User talk:Drmies/Archive 98

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Crow Award![edit]

Crow Award
Crow has given you The Official Crow Award! For your quick and decisive action on a BLP violation! CrowCaw 03:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey thanks! I looked at a bunch of other reports and was reminded quickly why RFPP is so impopular. Boooooooring! Drmies (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on one of your WP:ANI closures[edit]

Resolved

Recently, you closed a discussion at WP:ANI as "done."[1] The discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive914#Admin assistance request: Removing a duplicate thread from an archive.

It would appear that not everyone liked the outcome of the discussion; the user whose questionable edit was effectively reverted in the process, User:Smartse, appears intent on edit warring to keep it in place, as exemplified by this recent edit of his. As you were the closing administrator, I'd appreciate it if you could follow up on your closure and talk to that user and explain why that is not a good idea and that he should've voiced any concerns he might've had over the course of the ten days the matter was open for discussion at WP:ANI. I'd do it myself, but given the deceptiveness of the user's edit summary, which invokes "clear consensus from ANI" in disregard of the fact the WP:SILENT consensus was to do the exact opposite of what he's doing, as well as the ineffectiveness of my previous attempts to discuss the matter with the user, I don't believe I'd be able to get anywhere. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You asked for administrators to intervene. They chose not to do so. In other words, your dearchiving/decluttering was not supported. "I realize the matter is of low importance"--OK then. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    First, lack of interest, if anything, means support, if reluctant, and not lack thereof. Anything anyone says or does on Wikipedia is assumed to have the support of everyone who sees it but chooses not to oppose it; otherwise, introducing any changes to the encyclopedia would be impossible. We call that silent consensus, the weakest form of consensus but a form of consensus nevertheless. Even if we choose to believe there was no consensus for what I proposed, let me remind you that "[w]hen actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Note that it says "actions by administrators," not "administrative actions." Note also what the WP:SILENT essay has to offer.
    Second, "low importance" isn't no importance, and I obviously described it as "low" relative to other matters being discussed at the noticeboard at the time, the idea being that I didn't mind waiting in line so long as there was end in sight. To me personally the matter of having my good name tarnished through having it appear in a WP:COIN thread uncontested is certainly of the highest possible priority, just as it would be to anyone else. Administrators might've chosen not to intervene, but the discussion was closed as "done" by one of them, you, indicating lack of disapproval, and through that silent approval, for the outcome it has come to.
    Furthermore, it is a matter of record that the administrator whose revert was under discussion chose not to participate in the discussion, and has now, several days after the fact, reverted the page in question to his preferred version going against the silent consensus at WP:ANI, against the established practice of removing threads from the archives upon unarchival, and indeed against common sense.
    The bottom line is, will you live up to the admin task put in front of you and confront the user about his questionable conduct, or not? Does this tedious matter really need to be taken back to WP:ANI? If it does then it does, I suppose, but does it? Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) maybe not. Geoff | Who, me? 20:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, it took me a while, and your answer is incorrect: you want that old thread removed because someone mentioned you in an COI investigation and it turned out that apparently you were uninvolved. All that verbiage, an ANI thread, reams of paper on my talk page--for just that. The answer is no; I am not going to let you remove something from the archive. I'll do something else for you, but that's just because it's a beautiful day today, not because your "decluttering the archive" edit summary was in any way honest. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My edit summary was entirely honest and in keeping with Wikipedia's established practices, as was the edit itself. The summary doesn't mention my personal interest in decluttering that particular archive because I assumed nobody would care about that. Why would anyone care about that?
    Speaking of dishonesty, how would you respond if any of the following edits of yours, all of which constitute a removal of a thread from an archive upon unarchival, were reverted in a similarly unreasonable way mine was?[2][3][4][5] I think we both know the answer. Don't think for a second you have the moral high ground here. "I am not going to let you remove something from the archive[?]" I presume that was supposed to be an attempt at humor? Be informed that I am not amused.
    That said, I am willing to let this edit of yours be the solution to the problem—not because it's a real solution, but simply because I regrettably don't have enough free time on my hands to pursue the matter to its proper resolution. If User:Smartse wants to keep the WP:COIN archive cluttered and is willing to edit war to keep it cluttered, then I'll just have to be the bigger man and let him keep it cluttered I suppose. Thank you for your time and have a nice day. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please. First of all, I am pleased you find me interesting enough to plow through my edit history. I hope you had to look long and hard. Second, brevity is the soul of wit. Try it. Third, being an admin has certain privileges and duties. One of them is to maintain some kind of order on ANI and noticeboards like that (you may have noticed that the "A" in "ANI" stands for "Administrator"), and to pull a thread out of the archive if it needs to be pulled out: it's a matter of judgment, and over 200 editors said I should exercise that, but exercise it wisely. You are welcome to start a thread on AN challenging those privileges and argue for each and every one of them that they were somehow disruptive. So no, not an attempt at humor. Fourth, this nonsense about "cluttered" is just that, nonsense. There's nothing that's cluttered. Fifth, what you wanted to ask was "I want that old thread removed because someone mentioned me in an COI investigation and it turned out that I was uninvolved." Sixth, you're welcome; your willingness is just grand. Seventh, if you want to be the bigger man, that is just fine--I'm too old to get into a contest of who has the biggest dick, or the thickest waist, and I will happy to lose both contests. But go do it somewhere else. Be a big man in article development or improvement; this talk page is running out of space for big men, with Ched and Doug Weller crowding the paint. Vaya con dios, Drmies (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy[edit]

