User talk:Drmies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"Drmies is the only rational editor here."

Note to self

Category:Articles with a promotional tone from December 2017

Ray's Rules

That is a nice list. Think it would be OK to make that into a projectspace page people can link to? 28bytes (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Might I suggest WP:RAYSRULES as a shortcut redirect either to that section on his talk page, or to a new subpage in his userspace? Seems a fitting tribute. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
"I want to share with you, something we found in his work desk that one of my sons had heard about--Ray's Rules. ... They are worth sharing and help explain his kind and generous nature"--I think that's your answer. Thanks y'all. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Something to live by. Ever so proud to have another inspirational man on the Main page, and that he was just Mike for me, and I knew nothing about the story until I researched because I was sure he deserved an article ;) - Yoninah wrote most of it. - It was also nice to see the church that someone wanted deleted pictured ;) - I will give Ray's Rulez prominence in my edit notice in 2019, - new year's resolution. Haven't changed it in years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I included them in my good wishes and resolutions for 2019. Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
pictured:
Bachsaal Schloss Koethen.jpg


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for brightening many of my days last year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Now I also changed User talk:Gerda Arendt/Editnotice. I should read it myself often ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Please check out "Happy" once more, for his smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Lost content

Opéra Royal de Wallonie, mentioned in a BLP, was a sad stub. I suggested to my most prolific and cooperative French friend LouisAlain to expand, along with a request to create said BLP. He did. All could be fine. But somebody (even somebody whom I had sent Ray's Rules) not only noticed and warned that an attribution declaration was missing, but also deleted it all as a copyright violation. LouisAlain is usually meticulous about such tags, not only saying which article, but even which version by whom, see? In this one case of thousands he forgot. The result is sad for everybody involved, especially potential readers of the translation. Help, anybody? It needs an admin, or I'd restore it myself, attributed of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done by talk page stalker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thank you for stalking, much appreciated ;) - please keep stalking LouisAlain also, who was recently templated with an overly sugared wording requesting references ;) - as if you could , when translating, translate more than there is. He had to face other questions regarding his skills, but is really the one I'd single out for super effecient, speedy, friendly help, consistently over six years. DYK that, thanks to him, all Bach cantatas have French articles? More than German that is. - Other question: the sugary template (Ways to improve ...), shouldn't it "notice" when it was applied to the same user on the same talk? Instead of presenting the same sugary nonsense again and again? If my math is right, 39 times here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
If you stalked LouisAlain, you saw that he was blocked by the same. Sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
... which now is at ANI, and Martin is blocked for a month. My short version: Fram had an article on his watch list because it was deleted, LouisAlain re-created it, Fram found that a copyvio, and claimed that something in LouisAlain's sandbox was also a copyvio. While possibly correct in a strict sense, I know - and so am involved - that the sandbox was just for me, for my understanding of what 3 French texts mean, not supposed to go to any article. LouisAlain got blocked for 24 hours, possibly correct but I'd imagine better options. Martin re-created the article in other words, but not good enough for Fram, so he blocked Martin for a month. Better no comment. - This is what I come home to after vacation. Sad. During vacation, I had to deal with two articles of the recent deaths category, Wilma Lipp and Jean Guillou. Sad, sad. So finally, for a positive note: today I managed to present someone living on his 90th birthday, Werner Bardenhewer. If only he could get a talk with Fram. Ray's Rules seem not to be enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
SAD! See WP:CLAIM. MPS1992 (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm yes--wait, Martinevans123 blocked? Whoa. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
January 2019
Caleta de Famara, Lanzarote.jpg
Caleta de Famara, Lanzarote
... with thanks from QAI
But Floq could have repeated the line above, "done by pagestalker", unblocked. Thanks to everybody who protects the content editors! It will take some courage to recreate the often-deleted article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Same editor blocked LouisAlain for one week for putting a translation in a new article to make it available for me. I didn't ask for a translation, only wanted to know one specific thing in a French interview. If translating, he should have sent it per email (and not even in his sandbox). I still hate people being blocked for trying to help me. Help?? - LouisAlain blocked for a week means c. 35 21 articles not created. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

