User talk:Drmies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User greentar

I never had an account other than this snowlands.

Good people on both sides!

Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-299-1805-16, Nordfrankreich, Panzer VI (Tiger I).2.jpg

"There is a problem in general in Western history either professional or of the History Channel sort in giving the WW2 German military any credit because they were BAD BAD Nazis." [1]

So if there are BAD BAD Nazis are there GOOD GOOD Nazis? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we need to look at the term "Nazi" in a more nuanced way. First of all, it really hurts someone's feelings if they get called a "Nazi", like it's a bad word. Second, it diminishes the remarkable technological, moral, and fashion improvements... no I can't finish that sentence, sorry. Yeah. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Not every member of the National Socialist party was necessarily directly involved in the misconduct for which the party is best known today, although most probably broadly supported the sanitized version of the atrocities some of them might have heard. Wernher von Braun might in the eyes of some qualify as having been a marginally good Nazi. And some who joined during the war for patriotic purposes may not have been much worse than a lot of similar people in other countries. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • John, I think you're still wearing your rosy Xmas glasses... But the basic thrust of the person who made that comment was that the German military was somehow underappreciated, which is certainly complete bullshit. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Awww but those poor nazis..always being vilified and such. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, the German military did make numerous tactical and technological innovations for which they deserve acknowledgment. But... yeah. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I just don't know of any person, book, TV program, study, website, academic program, serial, newspaper, magazine, DVD, video game, chat room, blog, board, radio show, cartoon, comic, play (tragedy, comedy, historical, etc.) that makes light of their technological and tactical strengths. I presume the person who made the statement that opens this section does--or, and this is my suspicion, they are deluding themselves and hope to delude others. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
How true! Also "Hitler's meals were delicious..." Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The daily mail really burying the lede...'The Russians then came to Berlin and got me, too,' Woelk said. 'They took me to a doctor's apartment and raped me for 14 consecutive days. That's why I could never have children. They destroyed everything.' Erm DM is this not a more important topic than what Hitler ate?! You written a sentence on something truly heroundos, yet half an article to his desire for asparagus and Peppers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
"Krauts are people too, you know." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The example given is (perhaps) along the lines of 'good' and 'active' being in inverse proportion to each other. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I've oft heard it said that "the only good Nazi is a Wikipedia Nazi". (I mean those uniforms are quite chic, aren't they??) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The same editor of the "BAD BAD Nazi" comment also describes Germany's leading military historian Sönke Neitzel as a "self-hater", who has made "a tidy living for himself" by criticising the Wehrmacht: [2]. I found this attack on the integrity of a professional historian to be pretty shocking. But yeah, the biggest problem that Wikipedia is facing today is that the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS are not getting enough credit for their accomplishments :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Coffman, I thought you were exaggerating, but then they made this comment--I find that staggeringly dumb. Haha, TonyBallioni, that comes on the heels of my looking up some references to the Canadian liberators... "Incompetent and slow", etc. Seriously, if this guy is typical of MILHIST (The ed17, tell me it isn't true?), there are problems there--not just that someone is glorifying the Nazis, but that it obviously impedes their point of view. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There were indeed good Nazis -- actually there were probably a great many of them, just that one had particular talents and steadfastness -- just as there seems to be the odd problematic MILHIST member. Neither label is a definition of the whole person, nor allows one to generalize from a single individual to everyone else in a particular group. MPS1992 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, over at Commons...

Speaking of good people, I present this imagery, courtesy of Commons user Ruffneck88, who specialises in colourising (glamoursing?) Nazi-era images (captions mine):

The ubiquotous Panzer "knight", now in colour!
Such fine uniforms! From Stroop Report.
Yes, please. We definitely need more of this.