Hey drmies The amount of unauthentic sources and number of facts backing sources are several in the naokhali page I just removed them can you please elaborate that why do you want black me ....Many of the books quoted are not even existing and any are typically biased of which one have no doubt lack of scholarly references --I.areeb (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick look revealed that you were simply blanking content, including the entire lead, if I remember correctly. You may discuss this on the article talk page. I don't want to block you; I don't know why you would think that. But if you keep blanking content without proper discussion or explanation (many of your edit summaries were grammatically deficient and otherwise unclear) you will be blocked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FoxNewsChannelFan[edit]

I think we should look at a few other moves by User:FoxNewsChannelFan all done in good faith ..but ....looks like copy and pasting over proper moves. With a quick look I see Circuit City pages are all messed up...the talk page history starts this month. -- Moxy (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Moxy--sorry, but I'm about to head out the door. A quick glance suggests that what they did was undone, but that was only a quick glance. What's this person doing? They need to stop. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good left him a note about moves...I am not an admin ..will need an admin looking at this page to review moves. -- Moxy (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Run for it, then! Drmies (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement length[edit]

Hi, Drmies. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The total of 788 words does not include the collapsed portion of your statement.

  • Hey doc, am I allowed to giggle at this? :-) — Ched :  ?  21:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ched, I use the standard template, as I'm instructed to. It doesn't allow for much personalization. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah Ched! All monks should wear the same cowls, to paraphrase a Dutch saying. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liz, thank you. I hope I am less wordy now after some tweaks; taking out "Martin" saved me at least a dozen words. The collapsed part is a response to Hammersoft's question; I believe there is some precedent for leeway when diffs are asked for--as ArbCom knows, diffs should always come with an explanation.

    If you think I'm still too wordy, I'll go dig up ArbCom's email address; I should have it somewhere. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz - I do understand that, honest. It's just that given Drmies' absolute *love* of bureaucracy (/sarcasm) - I was having a good old chuckle to myself. — Ched :  ?  22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cowls? Like this? (shades of Sandstein) Geoff | Who, me? 22:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's not.
Well, think of my message this way: the next time (and there is always a next time) an editor complains that admins are not held to the same standards that apply to editors, you can use my comment as a diff to show them that even arbitrators have to follow the rules. Now do have a lovely weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That next time has come and gone; it's probably brewing on ANI already. But where am I now with my word count? I don't mind trimming more. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
wordcounter.net says 660 not counting the hat. — Ched :  ?  02:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By my count your at 621 (as signatures aren't included). Amortias (T)(C) 10:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not counted the words spent on the question whether BWV 7 should be bolded here (see talk - village pump - classical music). I am tedentious and insulting, DYK? I counted reverts: 4, one by me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG. Please tell Schonken that it should be "fewer asides", not "less asides". "Its" for "its first performance" is totally unnecessary; the regular determiner is just fine. Second paragraph, "It is the third cantata..." adds a needless anticipatory "it" necessitating an extraposed subject. Having said that, I think his construction is better since it avoids "a cycle planned to contain", a not-so-strong phrase, and it had an incorrect comma (between "cantatas" and "based"). But I prefer to stay away from his discussions. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to understand how not to bold the BWV number in a Bach cantata (almost a synonym for the piece, certainly for readers who couldn't pronounce the German title) would be any better for the reader. I understand even less how, when a bold edit such as changing that (in a GA!) is reverted, you don't go to discuss but insist your preferred version three more times. I don't quote what Ched called alphabet soup, normally, but almost regret that now: WP:BRD. Other letters were AGF. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to understand why a section header "Movements" should be better than "Music", I reverted twice, feeling strongly that we shouldn't have any such technical term as a section header, - it's a standard across FAs and GAs on the topic as you saw as a reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I think he just likes to mess with you. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What can I politely say to the proposal to take BWV 243 for an example? (You may he remember that he wanted BWV 243a merged to it.) Came after I suggested to take Messiah for a model. - We sang Tristis tonight, compare, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing, I guess that much. Now he told a friend that she made only one edit to the article and that was a revert. I wonder how many edits/revert I would count. (30/7 33/8) - I'm not in the mood to let the article go the way of Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her. - Singing the song of AGF to myself to myself to myself, can't hear myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerda - with all my respect, heart, and love, I quote a very dear friend: "Ignore, Ignore, Ignore." — Ched :  ?  22:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear him and you. But - unlike the carol - it's not an isolated article. One of my ideas is: no word in the TOC that a lay reader may misinterpret (because there's no link to help). Here comes "Movements" for "Music", see above. That's just one example. I called 2016 the year of the reader, - I think of a reader unfamiliar with music terminology, perhaps even with English, and would like to keep things simple. End of Credo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desiderata — Ched :  ?  01:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Easter, we'll sing "desiderat at fontes" (desires fresh water). I desire the fresh water of speaking of Music in the header of a musical composition, not Movements, a technical term, and the too narrow, - there's info well beyond it, often putting music in context with other pieces, ideas etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making progress in ignoring. One of my favourite articles, DYK on Wikipedia's 10th birthday, was moved. (Also two others.) Ignored, almost. A discussion in which I mentioned that a requested link can be found in the (word not to mentioned, or no supper, see my talk), was called a discussion about (... or no supper), which therefore is ruled by arbitration, see "Friendly reminder". Ignored, almost. Just played a game for fun. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was I supposed to ignore the attempt to change the Mos for the Lead section without a discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's sing? I suggest: Wie schön. Music was made here: nl:Sint-Agnesbegijnhof, - miss something in English, a stub would be better than nothing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to ignore that I am supposed to drop a stick, - going to sing for Easter, no, not Teh Cantata, but Missa in tempore belli, - no idea if Haydn meant the iwars (name not to be mentioned or no supper says Ritchie). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chorale cantata (Bach), an article with a history and a good common name, and many links, was just made (without a discussion) a redirect, to a list. Do you still tell me Ignore? I would like to see this version restored, willing to work on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Boing helped, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How beautiful that you didn't ignore me. Did you know that today is Bach's birthday? And the day to remember Viva-Verdi who added the unspeakables to all Verdi operas before he died a year ago. Lucky numbers today: 25k on my watchlist, and DYK 666, a singer who translated all texted Bachworks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, oops, I had totally missed this section, Gerda--my apologies. Congratulations on the birthday and the fine numbers. I don't have an opinion on that article, though I saw that indeed Boing had looked at the edit warring. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The you could read my mind ;) - Chorale cantata (Bach) is an article with a history, with a sortable table. The table was expanded to contain mostly numbers, BG number, BWV number, Zahn number, BD number, among several columns of years, anyway nothing I would want to read. We have it now as List of chorale cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach which I don't mind,- it may be good for some people. I minded though that the other article was made a redirect to the complex thing (until Boing intervened). I thought we could have something like the former table on top of a chronological rendition which took its place, - I can read a table much better than a sequence. No. I don't understand the logic of first splitting content and then saying the original is a fork. - Thinking about restoring and improving it, + having a table of hymns Bach used, - dreaming, you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False revert by you[edit]

