User talk:Drmies

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Mail

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.

Afrique Victime

Recently got Afrique Victime to GA, and I want to bring it to FA, since you participated in the last review, and you're experienced in this topic, I just want to ask for advice. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vigilantcosmicpenguin, you said, in the review, "Some quotes could be paraphrased, like "stuttering percussion and grainy acoustics". That became this, "The song includes clapping, acoustic guitar runs, flickering percussion, and scratchy acoustics." [1] But "stuttering" isn't "flickering", "grainy" isn't "scratchy", and "acoustic guitar runs" is a direct quote. Drmies (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, yeah, I overlooked that. If I had noticed the close paraphrase here I would've said it's less clear.
TheNuggeteer, I think you should pay attention to statements of fact that combine multiple sources. This statement is about the structure of the song, not about what reviewers think of it, so you shouldn't try to closely paraphrase the sources. Try just listing the instruments, and add adjectives only if they add useful information.
(P.S. Best of luck bringing it to FA! I've never done an FA before so I commend your hard work.)— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In one day, I scoured Google for all reliable sources I could find and the sources in the Article and in the talk page are most of them, I couldn't find anything about the instruments in all the sources, but I could add the rest. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did it. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

Someone changed the box score on the WKU game from its original format. Can you revert it back to the previous box score like all the others are formatted? Rolltide pisco (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about this edit? I don't really know anything about all that formatting; I barely understand how it works. Can't you just do it yourself? Do you want me to give you the rollback function? That's easily done. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes please. They should all look the same Rolltide pisco (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay—done. But you gotta read the manual: wikipedia:Rollback. Basically, use it for clearly disruptive edits, and ALWAYS explain what you’re doing, in an edit summary. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding

Hi Drmies, please avoid WP:HOUNDING. DMH223344 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks friend. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DMH223344, I was going to fix what you left on Green Party of the United States, where you put the same citation in four separate times, without following the existing formatting for citations, but hey--so please take care of that. And yes, don't be surprised if other editors are following your edits, esp. edits like this one, where you say "discuss on talk" though I did in fact explain the tag on the talk page. I note also that you have been warned for edit warring by User:האופה, and alerted to contentious topics by Binksternet, and so maybe I should suggest you read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to worry about other users. האופה had an AE brought against them and hasn't edited since. DMH223344 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

If you like dessert, just eat PickMe10 (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that PickMe10 is probably Wictoriamalawi. They're stale, but the CU data may be informative. PickMe10 has made 188 edits, and almost all of them intersect with the master. Pageant socks are a dime a dozen, and they're not always easy to sort out, but a check might result in technically possible or rule it out, which would help me decide whether to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell, Bbb--too stale. Stale as that brownie; I don't care for brownies. I confirmed them with Bina.biny99 and Celestecourtesi and blocked all of those, but I can't easily look for further connections right now. Have a great day! If you need me, I'll be in class, yapping about monuments for the Civil War, Civil Rights, and Lost Cause. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the location might make it possible or unlikely. Not that I'm an expert in name origins, but Wictoriamalawi sounds African to me, whereas supposedly PickMe10 is Filipino-Spanish. Now they're blocked I suppose it's moot. "Yapping about monuments" - you do know how to turn a phrase.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the location of the Malawi account. "Yapping" is what the kids say these days; a fine example of yapping is at User talk:Bina.biny99. Later bro, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, Spicy ran a check. Yapping, bro, next thing you'll be calling me dude, god help me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Good luck. I just finished my class in business and I have an asynchronous class for theatre at 11:15. Kind of glad that Labor Day made this a 4 day class week. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three-day: Monday off, then Tuesday also off, to not get in the way of MW vs. TR schedules! And since I'm MW, I actually had a six-day weekend. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September music

Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about a man who played jazz when it was banned by the Nazis, - you can listen to how they played it later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

You've violated 1RR on the page Jill Stein. All within 24 hours:

