Page semi-protected

User talk:Drmies

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


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.

Yo Ho Ho

bitFlyer page edit follow up

Hi Drmies. I work for bitFlyer, a cryptocurrency company. I previously proposed an expanded version of the bitFlyer page on Talk that was approved and implemented here after multiple editors agreed it was an improvement and used good sources. However, someone has since come along and deleted most of the page without discussion. They even deleted most of the page of the draft I had in my user-space. I wanted to ask if you had time to take a look and – if you also agree the proposed version was better – to restore it once again as consensus. Sebastien0693 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Hello Sebastien, and thank you for your note. I'm a bit puzzled--yes, you posted on my talk page a while ago, though I wonder how I got involved in this (maybe because I got millions and millions of dollars doing paid editing for Intel, haha). But you said there that one editor "said the references were good", linking to this comment by David Gerard, who didn't say that at all. So that JzG would edit the page a bit comes as no surprise to me, and that the edits were made in your draft is also not surprising. If your question is about this edit, from 16 August, you'll have to ask JzG about it. JzG knows this stuff better than most other editors. In addition, I don't know to which extent you can call your draft (and thus the old live version?) a "consensus version"--clearly JzG didn't agree. And again, I'm not sure where I come in: this should be discussed with the editor who made the edits. Personally I don't really care about the userspace version, but I do care about what's in the live version. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi Drmies. Thanks for taking a look. I guess Guy Macon just said the proposed draft was “an improvement.” David Gerard said “Main thing is solid 100% mainstream RSes, no crypto news sites, no crypto news site reprints, no Forbes contributor blogs, no barely-reskinned churnalism, etc.” Shortly after Gerard said the draft had “no… churnalism” Jzg said it was “all…churnalism” and deleted most of the page without discussion. I guess I was hoping you would weigh in and – if you agree the prior version was better – that would form a 3/4 consensus. Or, if you do feel there are problems, your feedback would be welcome. Thank you. Sebastien0693 (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Sebastien, but I see no reason to disagree with JzG's edit. Where did David Gerard say that there was no churnalism in a version they looked at? Drmies (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
        • In this edit I linked to. To clarify, are you saying you agree with Jzg that it is all churnalism or just that you are not participating? Sebastien0693 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Baked Alaska Edit