I'm thinking of starting a thread at the Commons admin noticeboard regarding these images. They appear to violate COM:EDUSE and WP:WEBHOST, but my first foray into drawing attention to them have not been successful. Any tips? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons is the place where the fight tooth and nail to include porn with no educational use as art (though they did delete the softcore porn image of the naked woman in the bath tub with fruit loops that was the 2nd search result for "Fruit loops" for the longest time, despite one of their admins voting with a keep rationale of "we don't care what en.wp thinks".) These are arguably educational, so I doubt you'd have much luck there. /rant on how Commons makes no sense. TonyBallioni (talk)
My concern with these images is less the supposed glamorizing than the colorizing. I find it misleading to colorize black and white photos in any sort of historical usage, especially long after the fact. I don't particularly find any of these images as being particularly full of propaganda value (except perhaps the last one) but neither would I use any of them either in anything I was illustrating. They are rather bland images as a whole. Your milage may vary. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Dutch euro article

I really don't care to get into an edit war over something so minor, but how on earth do we now need references to show something is important when it is clearly on topic and from a governmental source. If you are so set on deleting content then I'll leave you to it but it is a little crazy declaring public opinion on the article matter to not personally matter to you.- J.Logan: 18:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • If you don't want to get into an edit war over something for which you have no secondary sources, it's probably a good idea not to get into that edit war. The governmental source is primary; you seem to believe that because the government published something it should be in a Wikipedia article? Not so. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    • (talk page watcher) Are you saying they can't be trusted-?! Well you can think that if you like. In the mean time, I'm going long on magic beans... >SerialNumber54129...speculates 02:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Nope, not at all, that's not the issue. We use secondary sources for two things--one, the claims of fact-checking and editorial control and all that, and two, the idea that if secondary sources don't discuss something, we shouldn't either. This editor is inserting graphs of "public approval" of the Euro in a whole bunch of articles and I'm merely questioning the relevance of that information, pace their edit summary. In the meantime, I'm rereading Under the Volcano, as should you! Drmies (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with the Linda Sarsour / Kaepernick RFC?

Happy holidays, Drmies, by which I mean tomorrow's game. I'm wondering if one of your admin stalkers who's not currently tailgating would be able to check out Talk:Linda_Sarsour#RfC:_Kaepernick,_NFL_protest. I tried my hand at closing the discussion, but I didn't notice that the article is full protected. If you don't object to what I suggested - and I certainly won't argue with you if you do object - could you please implement the close?

And while I have you on the line, Drmies... what is your view of assigning homework for Tuesday's class? I don't teach in Alabama or Georgia, but our boarding school certainly has a large number of fans of each. I've assigned a problem set, but a shorter one than usual. Am I going to burn in hell?

Thanks! Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Well, l'enfer c'est l'autre, and your homework won't change that much. Place I teach at isn't all that football crazy, and for us it's the first week of the semester so I don't have to make any kind of decision. I'd go a bit easy on them--if they're football fans, and Southern, it' do I say this gently, it's pretty much all we got. A shorter problem than usual is very fair and I thank you for it. And I thought, speaking of problems, we were doing alright, and then it turns out Jennings was seriously injured, had surgery, and won't be playing; he was my MVP. I'll go have a look at Sarsour/Kaepernick, and I'll confess to having watched a bit of NFL yesterday (mostly to see Derrick Henry and Julio Jones). I wonder of Tide rolls watches the NFL. Thanks, and HNY and RTR, Drmies (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, did it--I didn't object or not object, cause that's not my role to play. I'm looking at the discussion and I can't help but wonder why some of these right-wingers want this kind of detail in that kind of article--for them I suppose it's guilt by association. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated. I know your role isn't to object or not object... but I would appreciate a nudge if I misinterpreted the consensus, or if I didn't explain clearly. I mean, I personally lean toward leaving out details like this until at least a year after the event - if we're still talking about it a year later, it might be encyclopediaical. But it seemed like those who weighed in leaned toward the one sentence, so that's how I closed. And I never considered that it was the right wing who would want such statements in - naive Moishe thought that it was the *left* who might want to trumpet every last cause to which she lent her name. I guess it shows my preconceptions, in that I personally think it laudable to support Colin K. Both from a social justice standpoint and from a football standpoint. Note to self and Andy Reid: when you're up by three touchdowns, don't abandon the running game. Good luck tomorrow night. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Jackson’s Magnolia

Jackson has a magnolia? He truly is an important figure in the WH, isn't he. Sadly yes. But it's rotten to the core and to be cut down.[3] Have a pleasant new year. (I’m still dating my checks 1999.) O3000 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


QubixQdotta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

After having his edits to Aryan Brotherhood ([4],[5],[6], [7]) reverted by two editors (myself and Grayfell: [8],[9],[10], [11]) for being POV, QubixQdotta decided to get POINTy instead of discussing on the talk page, as he was advised to do. [12] According to his edit summaries:

Okay, looks like its field day for reverting back to non-sourced crap. I'll add my own non-sourced content, except this is actually true. Something real that you don't hear on the news...hopefully you guys will become more educated.[13]

Finishing the job. Reverting more unsourced material. [14]

and continued to revert without discussion [15],[16].