DMH223344 (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DMH223344, is there a reason you're removing a pov tag when there is an active discussion about the pov concerns shared by multiple editors on the talk page? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I mentioned in the talk page, the additions citing the party platform page are limited to the "Political positions" section or the "Platform" subsection. A POV tag on the whole article is of course inappropriate given that the additions in question are isolated to two sections. Additionally, the claim that citing a platform website for a description of the candidates platform violates WP:POV requires more justification. (Drmies said that the additions are not notable since secondary sources weren't cited, but that is also absurd--how is a description of the platform not notable enough to be included in a section about the platform itself?) DMH223344 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a discussion for the talk page, with a tag to draw more voices into the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a revert of an edit of yours? As for your "see the talk page" argument, you're basically arguing that you are right and therefore you are right. I really should have given you a vandalism warning for that POV tag removal--but in hindsight I maybe should have reverted the ENTIRE page to before you started adding subject-provided material. One big grand revert for dozens of edits--that's following the letter of 1R, maybe. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did violate 1rr by removing the tag 21ish hours after your prior revert. Would you be so kind as to remedy that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish are you serious? OK, sure--so the disrupter and obvious COI editor wins. Shall I wait another 24 hours and then simply revert to the version of the article before they made dozens of edits? Drmies (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your revert. I also think you only have to wait another hour or so. You should check the time stamps to make sure though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, of course I'm not going to make such a grand revert (I'm not that much of an asshole), but you know we're dealing with a gamer. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever to call me a gamer then go and swap out the POV banner for another one over the entire article. Of course, only the sections about platform and political positions are self-published. DMH223344 (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2], and there's an AN thread from back in December. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was a revert of an edit of mine. 1RR applies to reverting in whole or in part. "you're basically arguing that you are right and therefore you are right.", and you are arguing what exactly? Instead of throwing out threats I'd prefer if you instead engaged with the content of the discussion. DMH223344 (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that you are a disruptive COI editor who knows enough to do just the right amount of wikilawyering, and that your arguments are crap. I'm also arguing that if that edit to the lead was indeed yours (who would know, in those dozens and dozens of edits?) you are really not a good writer. Also, you are taking up way too many paragraphs here, and I prefer economy. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's talk about content then, I'm happy to do so. As for COI, let's stick to the facts and not just throw accusations around. DMH223344 (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of European Arenas Association

Delete it if you want to. There is no reason for that, the organization is notable enough, but I also have no reason and no patience to bother proving that to you. You will achieve nothing but delete some verifiable information on an international organization, but if it will make you feel good, delete it, I don't give a damn anymore. People like you are what made Wikipedia unbearable for me some time ago, so go ahead, prove your point, make yourself useful, delete it, you are truly one of a kind. Bye. Vitriden (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:CodeWeb Agency

Eh. :) Filmssssssssssss, Drmies, what happened there? Not that I care much but this is a bit strange. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Filmsss tagged it and I didn't see a reason to keep it, esp. after you blocked the editor. Wait--now I see what you meant with "no need to delete the rejection", and that in that edit you basically declined the speedy. Sorry Filmss, you can't tag something after the tag has been declined. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (All good, thanks! And yeah, I should have explicitly declined the speedy deletion including an edit summary that does so.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, the next thing that will happen is the draft being deleted after six months, unless a sockpuppet comes and edits it further. So this is a technicality. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh, yeah, sure, no, my fault--I should have looked more carefully in the history. Thanks. Hey, listen, while I have you here, ToBeFree--do you remember this? I can't really see what prompted that, but I'm having my doubts about that editor, as you can maybe tell. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Drmies Thanks for the heads up about the rule, will keep track of that next time Filmssssssssssss (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Filmssssssssssss, I think the main issue with the speedy deletion tagging wasn't that it had been declined before. The main issue to me is that the page simply clearly didn't qualify for the selected criterion. The page content wasn't promotional anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Drmies, it's been a while. I think the editing overlap between Scott free0011 and Quailmail in the article about Eric Dick (lawyer) was the only thing that prompted this message; I performed no checks in this matter. It also seems to have been resolved, if it ever was an issue, by Quailmail completely having stopped editing. If this changes, I'd have a look again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:ToBeFree, I checked, and that's why I was wondering, cause I know you must have had a good reason to make that comment. No, I see it now: it's because of Lacey Hull, where you fought off a bunch of BLP violations in February, and where these two editors were fighting for the same cause: tarring the reputation of Hull. And now the plot thickens: Dick has been represented by Jared Woodfill, who's trying to oust Hull, claiming she's a RINO, not extreme enough against abortion and other matters. I think I am going to block Scott free from editing those articles that he has so obvious an interest in. Neutrality, I would love it if you read over these comments related to Scott free, esp. given your cleanup at the Woodfill article. Drmies (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK I think this whitewashing on Woodfill clinches it, especially in combination with this blackballing of Hull. Drmies (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        🤔 I didn't analyze it that thoroughly yet but it sounds plausible to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I would perhaps not have chosen a partial block but we'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm always wary of blocking before coffee. I don't want to be too harsh when maybe I'm not in full control yet. ;) Drmies (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
Wikimania presentation
New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below-the-radar disruption