This [6] is a mistake and careless revert by you. Did you check the cited sources? Did you read my message on talk page of article? The guys started edit war and falsified referenced content. Now you just restored wrong revision. --223.223.110.236 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Take it up on the talk page. 24,226,940 is a ridiculously precise number. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our reptilian friend[edit]

I've just created Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Reptilian Agenda. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doug, please don't compose headers like that again. I already have a hard enough time with mammals. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm giving voice to the underprivileged, Cullen. Feel the Bern? Drmies (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telstra-IP-socks.[edit]

Here is a collection, User:Huldra/Telstra-socks, is this enough for a WP:LTA? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

65.186.95.8 + 99.249.130.248[edit]

65.186.95.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
99.249.130.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Found two IP socks of Renameduser024 (talk · contribs). Continued harrassment on the same users' talk page. 172.58.32.83 (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 97.95.216.105 was NOT vandalizing. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Civil Liberties Association[edit]

There is an ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#192.235.252.195 regarding editing at Ontario Civil Liberties Association. As you have edited the article in the past you may have some experience that you can share regarding the issue. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Vera Songwe[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding your recent edit on OCLA[edit]

Question is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeme free (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Marco Rubio[edit]

There is an ongoing RfC at Talk: Marco Rubio which you may care to weigh in on.   Spartan7W §   15:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • OOOOOOOOOOOOOH really. Well, that should be fun! Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softy![edit]

Tulipomania

OGTurin was created by Castalia Communications at 16:10 UTC with a stupid comment.[7] That's what you get for your nice soft block. I'ma watch that user. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

  • Don't tell Bbb. He hates it when I soft-block. I looked through those edits and didn't see the user name pop up in them, so I did not have direct evidence of spamming. I see that it's in this new edit, though. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I softblock in those situations too. I expect a little more gratitude, though! Bishonen | talk 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
      • No good deed goes unpunished. If the doorbell rings tonight, it's probably the tulips I sent you. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New list[edit]

Help to expand List of restaurants in the Las Vegas Valley if you're interested. See the talk page there for more info. Cheers, North America1000 18:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, Vegas? Sorry, that's not one of my usual haunts, but thanks for the note. Hey, is there such a list for Minneapolis? Drmies (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWE listcruft[edit]