nl

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC) The birth name of Leo Riemens (one created, thank goodness from the above) is given as four names, and the only spot I see them anywhere online (except Wikipedia mirrors) is here. What is this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Gerda Arendt, what is De Gids? I know it as a literary journal, but it mentions other arts as well. (Hard to believe it's still being published!) Or are you asking what that website is? DBNL=Digitale Bibliotheek van Nederlandse Letteren: it is an awesome resource that reproduces coverage of Dutch literature (and some arts as well). There's more on your man Riemens here, though it's not much more. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, that helped. Imagine: I missed that dbnl is the National Library. The "more" is already in the article, in the authority control. I don't know why that section seems to be largely ignored. Everytime I am asked to reference published books I sigh and think: look there, libraries and WorldCat. LouisAlain created the article with 200+ links. I hope he'll return. Yesterday a DYK review informed me that he is blocked for copyright violation. That's what the block log says, sure. He's blocked because he tried to help me, and did it in a strange way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Block is over. Sing praises ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Seven years!

Sing more praises

7 years precious. Remember our first encounter at DYK? He died. I find someone whose memory needs polishing almost on a daily basis. Ethel Ennis. I left Lagerfeld to others ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you Gerda. Yes, I see that too. I now go through my book of poetry and find they're almost all dead. Well, Judith Herzberg is still alive--and her article certainly needs polishing. At least her father's article is in decent shape, with much help from Simon Adler. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Today I received the sad news that a very very very distant cousin died, a great man, will write an article, - should have done it sooner, of course. There's a good radio interview, - is there any chance to use that as a ref? - Stadlmair: I was present at an audition, and he told the one who wanted the job and had to play a piece sightreading and asked if with the repeats: You can repeat as often as you like, until you are "zufrieden". (The candidate played the repeats as Bach had prescribed.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
      • That's very kind Dr, although it was just minor stuff as I recall. Re-read article today and it is in good shape. Greetings Gerda! I hope all is well Simon Adler (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Many things well, and - unlike too many - we are alive! I managed a start for the latest reported dead, - a sad job, and more and more frequently. It will not make DYK on his funeral day but perhaps his birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

Merry Christmas !!!

Christmas Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.png CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Daily Caller close

I believe that your closure statement does not accurately summarize the discussion. Perhaps you wanted to make it longer but saved the page prematurely. The reason I'm asking is that your close seems to imply that only five editors oppose the deprecation (three !voting option 1 and two !voting option 3). Actually 14 editors oppose it, 16 editors support it, and one editor !voted "option 3 or 4". That doesn't look like an overwhelming majority, but perhaps I'm reading something wrong. wumbolo ^^^ 08:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • If the choice was to vote for 4 or against it, you'd have a stronger point. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's not true; !voting for options 1/2/3 implies opposing option 4. Are you suggesting that the RfC was malformed? wumbolo ^^^ 14:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That's not true; !voting for options 1/2/3 implies opposing option 4. In the same way that disagreement implies disrespect. Which is to say; not in any way that really counts. Without explicitly being told, you have no idea how many of those 14 !votes would be happy with #4 as a second choice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
If they were any happy about option 4, they would !vote for it. RfCs have to allow !votes supporting a position, but also opposing it. If one option is to deprecate a source and other options are not to deprecate a source, then !voting for the other options implies opposing the deprecation. wumbolo ^^^ 14:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
If they were any happy about option 4, they would !vote for it. See No true Scotsman. I can attest from extensive experience that many editors don't mention their second choice in RfCs, especially when said second choice seems likely to prevail, because it makes no difference. Also, humans are more likely to refute what they don't want than endorse what they would be okay with, so it's more logically sound to say that anyone who opposed option 4 would have said so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Like my vote. PackMecEng (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
PackMecEng, right before your vote two people pointed out various problems. Plus the article's talk page lists problems (and links to RSN discussions) going back at least to 2013... Drmies (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
My point here was more to illustrate if someone had a problem with 4 they would oppose 4. More in a meta sense than what my thoughts or argument on it are. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I know PackMecEng, I know. But I was kind of surprised to find that comment of yours, so short and, well, it wasn't going to sway anything. I am used to seeing much more from you. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Josh Okogie