Hello, Drmies, I saw that you recently contacted me, saying you took down my edit to the Baked Alaska Wikipedia Page, me having added domestic terrorist as one of Baked Alaska's descriptors. I am not sure if you are aware of the recent events in Washington DC, but Baked Alaska recently stormed the United States Capitol, with thousands of other rioters. In this storm, armed rioters, including Baked Alaska, intruded on Capitol grounds, broke down the door of the Capitol while Senate was in session, and intruded into the congressional chambers, forcing many lawmakers to flee, and some to hide. They proceeded to loot and destruct parts of the capitol. Several were injured during this storm, and there was one death. Baked Alaska was one of these rioters, he also livestreamed part of the storm of the Capitol while he was inside of the Capitol, proving he was there. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines domestic terrorism as, "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature." The storming of the capital, which Baked Alaska has been proven to have been affiliated with, is most certainly, without a doubt, an act of domestic terrorism by the FBI's definition. Meaning anyone participating in this act of domestic terrorism is a domestic terrorist. The evidence is out here, clear as day, on the table. Baked Alaksa stormed the United States Capital, looting, destroying, and vandalizing it, his actions are defined by the FBI as domestic terrorism, therefore, he is a domestic terrorist. With all due respect, sir, these are hard cold facts, not a viewpoint, not a way of looking at it, and most certainly not an opinion. Saying otherwise would be obstructing information from the public. Wikipedia is a place of facts, and we should strive to be non-bias, an refusing to update Baked Alaska's description as a domestic terrorist is hiding the facts, and promoting a right wing bias. Thank you very much for your time, have an excellent rest of your evening/morning/afternoon. RauruOfLight (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the explanation, but it’s your own commentary and conclusion. Content must be properly verified by secondary sources, especially if it involves living people. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Wait. I missed that you suggested a right-wing bias existed, right there in that sentence where you were mansplaining Wikipedia to me. That’s foolish. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I understand the need for sources, and I got your message on my talk page, which is why I have included a source for the definition of domestic terrorist, and one for the additional edit I made, saying that Goinet livestreamed the storm. And as far as the right wing bias, I am sorry I apparently didn't make this clear, that is my fault, but I was not accusing Wikipedia of a right wing bias, nor was I accusing you or the Baked Alaska Wikipedia article of a right wing bias. I said that by refusing to acknowledge the fact that Baked Alaska is now a domestic terrorist is promoting a right wing bias. Promoting a right wing bias is not showing a right wing bias, the difference is showing a right wing bias is displaying news in a way that favors the right side of the political spectrum, this wold be if you edited Baked Alaska to say he participated in the protest to prevent lawmakers from confirming an election that may have been interfered with. THAT wold be a right wing bias, as it directly delivers news in wording that favors the right side. What you did, intentional or not, promoted a right wing bias, since you simply refused to display facts that would hurt the right side. Again, you refused to display facts that would hurt the right side of the political spectrum. I am sorry I came off as talking down to you about Wikipedia's biases, that was not my intention, and I hope I have clarified the true meaning behind my words. And secondly, this is NOT my own commentary and conclusion, it is a FACT that Baked Alaska participated in domestic terrorism. Yes, I came to the conclusion of this fact using evidence of Baked Alaska's presence, and the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism, but so did many others, including republicans like GOP Spokesperson Michael Ahrens. Not only does this fit the FBI's definition, but every other I could find. Not only does this fit all those definition, but also common sense. Thousands of armed rioters busted down the door of the United States Capitol while senate was in session, fired guns, sent multiple people to the hospital, killed someone, destroyed the chambers, and planted a bomb in the capitol. Planting a bomb in the US Capitol is not terrorism? So I ask you this question, I want a direct answer from you, why is it not a fact that the storming of the capitol was not terrorism? Why is this not a fact? Please answer, this is not rhetorical. Also, I saw you said I could restore my edits if I stood by them, so I did, adding a source for my new edit, I started writing this message, realized I didn't include citation for the FBI's definition of Domestic Terrorism, so I went back, changed that, published it, and saw that you once again took down my Baked Alaska edits, despite saying I could restore them if I stood by them. What's the deal with this? Also, here's the link to the FBI document I cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by RauruOfLight (talkcontribs) 15:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think you understand the need for sources: you can cite sources for as many bombs as you like, but until you have a source that says "person X is a domestic terrorist", you can't put that in article space. And even then, most likely, you have to ascribe the label to whoever the source is. All the stuff you say here (in this too-long paragraph) is original research. You said "I came to the conclusion..."--that is the very hallmark of original research, and you just can't do that. And there's other problems: if there's thousands of these *****s, you can't pin this bomb or that behavior on one person--unless there's a reliable source saying that law enforcement has made that identification, for instance. Please see also WP:PSTS. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Very well. I understand now that I, the editor cannot be the one to make the connection between the FBI's definition, the event in question, and Baked Alaska's participation in the event. Another, reliable source has to make that connection, and claim it. And also to clarify, I could not cite someone calling the storm on the capitol "domestic terrorism" along with another citation prooving Baked Alaska's participation in said storm, and use that to label him a domestic terrorist, correct? I stand by the fact that Baked Alaska is a domestic terrorist for participating in the storming of the capitol, but I acknowledge that Wikipedia requires someone other than the editor to connect the dots and present the evidence of their edit. I also understand that all of the evidence proving my claim is irrelevant if I am the one who gathered the evidence, which is a reasonable rule. Also, sorry I got a little off track in that last message and strayed from my point. Thank you for your time, I understand and accept your point, thank you, good day. (Wow, a debate between two internet people ended with one conceding, that's rare!) RauruOfLight (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is sort of what this boils down to. Someone else, some other source (a reliable source that carries weight) has to make that claim. You can make it, and I can make a whole bunch of claims about that person, but you and I mean nothing. The weight is important too: go look at all those articles for the misogynists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, racists, internet trolls, etc--on EVERY talk page you'll find discussion of when what labels can be applied, and the answer typically is, when reliable sources say so. And there's kind of a tipping point, between "sources a and b call him a Holocaust denier" and "person x is a Holocaust denier". The tipping point is reached when enough sources of enough weight say so--at some point, it's "the sky is blue". Look at the difference between Ron Unz and David Duke, for instance: for the latter, there is no doubt. Does all that make sense? Imagine the legwork that will have to be done before someone could apply "white supremacist" to the President's talk page. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

2603:6081:7000:2A00 ...