You've been around the block a few times on wrestling articles, haven't you? I've got two here, List Of Gore And Perkins WWE World Heavyweight Champions and WWE Raw 2/22/16 that seem to be fan-generated lists of matches. The problem is I can't easily think of a CSD criteria that they fall under, A7 doesn't really apply to lists of things, A11 is difficult as what exactly was "made up" isn't easily demonstratable given the sea of bluelinks in the article, same for G3 and A1. So they're sitting out the full week at PROD or AfD, which I think is a bit of a timewaste as I can't see any possible way these fanlists will ever be of encyclopedic importance. Have you got any ideas other than just letting the AfDs run their course? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not offhand, no. Sometimes fan articles are copyvios. For that list, you could argue A1 since the title of the article is so...vague (to put it nicely), but it takes semantics to explain why, and the moment you have to do that the "speedy" part is really out of the equation. Wait--what? This is a list of matches played by gamers? Sorry, I thought this was real rasslers duking it out. Well, the AfD will close with a SNOW rationale (funny since I walked around in the snow this morning--hello Minnesotaaaaaaa!), but it makes you wonder--do we have to make up CSD categories for a whole bunch more things? "Doesn't serve importance" is also semantically and otherwise challenged, but it gets to the heart of the matter, just not in bureaucratically acceptable terms. That Raw x/xx/xx article, I think A1 applies. What is it about? Drmies (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case request[edit]

Longstanding POV and behaviour dispute at veganism, a case request in which you are involved, has been declined as unready for arbitration at this time. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drmies, the Arbcom case has been declined because they believe that further dispute resolution is required. Most of the uninvolved editirs who commented on the case page (namely Mangoe, Resolute, Softlavender, Snow Rise, and Martinp) believe that there is a significant POV problem on the page. It does not seem right that I will have to participate in this resolution with a topic ban. I therefore ask you if you would be prepared to lift this ban so that I can take part in the dispute resolution proposed by Arbcom, whatever form it may take. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can ask for that at AN, which was always the first place to go to anyway. The ArbCom request was just a waste of time, though I imagine you started that to get more editors to look at the subject matter. When you do go to AN, please get it right. You are not topic banned as much as you are banned from abusing the talk page; the conditions of your ban are laid out on your talk page. I'm not quite sure why you keep misreading what I wrote, Martin. Maybe all those editors will support your being abuse-banned, though I think you need to understand that your participation on the talk page is not necessarily necessary to reach a neutral article, to put it mildly. I think you still don't understand that your presence was seen as disruptive. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you had a good look at the talk page history rather than just taking the word of the vegan regulars? I was not abusing the talk page I was using it, for exactly the purpose intended; to discuss article content rather than edit warring. I was not a lone tendentious editor pushing a personal opinion (i was not even the ditor who wrote the most), I was supporting what a majority of editors have said for years. At least one independent editor at the Arbcom case challenged you to show just one instance of disruption and you failed to do so. On the other hand the page in full of uncivil behaviour and personal attack sby other editors which you completely ignored.
I am sure that you must realise that there is little chance of an admin reversing a ban made by an arbcom member so you are essentially abusing your position as a member of the most powerful group in Wikipedia to enforce you personal opinion rather than WP policy, which clearly supports my actions.
Please do tell me what I should do to help reach a neutral article. Should I edit war, because everything I have tried to do has been immediately reverted by the regulars? Should I try an RfC? I tried that and got nowhere. How about civil discussion )now with one hand tied behind my back). I tried that and got banned (your words, you wrote 'Topic ban on Talk:Veganism'). Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ban wasn't an ArbCom ban. I have no doubt plenty of admins don't mind overturning an arbie. "Essentially abusing" is nonsense, and I think it's also an abuse of the word "essentially". You keep harping on this "your personal opinion" bit: this was a community ban. Read the discussion. We're going around in circles. This is why people wanted your contributions limited. This is why they had a point. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a community ban, look at all the comments on the page. There was roughly an equal number who opposed the ban. What exactly have I done wrong except to disagree? Is that now an offence on WP? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was a community ban because it was not an ArbCom ban (though you cleverly suggested that!) or an individual admin ban and it followed on what I established to be a consensus at the discussion. If you don't understand that that's what a community ban is, well. What you have done wrong there "except to disagree", let's see, I THINK THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU A FEW DOZEN TIMES BY NOW. Kindly don't come back here again unless you found a new record to play. That's a metaphor, but please take it literally. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPN#User:Nevets20 - draft about Satanic cult and child sexual abuse[edit]

Really badly sourced and I thought you should know about it. There's still a reptilian agenda as he uses David Icke's forum as a source. Might need some shiny OS tools. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive username[edit]

I did notice it and reported it. Karst (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I read everything posted on my talkpage. The person that I did not reply to did not sign his post, so I had no way of knowing who he was. Posts are only deleted after they are read, as to save up space on my talkpage. I am sorry for any misunderstandings or problems caused by this, but any policy guideline or rule I may have broken I did not know about. When I was informed of this I immediatly sought to remedy my mistake. I apologise for any trouble you may have been caused. Ethanlu121 (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, Ethanlu121, if that's how you wish to communicate, I am going to have to ask you to stop doing things like patrolling Recent changes and new articles. Basically you do not seem willing or able to communicate. There is no need to save space on your talk page; look at how beautiful mine is. You can archive instead of delete. But most of all, IF PEOPLE TALK TO YOU, PLEASE RESPOND. As for that user--how can you claim you didn't know who that was? All you had to do was check the history. Instead you just revert. And that you don't know how to check: if you don't know that, you shouldn't be nominating things for speedy deletion where frequently you have to check histories.