You blocked this editor in September 2017 for disruptive editing directly connected to a dispute over this same article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

BMK, there is nothing on Talk:Aryan Brotherhood about this dispute, from either side. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
BMK, you break Wikipedia guidelines when its convenient for you. And you've reverted my reliably sourced information back to some unsourced content made by some IP amateur. You opportunistically break guidelines yourself and point the finger at other people. What more to say? I don't're beyond reasonable at this point. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This diff says enough. And this.EvergreenFir (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've collapsed the off-track part of the discussion. User:QubixQdotta, you were indeed edit warring (and so were you, BMK, though you stopped), and what you are talking about on the talk page simply does not pertain to the question of sourcing for this or that qualification. It is argued that you are using sourcing that discuss a different organization (and that seems hard to deny), and that your questioning the neo-Nazi appellation is unjustified--that latter part can warrant some discussion, but only source-based and as it pertains to the subject. And please stop reverting there. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


You alarmed for a moment there lol. Happy New Year to you as well. Rusted AutoParts 18:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Haha I saw your name and just couldn't resist. There has to be a movie out there that has a shop in it with your name on the front. Later, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting annoying your school librarian

The American Library Association took down the webpage containing their most recent version of the Guide to Reference and I lost the copy I downloaded well before I was finished with it. Any chance you might be able to ask the library at work if they have a copy or know of a copy and email it to me? John Carter (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah

I don't know what mojo you drew upon, Professor, but it worked. Congratulations. Roll Tide Tiderolls 05:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You guys can't fool me. Did Drmies's college ballet company win the pas de deux competition again?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Bbb, you know I don't like to wax philosophical but it was a thing of beauty. Saban made a magnificent half-time decision that completely flipped the game around. Great sportmanship was shown, it was exciting, yeah, it was really spectacular. Bama frequently gets criticized for playing boring, but I don't think this game bored many of those who watched. Now if you'll pardon me, I have a bitch of a hangover, and I'm off to class in a few... Drmies (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There are more deserving people than me, MONGO, but I appreciate it. Haven't checked on your situation yet and I gotta run to class, but take care. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Cristina Vee

Do you thing a page protection of Cristina Vee should occur? Both AnimeDisneylover95 and MizukaS have been engaging in an edit war for a while. Thanks for your opinion, House1090 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I saw your report and looked at it, but they seem not to be editing/fighting over the same thing all the time... Drmies (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah okay, is that usually when you would grant the request? Thanks, House1090 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, no, maybe, hard to say--these two are disputing and they're all over the place, so I am not quite sure what to do and whether protection would help. I did not respond to or remove the report since another admin may feel differently, and at any rate I was baffled to find someone fighting over content verified only by a tweet from the subject. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I concur, thanks for your opinion! I'll keep an eye on the page regardless LOL. House1090 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For answering my question and sharing your opinion with me in regards to the Cristina Vee dispute. Much appreciated! House1090 (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Frank Schneider1972

Hi, looks like Finley is back! Just Chilling (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  • You know, I wouldn't mind so much if they weren't so disagreeable. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Blocked on a combination of CU and behavioral evidence--the latter alone would have sufficed, of course. He really needs to pick up the slack on punctuation--that was a horrible comma splice. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Panzer Ace article mediation

Hi Drmies, thanks for all your input with the article so far. As we are going nowhere, I have put in a request for an outside opinion to look at it. If you would like to have your say in the mediation, go to the bottom and select agree to the mediation (I don't know if the system notified you automatically of this, so letting people know). The request for mediation is here: Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you Deathlibrarian. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Panzer Ace". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 January 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Diva Dirt - Is It Reliable?