Hey Drmies, thank you for changing a revision on Josh Okogie! Would you also mind protecting the page? There is a huge influx of vandalism. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:VANISH

Yes, twice i've engaged in this action (the first to fruition, i don't think the second time was 100% completed), now it's a given. Sick and tired and worn out after nearly 13 years, fed up with the constant bickering (even among non-vandals) for which i am partially/also to blame, no qualms admitting it. Why should i continue editing if: 1 - i am not having fun anymore; 2 - the world of pro soccer is disgusting as can be and then some? Baffles the/my mind...

If you as an admin cannot perform the action yourself, can you please remind me of the necessary steps to take? Take care, continue the good and hard work! --Quite A Character (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Hmm I really don't want you to vanish. Bishonen probably knows everything. I'll be sad to see you go. I recognize your edits a mile away, even when you were IPing it a couple of years ago, and you have done us a valuable service. I especially like your global/non-nationalist attitude. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I don't know about vanishing. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

I've filed a report here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Courtesy_vanishing#Request_to_vanish). If it's not possible due to any reason no worries, i'll just stop using the account/logging in.

Regards to both of you --Quite A Character (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • You know I will miss you. Take care old friend. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Warning

Mr. Drmies, this edit which you made violates two of Wikipedia's indisputable rules. First, you deliberately reverted an article to include factually incorrect information. Second, you violated the principle of remaining civil with your inappropriate commentary. I therefore issue this formal warning against continuing either of these behaviors. Thank you for your full and immediate cooperation. The edit in question is here: [1] I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Actually it's Mrs. Drmies, but whatever you call me, I'm still not as laughable as this comment. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I see that a better user than me has made edits to the article; I know this editor a little bit, and whatever they touch becomes better instantly. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk page items missing: World number 1 ranked male tennis players

I was talking with another editor about the talk page at Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players. I had just archived the page, which had items going back to March 2011. What was brought to my attention is that looking back at the main article history such as this edit from 2009 it seems there were talk page discussions long before March of 2011. Did the original talk page get deleted and then restarted in 2011? It's very strange. I see a series of page moves by editor Kwamikagami on March 3 and 8 of 2011, and then a revert of that move by Loginnigol on 23 Sep 2012‎. Could the tak page have been deleted when it shouldn't have? We'd like to get the old conversations back if possible and added to the archive. I saw you were editing the article around that time period so I thought I'd ask if you could figure out what happened. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. We found it at a different spelling Talk:World number one male tennis player rankings. Strange that it wasn't merged originally when the page was moved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again

Hello D. I hope you are well. The problem editor on India articles has returned as 64.134.174.36 (talk · contribs). They are blocked but some R/D work is needed. Hopefully it will have been taken care by the time you see this but, if not, please do the honors. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done plus some others — JJMC89(T·C) 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you JJMC89. MarnetteD|Talk 23:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh no, not that one again. I cannot tell you how disgusted I am by that. Thank you for noticing, and JJMC89, thank you for cleaning up. OH! JJMC89, this is the first time I type out your name--I thought there were three letters in there. Anyway, we have vanity plates for the Alabama Bicentennial, and those tags all start with capital J, then two letters, and then three numbers, so I often think of you on my daily commute. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Disgusted, indeed. This isn't the first time I've had to do a bunch of mopping up after them. Seems the filter isn't doing it. — JMC895(T·C) 06:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
That IP is on a range where a bunch of bullshit seems to have come from--I see recent CUs by Berean Hunter, Zzuuzz, Callanecc, DoRD, Bbb23... A lot of our usual vandals and LTAs have been on this range. Maybe we should go Dark City and SHUT IT DOWN. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Filter 954, if anyone want to fiddle. There's plenty of scope for improvement. I might take a look if I ever stop blocking spambots. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see Glock page

Dlthewave has started a new talk page discussion, and again added a criminal use section despite a 2 to 4 consensus against the inclusion of such information in previous discussion.--RAF910 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

We have too many edit reversions in articles like these. I don't agree with removal of the undue tag and gave reasons on the talk page. I thought I would get your feelings on the matter rather than simply reinsert the tag. Springee (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, I think that tag was way overblown. That section is SO small--you're talking about three sentences in a 100+k page. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

YGM

Mail-message-new.svg
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.