    You have done some good work and that's appreciated, but you're going to have to be more collaborative and communicative if you want to succeed in this collaborative venture. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DEAREST ADMIN (LOL)[edit]

Seriously though, could you take a look here, please. It was my screw-up for the reasons stated in the speedy delete request. If you could delete, I'd appreciate it so I can remove it from my watch list. Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. GB fan took care of it. Thanks anyway. Quis separabit? 22:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--so I'm not dearest? Come on... Drmies (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DYK that "Dearest Admin" is an anagram for both "Dreamed Saint" and "Damned Satire"? It's a fact!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peyton Manning[edit]

I appreciate your attempts to help us improve this article. I have found it very difficult to work collaboratively in that environment. Please don't give up! However I'd bet you have a certain COI regarding Manning as a Bama fan ;) Mr Ernie (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really want to look at that page now. Please tell me good news, if there ever is. The choice is between a separate article and nothing at all? That's not a choice. BTW, I was always a Manning supporter, even then. RTR, Drmies (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I had to bring the issue to ANI. I tried to discuss this with ParkH.Davis multiple times, but enough is enough. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

184.88.43.62[edit]

Hola, thanks for dealing with the edit-warring from 184.88.43.62. I wasn't sure if your closure question was directed at me or not. I didn't block them because I'd expressed an opinion on content at Talk:Raven-Symoné#Leaving America if Trump is elected, and I thought that disqualified me from adminning on them per WP:INVOLVED. I'm still trying to figure out what does and doesn't qualify as involved. It's one of those things: If I screw up a lot, I'll find out faster, but I also don't want to screw up a lot. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, a bit. It takes more than that (and I'm not even looking at that) to be INVOLVED. Look, if any other sane admin would make the block, you can too--this is your good-faith assumption, of course. The edit warring was already blockable, and then I saw the BLP violation, so you would have been in the clear, methinks. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your thoughts are appreciated. I've asked a few admins their thoughts on being involved. NeilN, I believe, expressed that he's a bit more conservative on the matter. So I'm still getting my admin legs/wings/other metaphor all sorted. And when I inevitably fuck up, I hope you'll at least speak on my behalf that I was cognizant that there was an issue, just unsure where the lines were carved in the rockbed. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's me AL...[edit]

...here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2001:8A0:7648:6001:78E8:BCD7:2FB9:C7D5&diff=cur)! My IP changed after the pertinent TV/internet service overhaul. Is there anyway to spread the word around (for future contacts with users I collaborate with and respect) without having to message people "door-to-door"?

Keep it up, regards --2001:8A0:7648:6001:78E8:BCD7:2FB9:C7D5 (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course I know it's you! That's why I welcomed you. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the reply to the technicality? If it isn't possible (and I just noticed that, before I went to dinner and shut computer down, I had already used this IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:7648:6001:F9D8:70C0:667E:CDDF, so I'm "afraid" it's a dynamic one), i'll create another account, much more practical for me and overall. --2001:8A0:7648:6001:78E8:BCD7:2FB9:C7D5 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but no cigar, this is me I suppose (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Be_Quiet_AL) --Be Quiet AL (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK Al--you can be my long-lost pal. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Dr[edit]

Greetings from old 99. Off and on for the last few hours (when not cooking dinner and other prosaic stunts) I've been occupied with a series of awful biographies courtesy of a meetup [8]. A number of the articles are about artists and teachers associated with--surprise--University of Regina. Any assistance you or talk page stalkers can provide, if only in the form of extra eyes, will be appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah dinner. Yes, I just got to sit down after a whole lot of that and a stack of homework. Let's see. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, "SK" is some place in Canada. As it happens, I was in Canada this past weekend, but the real expert is Kelapstick, of course, himself a notable woman artist and scholar. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mention 'cooking dinner' only out of unmerited pride. 99 never does any real cooking, but Mrs. 99 is still recuperating from surgery nearly four weeks ago, and since then I've been taking care of business. Even did a spot of painting this morning, just to pretend I still know how. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, undid one CSD nomination already. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And good work at that. I was mostly swimming the other direction, but one of the good things about consulting those whom you respect is that you don't mind being contradicted. If you see any more worth saving that I marked as dubious, my compliments. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I used to spend quite a bit of time in Esterhazy, SK. Flying in and out of Regina. If Saskatoon is the Paris of the Prairies, what does that make Regina? The South of France? Doc, you really should watch Corner Gas, the pinnacle of Saskatchewan culture, outside of Tommy Douglas' Universal Healthcare that is. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get right on it, K--as soon as I'm done watching...wait, I don't watch anything. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