There is a discussion currently ongoing in which we are trying to reach a consensus if Diva Dirt is reliable. You can view the discussion here. There has only been a couple of people who have responded. We need a wider input from more people. You're response is needed and appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait--what? I commented there days ago. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ankit Love

Unprotection: Requesting temporary unprotection to create a redirect pending at AfC redirects. Or alternatively, create a redirect from this title (Ankit Love) to One Love Party.  samee  talk 16:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Thank you Primefac. Would you please re-protect it to prevent it turning into BLP once again?  samee  talk 16:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks all. Can I just say that this isn't WP:ANI 2.0 anymore? I will gladly respond to queries and help out where I can, but please don't count on me for emergencies--on MLK day, we tried to do a few things outside the house. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Heh, looks like you have a fair number of watchers though. Very possible that posts here will be seen faster than at AN, even if it's not by you. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That's true, but I always feel bad when someone drops something here and I'm too late or too absent to do anything about it. Thanks for picking up the slack for me, Primefac, and all the others--I really appreciate it. OH! DOES ANYONE NEED GIRL SCOUT COOKIES? Drmies (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Drmies for inconvenience. I posted here because the instructions at WP:RUP recommends to contact the protecting admin first. Thank you!  samee  talk 17:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
No Samee, no inconvenience--you did the right thing, I'm just more absent than I should be. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder about Blocking consultation

Hello again,

The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on English Wikipedia and is in the final days. Also there is a global discussion about the same topic on meta.

We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. There is still time to share your ideas.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello Drmies, I believe our friend from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden jackal/archive1 in the section "A few more comments" is back again, active on my User talk:William Harris page down the bottom, and on the article Golden jackal. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Joe Walz ongoing vandalism

Hello, Drmies. A couple of days ago, you responded to a polite warning I left on this user's page about vandalism done by that user in which Joe Walz was referenced, saying you were not as nice as I was and that you would just block anyone who continues this kind of thing. The editor that keeps switching the location from which such content comes has struck again, and, given your reaction to my polite warning, I thought you would like to know. This time, the problem went much deeper, in which libelous, slanderous, and false information was added to Dieter F. Uchtdorf, in which the offending editor again referenced Joe Walz. And if that weren't enough, there were two such revisions from this same address, which can be found here and Dieter_F._Uchtdorf&oldid=820875728. Based on what I saw there, which originated from the same user, I posted a very clear warning that I was reporting the conduct to you, and that any subsequent edits in which vandalism referencing Joe Walx were included could result in an admin (such as yourself) blocking indefinitely all such addresses from editing privileges. I thought you would want to know about all of this. I am sorry if I was wrong to utilize the muscle of your previous warning without your consent, but it has been ridiculous that this vandalism continues. And I know that you and I may not have always seen eye-to-eye at times when we have worked on similar pages, but I wanted you to know that I very much appreciate your warning on this subject, and hope that by reporting these latest violations to you that action can be taken once and for all to nip this in the bud. Also, please let me know if any of this is a problem, and I will try not to utilize the muscle of your assertions in the future. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Jgstokes, that's a lot of words--thanks for reporting. Please notify any admin immediately, via WP:AIV or here or at ANI, with all the diffs. This child needs to be blocked on sight. Berean Hunter, any suggestions? Can someone make a filter please? Drmies (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Recent range is blocked. zzuuzz would be the one to ask for the filter as that is one of his fortes. It should be an easy one to implement.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys. I'm just going to ping Cyp before looking at this any further, as I suspect there may be something already afoot on aisle 898. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
There's not really currently much afoot, apart from what can be seen there already. I don't know if there's anything specific that should be targetted, apart from the obvious. Κσυπ Cyp   22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone, and thanks for the ongoing dialogue about this issue. I have opened a dialogue with someone from the location in which such vandalism has or