Hey, I've blocked the /64 there ... see this userspace essay on the subject]]. Graham87 16:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I saw that a while ago but haven't taken it to heart yet. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Choco chip cookie.png 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)

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

Courtesy notice

Hello Drmies. This is a courtesy notice about a thread at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Administrative abuse by User:Drmies. Cheers,— Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter de Washington

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter de Washington as Delete. I just wanted to be sure you were aware that the article creator moved (renamed) the article to William de Washington after the AfD was initiated, such that your deletion of Walter de Washington only removed the redirect they thus created and not the namespace currently occupied by the article. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • ...what the... Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozan Boz (2nd nomination)

Hello Drmies, I had prepared a rebutal for the redirect votes on "Articles for deletion/Ozan Boz (2nd nomination)" and I was going to add them to the discussion page today. Only to find out it was closed. I am a little surprised. (I am not a frequent contributor, pls consider me as newcomer) Here ( WP:AFD it says "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." I thought I had until 17:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC), since first redirection vote was made on 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

Is it possible for you to undo/reverse the redirection so that I can add my comments for keeping the article? You can then review again. I went into great details as to why nominator and others are mistaken. I looked up at the policies and guidelines and did my research and all.

Thank you.

Neckhumbucker (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sicilian monks

A tag has been placed on Category:Sicilian monks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozan Boz (2nd nomination)

Hello again Drmies, here's the link for my case: [[1]]

Neckhumbucker (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


Is it who I think it is? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • No, though I thought it might be. It's on its way to higher authorities at the foundation. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah someone pointed it out to me as well and I was suspicious but their mannerisms are...different. Also mind having a look at this and whether it meets nprof? Academia isn't my area of expertise...GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Range block

I see that you have blocked Range ‪‬2A02:C7D:0:0:0:0:0:0/33. This covers my IP address, and the usual range of it. (My IP seems to be different every day.) The range is enormous, and the period very long. The instructions on what to do in this situation are confusing and useless. It looked like it would have been possible for me to create an account (I didn’t go through with it), but as an inexperienced editor I would not have been able to work this out.

So a very large number of people are going to be discouraged from editing Wikipedia.

If the idea is that anyone who is affected by the block should create an account, then the instructions need to be improved to give a clear route to this option. In the meantime, I respectfully suggest that the period of the block should be reduced.

Best wishes Sweet6970 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but the idea on our side is that this will prevent a lot of work reverting vandalism and poor contributions. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your work on trimming the Yadvendradev Vikramsinh Jhala article! Kj cheetham (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Sure thing--and same to you. I saw you had worked on it. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A very odd item

Hi Drmies,

Thank you for looking into the sockpuppet the other day. Another weird thing has happened. There was a user by the name of "Pretzel butterfly" which, after trying to WP:POVPUSH some very WP:BLP-violating things at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and engaging in obviously WP:SEALION/sealioning behavior, has now "mysteriously vanished" and had their username changed (current: Their initial edits pattern, long silence, and then this return under a "hyper polite to the point of being frustrating" assumed persona match what was described to me as a "sleeper sockpuppet", and their initial edit summaries (such as "I responded to your comments on The Dragon Prince talk page" [2]) look similar to the "Iluvdonuts" sockpuppeter to me. There was also a string of someone(s) who were harassing my talk page, telling me to kill myself, which were so nasty that the usernames were stricken from the record along with their edits and edit summaries. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


As for your comment made here [3] the difference, which I'm sure looks like a contradiction to you as a native English speaker, comes from the fact that English is not my primary language, but two other languages which are very different in their structure and rules - are. That's the reason for a slight misunderstanding. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, my problem was with the difference between "personal opinion" and "scientific research". My first language isn't English either, but what matters here is that if someone writes up some academic article, and it's published in a peer-reviewed paper, it has become a more or less accepted statement, far beyond "personal opinion". I mean, one would assume that what may have started as an opinion was proven by facts and arguments, and stamped with approval by peer reviewers, external readers, an editorial board. And if it's cited in a later study, that adds to its validity. Take care, Drmies (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet block

Hey Drmies. Having been involved with (blocked) George Maverick (et al.), I was monitoring the sockpuppet investigation. Since you blocked a few confirmed socks a few hours back, but haven't blocked the account that sparked the investigation, Desmond Maverick, I was just wondering if that was an oversight? Thanks for working on the investigation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I've just noted eight additional sleeper account candidates based on name-matching at the investigations page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


Keep the faith, brother. Tiderolls 03:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Hey. We gotta stop this nonsense, and get together next time. Roll Tide. OMG this may not have been the greatest ever, but it was good. I still think the second LSU game is the best--but Smith, and Harris, and Jones, they really deserved all of this. I was not confident at halftime, I'm telling you. That shit that OSU pulled on Clemson? I am still flabbergasted by it. And then we beat them. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hahaha....congrats, Professor, your Alma Mater came through again :) Tiderolls 05:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It was quite a game. Just promise me we're meeting up between then and next time, Tide rolls. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Whitman and Lincoln