Praxidicae (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mail-message-new.svg
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.

Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • User:Dlohcierekim, I was just about to get up and make coffee, and get the ice cream ready for me and the kids. How urgent is your message? How exciting? Would you like to come over and play a Nerfgun battle? Drmies (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
mine shaft gape Dlohcierekim (talk)
    • promised to address the unblock tomorrow. would love ice cream and nerfgun. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • oh quite exciting Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Rosie and I totally ambushed Liam. I need more Nerfguns. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Oof an escalation in nerfguns can lead to avoiding them by hiding in mine shafts at that inevitably leads to this :-) Best wishes to the whole family D. MarnetteD|Talk 02:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Dude. That's dangerous. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I am 100% certain this is not a commentary on current events. MarnetteD would never do such a thing. Softlavender (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
            • Though not nearly as exciting as gaping mine shafts. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
              • I'm pretty sure User:Kelapstick has had Nerfgun battles in mine shafts. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
                • I am 100% certain this is not a double-entendre. Drmies would never do such a thing. Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to briefly lock this page as well. Several edit warriors cant seem to stop themselves at the moment. Just sayin'... - wolf 01:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, full protection would be best. Some people just can't help theirselves!! OK, just kidding. MPS1992 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

hey buddy I can get you elected

(Personal attack removed) just above wanted to stop me making edits like this. Well I dunno. Maybe they are right? Maybe it's important to recognise all the people that wanted to have their picture taken, and this is an important encyclopedic thing? MPS1992 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually I just read over all of the above, and I decided that it is all very boring and that Thewolfchild and I usually agree on everything. We both look after articles regarding military ships and many other similar institutions. The only things on which we disagree involve 88mm guns used by German army units in the 1940s, and on that subject we need to talk to you. Maybe. MPS1992 (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Hmm I'm good, sticking mostly to Nerf guns, but thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Get a grip man"? Drmies (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, yes. Am I too old-fashioned, or do I just have the wrong "register"? I can never work it out. Nerf guns are good, everyone likes them. MPS1992 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow... I saw a page being disrupted and suggested an admin lock the page. I didn't file a report at 3RRNB, I didn't even mention any editors by name. MPS1992, you only embarrass yourself with the bizarre rant and personal attack you've posted here. Yes... "get a grip" is sound advice. - wolf 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You don't like nerf guns? You don't like dumplings? OK. MPS1992 (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits to iPhone SE

Hey there. Funny thing is, the ip editor is actually correct. Take a look at the apple website and it's actually the gold color not rose gold. I'm going to change the file name so we can change it on the iPhone SE page Hydromania (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Is it? It's hard to tell the difference, but it looks like Rose Gold to me. Fun fact: I was looking at edits from that range because there was a ton of vandalism coming from it, including dumb edits to Caucasian race that have been going on for a while. Anyway, I assume you have young, sharp eyes, so I'll leave it to you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh wow super quick response. Yeah some vandalism is how I got to that page in the first place. I just edited the description on commons, renaming the file seems more trouble than it's worth. you are more experienced so I'll leave that to you :). Hydromania (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

SPA

Having initiated contact with the venerable Drmies whom he has watched from the sidelines once or twice before, he permit himself to waste their time with a trivial question

user FairchildFilm is an old SPA exclusively editing Veleka Gray and a few related articles and probably has a COI. I'm not sure if any recent edits are against policy. Figure I'd ask you to take a look. Hydromania (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Hmm. I culled some. Yes, a COI is entirely possible but I'm not in the mood for tagging. Seems to me the article suffers, like me, from venerability--meaning it's on a relatively old subject (preceding the internet age) who's not that notable and hasn't generated that much coverage in the printed press. Hey that all sounds very familiar. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