Hi Doc! This seems too small-ball for AE, but I continue to boycott AN/I, so as always am trying AN/I 2.0. Would you or a talkpage watcher mind taking a look at Special:Contribs/Sslaptnhablhat‎? Subsequent to this edit they were warned for in 2019 (which should probably be revdelled) accusing a living nonbinary person of murder, we've now got your run-of-the-mill "actually a man"-type edits on two transfeminine people's talkpages. Which, see my opinion here on why it's fine to believe that but often disruptive to express. We've also got "Up yours, antisemitic bastard" for, I gather, this ARBPIA edit. (One of three such insults, but the other two were at least in response to actual anti-Semitism in one case and anti-Israel POV-pushing in the other.) Oh we've also got some stupid edit-warring over the pronouns for Hermaphroditus, which seems like one of those things where everyone who tries to change it in any direction without consensus should be trouted at a minimum. Anyways, enjoy! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The real mystery is why this editor wasn't blocked before. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking about this, in the context of this user and other below-the-radar cases I've found. I think the issue is a gap in our anti-abuse coverage: We have lots of users who are good at getting vandals blocked, but do so using tools that largely ignore autoconfirmed users; and we have lots of users who are good at reverting bad edits to articles they care about, but are looking at that on the article level rather than the user level. Both of these are fine ways to contribute to the encyclopedia, but they leave a gap of people who are in a position to spot these below-the-radar edits and then proceed with dealing with the matter as a user-conduct issue. Plus even if you bring it before an admin, there's a decent chance that it'll be someone who usually only deals with IPs and VOAs, who'll then say, well, it's only two vandal edits this month, and leave them a level-2 warning or something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe. It's not unlike admins who delete an obvious spam user page, but leave an account with a promotion-only user name unblocked. I often revert and then look at the history before I decide on a warning or a block. Well let's see. Perhaps this user will see reason. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I try to spot the below-the-radar editors and block them. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reason? I doubt it. The common sense to keep their arms and legs inside the ride at all times? Maybe, and I guess that's all we need from people. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - (talk page stalker) I hope it's ok to add to this @Tamzin:. I have a lot of article for Trans/non binary people on my watch list. They tend to be the more 'in the news' people though. If you can think of any more articles that need an extra pair of eyes then please do let me know and I will add them. Ping me if you have any more. Knitsey (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Articles on people from before the current wave of trans visibility, like Gloria Hemingway (one of the targets here), Alexis Arquette, and Lili Elbe are often neglected. There's also articles on historic figures who were, or in the opinion of many were, some kind of non-cisgender, but whose exact identity is disputed, and as a result get both vandalism and good-faith misguided changes, like Claude Cahun, James Barry (surgeon), the Public Universal Friend, and anyone else in Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity. More generally, while there's a lot of work done reverting deliberate misgendering, very few editors seem to care about actually enforcing MOS:GENDERID beyond that. In particular, the rule on modifying quotes is frequently not followed. (I personally disagree with that consensus, but as long as it's there it ought to be enforced.) One might almost say that basically all discourse around GENDERID is people moot-courting the culture wars on-wiki, and almost no one is interested in actually writing good content about trans people. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I had two of those article on my wl, the other articles are now watched. I will go through the category above and add others. I'm not sure I can help too much with actual article writing. I DO need more experience in that area. Maybe I should try a bit more in that respect. Knitsey (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. Knitsey, I'd love it if you produced content. You seem to have a very level head and some skills. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I've actually found someone that might be a possibility. @Tamzin:, [3] Tamara Rees. I've had a quick look for refs. They're sparse but it might be possible. I will gather some refs together over the next week to see if there is enough for an article. Knitsey (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible IP evasion?

Hi, I see you were involved in blocking 80.233.0.0/18 and 80.233.49.59 for disruptive cat editing. If you have time, I was hoping you could quietly look at 86.40.54.89 who has been very active recently in the same area. Most of their edits are fine, and in fact I can see efforts to improve (e.g previous additions of Expatriate sportspeople in Fooland have been upgraded to the correct Barian expatriate sportspeople in Fooland) but there are still a lot, some slightly wrong but too many really to check unless I want to devote my whole day to chasing their edits, no summaries or talk engagements to get an idea of what they're thinking, and obviously if it is a block evasion that's a level up from a minor irritant. I realise the IP range itself is quite different, I'm not smart enough to know if that automatically rules them out of being the same. [edit 4 hours later: Oh, and also 86.40.250.3 which I habve just come across?] Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tipping off

Good evening, top of the same to you!