Hi, thought you might be interested in seeing Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Whoa, that is some really, really impressive work. I'm going to share it with my American lit colleagues. Thanks for writing that up, and for letting me know. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

the saga continues

is back at it today. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


What's with that guy? Near as I can figure, he's been going around adding favorable information about right-wing politicians, while removing unfavorable information. pbp 16:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing with "that guy". He is an editor. - CharlesShirley (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
He is, but as you know, Charles, I have some questions about some things also. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Lest we not forget his ANI thread which got mysteriously archived without any solution after engaging in multiple personal attacks against numerous editors including myself without a single diff substantiating it. Funny how that works. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
If edits like this are anything to go by, it seems to me that a topic ban might be appropriate...CUPIDICAE💕 16:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinewood Derby

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Abuse of admin powers by Drmies and 331dot. Thank you. Courtesy notice because the reporting user cannot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Ooooooooooh that was that editor! Yes, that was...well just another timesink. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


I knew when I first met you there was a whiff of George Soros about you. Glad you finally came clean. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Ha, yes. In all honesty, it's like all of them lost my address, and I've been living off of my regular salary for a while now. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Judging by the number of times your name has come up at WP:ANI lately, you must be doing something right! Barnstar duly awarded. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Mjroots, thanks--but I don't know if that is a thing to be thankful for. It seems some people think I'm heavy-handed sometimes, and maybe I am. But one of those things was for the removal of what I considered to be BLP-violating content, and I don't understand why people would want to edit-war with an administrator when the administrator invokes the BLP. That's just silly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That one case at ANI

How can you talk about a salmon-themed pinewood derby car and not provide a picture of it? -Gouleg🛋️ (TalkContribs) 16:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I had promised another editor I'd get these pictures; I'm sorry. I need Mrs. Drmies to take the pictures for me: she does quality. I'll get on it, I promise. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Digga D

Hi Drmies,

Please take my edits in good faith, I'm not trying to vandalise as I'm sure you can tell, as I'm actually spending time adding to this page. Please in specific tell me what I have copied from genius because this is not the case and I have not cited them once. At the very least can the edits I did to the Discovery be reverted as they are really in-depth detail edits that took a lot of research and time. Finally, please send me a message before taking action against me as I'm trying my best here and I've spent way too long on this article so I would appreciate if my edits were not simply undone especially when I don't understand the issue. Thanks. TwoTrappy22 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • TwoTrappy22, I have no intention of taking any action against you. But as AngusWOOF said, you should consider the comments of other editors before reverting or complaining. Between the two of us, Angus and I have probably edited tens of thousands of articles. AngusWoof has done a lot of work to clean up your article, and so has another editor, User:Fejkxk. And User:Lee Vilenski. In other words, this is a collaborative project and all of us try to make these articles the best they can be. I don't understand your repeated assertions that you didn't cite you did it right here in this edit, SEVEN times, and you restored them later on. But all these questions and comments about content are better asked on Talk:Digga D. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but you simply refer to a huge edit I did, nothing in specific, still not sure which part of it cites genius but nevermind, i'll move past this, it is a waste of time since both Angus and yourself believe I did so, hence I probably did. Forget this. Secondly, I'm not complaining, simply communicating, trying to understand and work together. I agree this is a collaborative project, as it should be. My only query now is restoring the work did on the Discovery section. ThanksTwoTrappy22 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn

Do you remember User:Billy Hathorn? Look at the earliest history of Pete Flores. Is that odd at all to you, or just bad copycatting of the very tediously detailed way in which Billy wrote about state legislators? Marquardtika (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I remember Billy Hathorn: if you want the most miserable and tedious interactions, Billy's your man. Wait. I see what you mean. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Marquardtika, (talk page stalker) Billy Hathorn? I've looked through thousands upon thousands of his edits (for Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727- he created quite the mess...) , so I'm a bit of an expert. It's possible but seems unlikely, as Billy and his socks almost never user non-automated edit summaries, had a poor grasp of how the wiki worked, had chronic copyright violations, would use even less reliable sources (such as himself and Findagrave), and also now only really socks with ips. So there's not similarities there, but the ref bombing and general topic area (Conservatives in the bible belt) is an overlap. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 22:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, I hope you're right, Moneytrees. But there's User:DailyDip to consider. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
        • @Moneytrees: Thanks for the info, and for all of your hard work on the case. Billy really did us dirty. You're probably right about your thoughts on socking. I have found with state legislators that newly created articles often follow the model of existing articles, which could be the issue here. Marquardtika (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Tristan Marshall

Yes, of course - I've added to my watchlist, and I think the Canada birth place is correct. I'll look to expand in the future soon as well. GiantSnowman 09:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:33, 15 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)