Drmies,

You say here, "if there is a real account, the editor shouldn't be outside of article space, or so I'm told." My situation is that I do have an account, but several years ago decided to stop using it and since then have edited without logging in. I certainly have no intention to deceive and, as far as I am aware, have always complied with the sock puppetry policy. Where did the information come from that I shouldn't be editing outside of article space without logging in? If this is the policy then I will gladly comply with it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I figured it was something like that. My comment was based on two things--one, I was actually told that, by a representative of the mysterious entity known as ArbCom, a few years ago, and two, reference was made to WP:SOCK, specifically Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts, "Editing project space". That discussion, in turn, points here. What that precisely means is unclear, IMO. But if it is true that you have left your old account by the wayside and don't use it, then there should be no problem. I could ping a random user and see what they think...I spun the magic 8-ball and it proudly displayed the name Carcharoth! BTW, I hope you understand I'm not trying to cause trouble for you--if you're socking illegitimately trouble will happen anyway, and if you're not it's all good. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of those links is that the prohibition applies to the use of alternate accounts, i.e. to editing while logged in under a different id from normal, rather than that to editing without logging in at all, but please let me know if Carcharoth's interpretation is different. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understood it that way too, but I think in all these cases we should consider that "not logging in at all", that is, editing as an IP, is to be understood as using an alternative account. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I think this is what ArbCom's opinion was two years ago. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is leaving me in a bit of a limbo here. I would like to contribute to some discussions, but don't know whether I am allowed to. Would that issue be resolved if I was to email you my former user id, so my editing without logging in would not be undisclosed, per that policy? The problems with that are that I might not necessarily notice if my ISP changes my IP address, or I might edit away from home, in which case we would be back to square one. I can't believe that a years-old decision to stop logging in should forbid me for ever from taking part in any discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, it's not my idea, haha. I'm fine with you partaking in discussions; you seem like a pretty reasonable person. I mean IP. I mean person behind the IP. Look, if "account" is to mean "IP" as well, then Arbcom could approve an IP address (or range of addresses, I suppose--that's not a big deal) as a legitimate alternate account. But I don't know if we need to go that far--pity we didn't hear back from Carcharoth. Tell you what, I'll see if I have the email address for ArbCom somewhere here, under my carpet or in the dustbin. Hold on--this may take a while; they're HORRIBLY slow. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a lot more reading than I would prefer to read on a Thursday, however, if the account is effectively abandoned (i.e unused), and you edit under an IP now, than whatever. IPs are permitted to edit project space, and the fact that you used to edit under an account doesn't matter. As long as you aren't using both the account and the IP (or another account) simultaneously. Unless I am missing something. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Right--thanks K--the "simultaneous" part is operative too. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both for your help, particularly on a Thursday, of all days. I'll continue editing as normal unless and until I hear that I shouldn't do so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelapstick is a foreigner, so maybe for him it's different--I like Thursday cause I don't have to teach tomorrow. I could tell you what the little birdies are tweeting, but I'll wait until a significant number of Wise Old Owls have spoken their peace in the Parliament of Fowls. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, I have little concept of days of the week any more. Or of weekends for that matter. As it is when one does rotational work. --kelapstick(on the run) 22:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Amber Dalton (gamer)[edit]

Hello Drmies,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Amber Dalton (gamer) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • ubiquity, did you notify the "real" creator? Drmies (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the history, you are the creator. If you feel someone else should know about the tag, please feel free to inform them. ubiquity (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take it easy, ubiquity--I was just wondering if you actually read the history. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't initially understand what you were trying to do. Now that you've cleaned the article up, I'll leave it alone. ubiquity (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd rather you help me out--I hate writing biographies and I don't care for gaming, but it seems Yngvadottir and Newuser9001 are otherwise occupied. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is the first gaming-related article I've worked on here. But I think I've done all I can for both Amber Daltons at this point. People who know about printmaking (and Saskatchewan) and video game "clans" (and whether we can legitinmately use someone's LinkedIn as her official external link - I went for the MySpace instead, ignoring the Google+ because one has to have some standards), please, please take over while I go to bed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same here. Notability, if it exists, is marginal for Amber Dalton and Amber Dalton (gamer)--unless Rosiestep or Keilana have access to the secret files... Drmies (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Amber Dalton (gamer) is safe. The news coverage goes very deep, and the majority are more than mere mentions. It would help if her tournament wins were documented somewhere where I could find them, but I don't understand more than a smidgen of what games she plays, even. (By the way I felt compelled to create Category:American professional video gamers.) Concerning Amber Dalton, I'm less sanguine; as I put in an edit summary, I think the sources are mostly really about Articulate Ink: there are 3 acceptable sources about the collective as a whole (possibly four if that photo originally came from an article I haven't found), all of which give her only passing mention as one of the four: one of those links to a bio of her, but it is the collective that was "artist of the month". I'd suggest redirecting it to that title and adding what can be gleaned about the other 3 members, plus the material on the history of the collective that I left out. I don't see evidence that she has really exhibited widely enough to be notable with this little press coverage, but I think the collective squeaks by. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find my keys to the secret files -I think they were washed away by the tsunami- but there's a chance that Megalibrarygirl knows where there might be a spare set. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template edit you might want to get in on[edit]