Linking to related thread for reference.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What would be very helpful is jotting down the IPs when you see it and making a list. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you zzuuzz and Berean Hunter. So, Jgstokes, you can be of great help to us by a. reporting to AIV or ANI, with a brief note pointing to that Gerald Ford editor, and b. noting IP addresses. I can't believe these dickheads, by the way, who get off doing this. Do we have an LTA? Again, a list of IPs would be so handy. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for the feedback on this. My main reason for reaching out to Drmies in the first place is because, as I noted at the start of this thread, a subsequent comment I made after reaching out to someone politely about this issue featured a reply indicating that if Drmies caught the person doing this anywhere, he would act quickly to block such users. Even though I have edited here for a decade, I am far from an expert on the proper way to handle such things, so I apologize for not going through the proper channels. As much as I would like to personally keep a record of every instance of this issue, the only times I have reported it is when I have noticed it in the recent history of the pages on my watchlist. Additionally, in view of some personal issues, the amount of time I can commit to editing here on Wikipedia within the last year and longer has been cut substantially. I was recently able to spend slightly more time here than I have in recent months, but the kind of help you are requesting from me on this issue is something I cannot practically take care of at this time. I apologize if that is an inconvenience, but it's what my situation is right now. That said, I will keep the pages recommended in this thread in mind and will do my best to make an extra effort to report such instances as I come across them on those pages, but that is the best I can do right now. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone, and thanks for the continued dialogue about this issue. New developments in that regard: Someone posting from that same address who knows the individual behind this vandalism but is concerned for her welfare in terms of what might happen if we had a way to personally reach out to her about this has had a back-and-forth exchange with me in which I attempted to answer such questions. If I have been in error in anything I have said in that regard, please feel free to post follow-up comments to clarify or correct what I have said. Hopefully, if the person who knows the person responsible for this is satisfied with those answers, the problem will go away. Just wanted to pass along that update. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ha, I saw, and I saw that you saw that I saw. I'm not sure I'd believe what that person said, but just to be on the safe side I left a link (as you saw) to our OUTING policy. Thanks again for the update, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I should just like to add that I saw that you saw all of that, and I appreciated it. I'm not sure I believe it either, but I am willing to give that individual the benefit on the doubt. Thank you for being there to emphasize the relevant policies, which didn't occur to me while I was going through that interaction. I would be perfectly content not finding out whether or not someone else was behind it, as long as the result is that it stops. I wanted to post this follow-up comment to thank you for all you did to help with this issue. I know we have had at least one (and perhaps more) personal disagreements, but I very much respect the help you gave me on this process, so I wanted to thank you. Some of those I have extensively worked with in my efforts to improve pages on my watchlist have suggested I should request adminship myself, but aside from the time investment involved (the personal issues I am having currently preclude that possibility), it's situations like this when I am reminded that I don't know nearly enough about Wikipedia to qualify for that added responsibility, and the longer I edit here, the more I realize how little I understand in that regard. Perhaps someday, but it's not in the cards for me right now. Thanks again for your help on this. I appreciate it. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User Maoler

Is there a SPI discussion somewhere? That's a very strange result and might suggest meatpuppetry. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Nope. Their edits were so odd and so not-newbie that I ran CU. If you compare their writing style you will see they have the same idiosyncrasies (and the same level of aggression) so I have no doubt they're the same. Oh, I asked on the CU email list if anyone recognized these editors; I have no doubt that they have been here before under other names, doing various kinds of things. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I was considering starting a SPI discussion because there's very obvious sock/meatpuppetry going on. Did you just check between the two accounts then, or did you look for other socks as well? --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ronz--there was nothing else, besides a few edits from the IP that I don't remember, so they weren't all that meaningful. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Genisco Technology > deletion

Hello Drmies, sorry for my delay in regards to Genisco deletion. I have been ill over the last couple of years and have not accomplished much, anywhere! I have 40 full size xerox boxes filled with Genisco information and a qui tam lawsuit in 1986 > 1988. Please be patient and allow me to get back on my feet while digging through over 100,000+ pages of material on my own! I will be editing Genisco and two other unfinished sites that tie into each-other regarding the same subject matter. All three site are of historical value and need to be completed and I have all the verifiable material references to do so. Its a pleasure to meet you! Thank you for your time and patience. Qui Tam Relator 01:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talkcontribs)

Reasons for redaction

Hi you redacted my comment about polluting a talk page with personal comments with a summary mind your language. I think this is excessive. The comments were on a personal level and nothing to do with the talk page in question. Redacting my comments suggests that they were offensive which they were not. please explain why you redacted them? Domdeparis (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Domdeparis (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Reasons as per WP:CRD I should add. I have read them a couple of times and I don't think that what I wrote enters into any of the criteria and if you had asked me and explained why you considered my language inappropriate I would have been happy to strike the comment or remove it myself. Domdeparis (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)