (scroll down to just above line 114 to see the diff). The version I support is Shinealittlelight's [[5]]. That is the version I have restored (SAL's version vs mine, again section above line 114 [[6]]). I would be very happy to try to discuss this with Activist but unfortunately they take a strong battle ground view to any criticism of their edits. I've strongly considered taking them to ANI given their history of edit warring and personal attacks[[7]][[8]][[9]] and disparaging talk page/edit summaries (all predate any interaction I've had with them). In this case Activist originally, BOLDly added the material. I reverted. Activist didn't go to the talk page to get consensus as a next step, instead they restored it. None of that is strictly relevant here other than they haven't shown a willingness to try to find compromise with other editors. I haven't removed the basic content since consensus for inclusion was established by NickCT's support for some level of inclusion. I hope that clarifies things. Again I'm ok with your objective criticism and suggestions where my reading of BLP/WEIGTH etc was off. Thanks! Springee (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Springee, I was just telling you what it looked like after a quick perusal on my end of the article history. If you have to go back a few years for warnings addressed at one of the editors, or if you have to explain in so much detail what was actually going on, you will likely have a hard time explaining to people, and convincing them, that you did no wrong. If you are convinced you're fine, that's OK, but I'm just telling you that it didn't look so fine to me. And I wasn't saying that I object, or I'm going to threaten or warn you, or take you to ANI, not at all--I was just saying that it looked to me like if someone was going to take you to some board or other, it seemed to me that you might get sanctioned. That's all. (See, I'm not even talking about content...) Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Slow SPI

So, in math the rule is that you probably shouldn't bother the editor until it's been 6 months since you submitted your paper. What is it for SPI? (Refs: earlier discussion, SPI page.) --JBL (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's been so long since I submitted anything... The last time I got laughed at for writing incomprehensible postmodern jibber-jabber. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have always thought that math has an advantage over the humanities in that people read math and don't understand it and assume that must be because it's really deep/hard/impressive, rather than because it is incomprehensible postmodern jibber-jabber :). Thanks for your help at the SPI, I should have guessed Purgatorio3 was the same person. --JBL (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Milford Industrial Home

On 24 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Milford Industrial Home, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Zintkala Nuni, who survived the Wounded Knee Massacre, gave birth to a stillborn boy in Nebraska's Milford Industrial Home, at one time the only state-funded institution in the US for unmarried pregnant women? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Milford Industrial Home. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Milford Industrial Home), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Keith J. Krach

Thank you for continuing the work on this! The page was written by like six different users, who couldn't possibly all be different people... Not sure to what extent it was specifically written as a puff piece rather than than just lazy copy-and-paste from various articles and press releases. I found a lot was just lightly paraphrased from the sources so to some extent it may be copyvio. Reywas92^Talk 05:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reywas92, no, thank you--I saw you were busy, and then I saw what had happened. This certainly warrants some more attention. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Problematic issue with rightwing contributors

Hi Drmies,

There is a noteworthy issue I would like to discuss with you about discrete rightwing attacks on ethnic minority pages of Scandinavia and Europe. Can you send me a PM. --BrownianMotionS (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

• New EBSCO collections now available
• 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
• Library Card input requested
• Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we have an LTA masquerading as an anti-vandal.

Check out the contributions of Highschoolprodigy. He is vandalizing the article for Sam Walton, and he has triggered LTA filters. Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. For the record, I don't think (or have any evidence) that this is an LTA, but they were righteously blocked by Longhair. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Heya

Hi Doc

Hope all well with you. Could you please restore John Leech (restaurateur) to my user space? I come here seldom and it was Prodded without my having noticed.

Thanks, ^Bongo_matic 03:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Bongomatic, I'm on it. Yes, all is well, reasonably well; we're mostly healthy and stuff, though I'm taking my daughter to the DMV for her learner's permit this afternoon. When I started editing on Wikipedia she was still in diapers; I blinked, and here we are. I hope you are well too--it is always a pleasure to see you. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks & congrats . . . wow! Tempus fugit. When I started editing WP I was in diapers and I'm almost in 'em again. ^Bongo_matic 05:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Seneca mission

is now live, in case you'd like to take a look. Still a ways to go, but I thought it was ready enough for mainspace. Ended up going with the original title—sources seem to think that the "Seneca mission" was a single, coherent entity. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

I was copying pings sent by other editors. Sorry about that. Activist (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I understand--but just a little bit of cleanup makes it purtier. No apology necessary. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, thanks. I do want to be "purty." Activist (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sock?

Hi there. I saw your revert here and noticed this added minutes after (and then noticed this actually preceded them both. I assume these two accounts are sockpuppets, but it seems an odd topic to do that with. What are your thoughts? Matt Deres (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello,

May I ask why my edit got reverted here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1003006874

It is a scientific fact that immortal jellyfish can theoretically live forever, so I'm not sure what's exactly being disputed?

Best,

Golfpecks256 (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)