Per this warning here you made here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Correctinformer007), just another useless "user" as far as i'm concerned. Have seen them do this time and time again; as you know, sometimes clubs change names, not just in football but in all sorts of sports. This "user" is having none of that and they'll change everything and then some to accommodate their preferred version, even in SOURCES (!) where the title of a newspiece is what it is (have a look at here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiri_(footballer)&diff=next&oldid=1245380833 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_(footballer,_born_1957)&diff=prev&oldid=1245386145).

You have been briefed, attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one instance of them "contributing" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javi_Hern%C3%A1ndez_(footballer,_born_1989)&diff=next&oldid=1243134217)!
- Wait--I don't really see it. Your version and their version are both redirects to Mohun Bagan Super Giant? Drmies (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they all lead there because that's the CURRENT name of the club. Before, it was called ATK and then ATK Mohun Bagan. But the user has no business misleading readers writing a given club was called something it was not (i repeat, they change ALL instances to Mohun Bagan SG, even in SOURCES!

Attentively --RevampedEditor (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I swear this is going somewhere

		The Original Barnstar
		I swear this story is going somewhere: We buried my uncle this summer. When cleaning out his house and the two-story house he had built in his backyard (after filling his own home floor-to-ceiling with stuff), we found an encyclopedia/atlas well over a hundred years old. I was showing the out-of-date medical articles to a friend of mine, and he brought up how he wrote a Wikipedia article decades ago about a dope band, googled the band and was pleased and surprised to find the article was still there, still contained some of his writing, and had been expanded. He said that he received much assistance in navigating the complexities of the encyclopedia from an OG, and upon looking at the history, I see that OG is you. So thanks! Acorns become trees, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks--that's a sweet story and I appreciate it. Now, of course, I want to know what the dope band was. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKB Plot

I didn't just copy amd paste, I was the one who wrote it in the first place after editing it months ago. Readers and other users didn't have a problem with it for months let the plot remain with a few changes every now and then. Also, removing the whole plot is not your job either, yet here you are. Thank you. Grammer Plot (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining, Grammer Plot, under which account you made those edits? Thanks. Also, I just nominated an article for deletion that had been crappy for fifteen years, so that argument of "didn't have a problem with" doesn't really mean much. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I made an edit under a different account, Meigh 2005, which I created 2 years ago. Instead of nominating articles to be removed because it is "crappy" why don't you fix it and make it to your liking so that you don't inconvenience others who are okay with a "crappy" article ? Or better yet, leave it. You're the second person to remove the main section of a page just because the details are excessive. It's really selfish, stupid and ignorant. Stop. Grammer Plot (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure you don't mind that I blocked that other account--it's for security reasons, so it can't be usurped. The things you are saying here are not just uncollegial but also show a bit of a disconnect with what we are trying to do here. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - i really don't give two hoots about you blocking that other account and for what reason. i literally – couldn't care less. all i ask of you is to stop removing plots, especially if they are well detailed with time tracks throughout the film or series. Grammer Plot (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - You really should have a look at Wikipedia:Civility. Yelling at me is not going to convince me that that poorly written and totally excessive plot is of any encyclopedic value at all. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        please don't refer to wikipedia's code of conduct to try and threaten me. it's not going to work. i'm not yelling at you. i'm just telling you that what you're doing is selfish and ignorant. if you really find articles bogus then why don't you fix it ? removing the whole thing is unnecessary and honestly, frustrating. and please don't tell me that it's not your job. aree of course not, yaar. it's not mine either, yet here i am, correcting spelling, grammar and other errors that need fixing. thank you, have a nice day. Grammer Plot (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not responsible for fixing your copyright violations, or your poor writing--either one. You did not fix any of the things in that plot summary; you simply edit warred over it. If you're going to correct "spelling, grammar and other errors", start with what you wrote here. Now go away: I do not want you in my happy place again. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - And I see now that it was removed as a copyvio--User:Nthep, thank you: I had looked but couldn't easily navigate IMDB, I think, or maybe I started looking and then became otherwise occupied. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evading IP vandal at 'Iran at the 2024 Summer Olympics'

The same previously-banned IP is persistently continuing their personal attacks towards me in Romanized Persian on both my talk page and Talk:Iran at the 2024 Summer Olympics as 77.237.190.180, 77.237.191.125, 77.237.185.111, and 77.237.186.182, while also continuing to vandalize the article. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock?

I have a suspicion, based both on the username and the edit history, that editor Fix.It [4] is a sock of blocked editor Fix.bkl [5]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwegmann (talk • contribs)

Ugh. How foolish. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Thanks for you help. Anwegmann (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long hold

You placed an unblock request at User talk:Rootbeerlc on hold on 4 June. The ensuing discussion didn't come to any clear conclusion, but maybe it's time to take it off hold, one way or the other. JBW (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]