IP User 68.197.237.168

I've noticed you sent a message to that guy. I've had trouble with this person before, he wouldn't stop bragging that all non-IP users (Especially targeting Admins) are idiots and jerks. He is also an IP Hopper, as he once vandalised my talk page when I called him out. Watch out for him! Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that little dude. Sounds like some entitled white suburban kid trying to be tough. What other IPs? Drmies (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I found it. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why he acts so mean to anyone on Wikipedia apart from non-registered users. As you saw, he's very racist and he acts very edgy. When his ban expires in 3 months or so, i'll suspect he'll go back to being rude and edgy. By the way, I think I found another IP address user that might possibly be him, as he/she told a user to "Suck my D***" on the Zoey 101 page. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

you are loved

I guess. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Making another mistake

So I'm going to foolishly ask for help. I'm just not understanding what I've done at this ARE [[2]]. I mean I do understand that at the Glock article it looks like I've moved a goal post but I feel like what I'm trying to do is further refine my objections. Even if I still don't agree is that really STONEWALLing if I don't revert the change? I don't feel that Dlthewave's behavior was beyond reproach but I also don't want to throw them under the bus as I think they are acting in good faith. Can you help me understand what I did wrong before I get a warning for it? Oh, and look at the article the IP sock dropped off. I think it makes a much more compelling case for inclusion since it talks about how Glock changed the market and upped the effective firepower in the process. Thanks and I promise to foolishly agree with you about something at some point! Springee (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Springee, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Do you mean to say you can't really be stonewalling since you didn't revert the change? I have to tell you, in all honesty, that I am much less knowledgeable of that particular discussion than maybe I should be, and I am sure you saw that my comments in general have been limited. I'm looking over the report again--I don't know of "rambling walls of text" that you wrote but I haven't looked. If indeed there are such rambling walls, that can of course be regarded as evidence of stonewalling, and it has been in the past. I also am not sure that "external sources about Glock that make that association" is such a terrible thing (mind you, "external" isn't the best term to use--stick with "reliable secondary sources") to ask for. But the part that discusses what they see as your "double standard"--if that is true, or found to be true by the admins looking at it, yeah that would be uncool and could lead to a topic ban.

    Again, I'm speaking somewhat generally, without knowing all the particulars, but I'll look at the whole report again, and the responses, I promise. Can't look at that article right now though I might later. (In general, I'll say that I always think that encyclopedic articles should try to take a wider view--not just list physical properties and sales numbers and stuff like that, but also what such things mean. See Key Largo woodrat. Obviously there's Glock and "Glock"--"Glock" stands for a lot of things that other manufacturers don't get. I mean, otherwise we wouldn't have "you ever heard the Glock go click like a camera"?) Drmies (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth I find K.e.coffman's reply to your ARE comment very frustration. On my talk page the editor said they didn't replay to my concerns regarding their earlier comments due to length yet they did have space to add an accusation that isn't related to the behavior in question and leaves out a lot of context. K.e.coffman and I have previously disagreed on what is and isn't DUE but I would assume that is ok so long as it is civil. The complaint at hand seemed to be that moving goal posts was a disingenuous form of debate not that we didn't agree on weight in a given context. Moving goals wasn't my intention in this case and I will certainly be more self a aware in the future but I'm not sure it's fair to just say I don't understand weight because they don't agree with me. Sorry, this is a frustrating process. Springee (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-related concern: Part of the discussion at the ARE has involved editors who have opposed inclusion of criminal content adopting a battleground attitude. Suggestions that one side has an agenda to push such content into articles doesn't promote collaborative editing. However, I'm concerned the same editors who push (not PUSH) for inclusion are also removing large swaths of non-controversial, technical content from firearms articles. [[3]]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. I'm trying to raise the issue in a civil fashion here but I'm my audience isn't sympathetic. I understand that the content is unsourced, likely added by well meaning IP editors who weren't familiar with WP:V. However, these are also uncontroversial claims and it seems it would be better for the encyclopedia if they were tagged so they could be corrected instead of just removed. I think it undermines the view that the censorship of information is one sided and certainly adds fuel to the view that some editors have an agenda to turn articles about firearms into articles about the crimes committed and not about the device itself. I also currently feel a bit trapped because, if I object to stridently or decide to run around and fix all the recently edited articles, well that supports the "partisan agenda" view that MastCell was talking about. I certainly think it's hypocritical to push for one type of content yet actively try to strip away a different kind. Anyway, looking for your thoughts here. Thanks again. Springee (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