After seeing what you did to Twitch.tv, I thought it would make more sense in the infobox as Key People. As that doesn't exist in the template currently, I proposed it. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • My problem with the infobox is that, first of all, we have a tendency to list everyone, and second, that tendency means typically an infobox is flooded. As far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be more than three or four people in any of those boxes. In this case, I have no idea if this person is a key person in the organization or not; I am much more in favor of not having more such parameters in the infobox. Thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief[edit]

You go to add a couple of categories to an article such as Genetically modified livestock, and dang! Scary template! We really can be downright unfriendly around here. I've been around here for a while, and, as I said, was just doing some category gnoming, and that made me hesitate a minute. LadyofShalott 05:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, you mean the DS one? Yeah, that's pretty scary. I rarely see them--I edit only innocent material. Nice to see you, by the way, and thanks for that user name block earlier. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good to be seen. :) Yeah, that name and the associated behavior were repulsive. LadyofShalott 05:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible spam[edit]

This page [9] does not appear appropriate. Abel Lawrence (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Why? It's a draft biography work in progress and it can use some work, particularly with addition of reliable sources. It has one source now, whcih may or may not be considered a reliable, third party source. Notability and other issues can be address via proposed deletion. Am I missing something? Geoff | Who, me? 15:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Glane. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Amber Dalton for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amber Dalton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Dalton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have our answer and it's disappointing.[edit]

[10]

Too bad. Anyone who's willing to take the time to crawl through articles and fix the grammar is worth their weight in gold. Oh well.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep. Thanks for the note. I hope I don't have to be back on that talk page with my Massive Admin Hat on. Then again--very frequently those outbursts signify a lack of real interest in our beautiful project to begin with. I don't know. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He came back with a bunch of unsourced (and very unencyclopedic) edits to Khwaja Baqi Billah and Wajihuddin Alvi. I fixed what I could and removed what I couldn't.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should run for admin and throw out some blocks! Drmies (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I hope you won't hate me for this. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's cool.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Suicide in the Trenches"[edit]

This article is at AfD. It strikes me as wrong-headed to assume that if there is no article about a book, a single poem from it is unlikely notable. I'm trying to find some things to beef up the article, and am finding many mentions, but not much in depth. Since this is more your bailiwick, any suggestions? LadyofShalott 01:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Depends on the book. Dichters van deezen tijd is not notable, but "Jeux innocents" might be. Ah, Hélène Swarth--can't believe I wrote all of that! And that I still remember the lines from the poem, after 35 or more years: "Wij speelden pandje met ons leven, ik had mijn hart als pand gegeven." I'm sure The Banner goes to sleep reciting her melancholy lines. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Out of curiosity I skimmed the article on Hélène Swarth. In the Biography section it says that for a while her father was "the ambassador for Portugal". What does that mean? Shouldn't it be "the Dutch ambassador to Portugal" (or the Portuguese ambassador to the Netherlands)?  – Corinne (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes you wonder who wrote that... Drmies (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corinne, I lifted that from the Dutch wiki. There is a ton of material at her DBNL entry.

    After browsing around more, I added another source, and I think I am going to make the bold claim that a consul doesn't need to be a citizen of the country he's consuling for; it may be he was an honorary consul. Our article/section, Consul_(representative)#Honorary_consul, doesn't specify that, but the Dutch article, nl:Ereconsul, does--I can't seem to link that Dutch article to the English section (or the redirect). Since the Dutch sources don't specify more than "consul", I have to roll with it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, How are you?[edit]

How are yo- Wait don't bite me!! :( 95.151.44.186 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on article Tito by Tuvixer[edit]

Hello, I must confess that I am running out of options. In spite of the consensus found on the insertion of a mention about the repression of political opponents in the lead of the article Tito, Tuvixer continues to remove the reference. In a nutshell, it is impossible to add the smaller (whatever is the amount of sourcing) negative mention about Tito. Even mentioning that Tito repressed the political opponents is impossible. We are clearly facing an issue of WP:OWN here. I appreciate that Tuvixer's behavior might not deserve to be reported to ANI, but on the other hand this user is exceedingly problematic. What should we do?--Silvio1973 (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read this please: NAC: No consensus. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Probably worth pointing out to the good Doktor that you are both having exactly the same conversation on User talk:GregorB. True, he's not an admin; but be aware of WP:SHOPPING. Ciao. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You see Fortuna, I think I am dreaming. Tito's dictatorship lasted 38 years, people went to jail and executed. There was only one authorized party. And it is so difficult to write that political opponents were repressed? Silvio1973 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you follow Robert McClenon's advice? A better, sharper RfC is the first order of business, I think. Write up a very specific one, for a specific edit, with specific sources provided. BTW, my admin status has very little relevance here--if it's not ANI worthy, there's nothing for me to do, unless you want to send me the $40 to just invent a reason to block. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forty bucks??? Sorry pal; in the private sector, it's payment by results!Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 22:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query...[edit]