And a related question: Is it possible to protest a warning? [[7]]. I'm being warned not to do things I wasn't accused of doing. At no point was it suggested that I made POLMIC statement or vilified other groups of editors. Springee (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Springee, I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand. Sandstein made a ruling in the case and decided...well, you saw how they decided, and I think that the other two certainly should be grateful that it was a mild warning. From a quick look, it seems to me that Sandstein considered POLEMIC to be an appropriate guideline to cover all, most, or the most important aspect of the behavior. Obviously I can't speak for Sandstein. Moreover, you should not just be looking at the original post, but also at the comments offered by others, and by admins in the "Result" section. Sure, you can appeal this, but my guess is your appeal will be dismissed very quickly. Now, at the risk of sounding patronizing (and realistic), I think your best option is to accept the verdict and see if you can learn from it. Trying to explain the finding/result away by saying "this wasn't what the dude said we did" sounds a bit like moving the goal post, as if what the commenting admins concluded isn't valid cause it isn't literally what Dlthewave (is that their name?) said. No appeals court will look kindly on that. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Does this look like some kind of LTA?

Hi Drmies, sorry to bother -- just wanted to ask since you seem to be familiar with the going-ons around the 'Pedia -- does this look like some kind of LTA to you? Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Ha, you may know that recently our admin corps saw a helpful addition to its ranks: Sro23. They may have something to say on the topic. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeffed as another sock from the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte farm. Sro23 (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Right, that one. Nate Speed is particularly foul-mouthed tonight; you wonder if maybe he didn't get dessert. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Ha, I see. I hadn't clicked on any of the edits. Yes, User:Aoi, this is someone of low self-esteem who for some weird reason is focused on one of our editors, and goes through boards and archives to drop in those dumb reports. Whenever you see someone editing an archive, there's something wrong (this one hadn't done that yet), and it's especially worthwhile to keep an eye on the edit warring board. Thanks Sro23. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Batsignal

I hate to come ping-begging, but it doesn't seem there's any admins watching RFPP right now. Could you please take a look at the anon IP at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Well that was easy. Why didn't you go adminshopping ten reverts ago? Seriously--leave that content be, find an admin to block or protect, and then revert. Now that history looks like a mess; actually it kind of looks like an invitation for trolls. Anyway, that disruptive fool is blocked. I don't see much in the history that would warrant semi-protection, but this is one of those pages that is likely to be edited (legitimately) only by regular editors. So if it happens again, let me know. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I only went to RFPP as a backup to ANEW because nobody was watching ANEW... welp, that didn't work either. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It's really not a case for ANEW. It's just someone edit warring in a way that's not legitimate. If you and I edit war over some content, that's one thing, but if you revert some unknown person who dives basically in the archives to fuck up some consensus, that simply warrants an immediate block. For that kind of thing you can always call on me or whoever else is active (check Recent changes). Drmies (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Iris cat.jpg

I was origionally Frogger 48, I want to start off fresh from my past mistakes.

ABCD5798 (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer

because the section of main characters goes first those that appear in the opening credits section and those that are in the section "also starring" go down do not you think is better? Tia Canita (talk).

  • I think I know what you are saying, and I think that's fine, but if you don't write this up in edit summaries (that other editors understand) you should not be surprised to be reverted, Tia Canita. I noticed that in all your years here you have never left an edit summary or edited a talk page... Drmies (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to ask…

—Qui demande?!

What's the story behind your IKEA userbox? Gaelan 💬✏️ 18:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gaelan: It refers somewhat sardonically to this news event, per standing with France. Or Drmies may just like hunting out meatballs in a beach-toned plywood labyrinth :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks, that's pretty funny. Gaelan 💬✏️ 18:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
SerialNumber, a little birdie told me you have a beard. Is this true? Drmies (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Only in a certain light. ——SerialNumber54129 18:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)