What the hell does "woman's book" mean in "The only source attached was a woman's book, titled Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning: Football's Royal Family." (from the ANI about Peyton Manning's page). I'm not sure what the hell that's supposed to mean but it'd be nice if someone asked why the OP insists on qualifying the source like that. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait--what? Did I miss that? Well now. Ealdgyth, I will assume that you are not a French feminist of the older school, one who believes in Écriture féminine? Drmies (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tracescoops, this was your word choice, and later on you kinda made it worse, "one source to verify it (the woman's book)". First of all--where do we start?--a book is a book. A published book is a published book. There is no possible reason to indicate the gender of the person who wrote it. Second, if there were, there's no contrasting man's book. Third, you got the title, so you can get the author: her name is Jeanne Nagle. Please try to write like it's 2016. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tag team[edit]

seems to be occurring at Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reynolds and Reynolds[edit]

Hi Drmies. You reviewed a draft I provided on the Talk page and said the proposed draft looks better "at a cursory glance." Here you suggested it may rely too heavily on local sources, so I culled through and removed most of the local sources, except in the "version history"-type section. It's been a month since the draft was shared and nobody else has chimed in. I wanted to just check-in and see if you were interested in considering the Request Edit and whether to do the merge. If you were only interested in commenting, I can poke around for someone else with a minute to take a look. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 16:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I think you did a pretty nice job. I did not compare all the statements to the sources. I was interested in the Automotive News article--for a trade publication, they seem to be pretty balanced in their criticism and their reporting. As for that source and the article: the last comment in the lead. The source talks about the culture clash, sure, but I don't see where many employees are said to have left the place; it's the customer base that got culled. And later on, the phrase "something Brockman was known for doing"--I read that he "quickly earned a reputation" etc, suggesting that this was not he was already known for. Forgive me if I missed something. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The body of the article had previously stated "Many employees left the firm as a result of the changes." This was cited to a Bizjournals article and was trimmed from the body when I culled through local sources. Since it's regarding only 45 employees, the number of departures are probably only of local significance for a co this size and Bizjournals is a very weak source. I've now trimmed it from the Lead as well. I thought I remembered reading that Brockman had that reputation before this company, but can't find it now. Trimmed that too! I was probably being overly cautious to preserve the criticisms in the current version, even though I had to use weak local sources to do so. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 18:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's sourced in an earlier version and looks important, bring it back. For the lead, whether you take that statement out or not, I think it's a good idea to make a brief but generalizing statement about the company after the merger. Later, Drmies (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British Mk V Tanks in Berlin, 1945[edit]

A bit of background for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_heavy_tanks_of_World_War_I#Mark_V_series_use_in_Berlin_1945 Hengistmate (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

scjessey[edit]

Replying here, because it seems the AE thread is going nowhere, and its probably best to just let it die. Replying because you mentioned me by name, and I don't want you to think im being frivolous. Regarding filibustering, I believe there is a pattern, though it is a subtle one, and I as always could be convinced otherwise. (Also, I should probably not throw stones quite so often)

  • The redirect discussion is a fairly concise example. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_21#Hillary_Clinton_email_scandal. Complains that "scandal" wording is only used by "right wing echo chamber", yet sources using that phrasing include Mother Jones, Slate, Atlantic, Time, Cnn, HuffPo, 538, NPR, etc.
  • Another example from 1.5 months ago, the lead of the Hillary Clinton email controversy (and mirrored summary sections in Hillary Clinton) contained no mention that classified content was actually contained in her emails. This is months after the releases of redacted classified emails started coming out. All mention in the section/lead was reverted out. Scjessey repeatedly claimed such mention was a BLP violation. Huge talk page discussion, many sources, general (but not overwhelming) consensus Scjessey fights against. Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_29#Email_controversy_.2F_classified_content Eventually he asks for an outside [check ] (to his credit). Afterwards he drops the BLP objection, edits are made, stability is restored.
  • In another example, he repeatedly argues when the head of every major intelligence agency gives the opinion that Clinton's server was insecure, and that it is likely that it was hacked by foreign governments (note, not actually hacked, just likely hacked) that those opinions are irrelevant, and that they are just political opponents (even though all 3/4 were Obama appointees) and that "none of these people have any expert knowledge of email servers or internet security" (In reference to the heads of the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA,SecDef etc). Another huge thread Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Hacking_attempts. Eventually something like 8-1 against Scjessey comes out. Edits are made. Stability.

There are certainly POV violations that need to be nipped in the bud, but these are not them, and the fact that each of these took giant threads to insert one or two sentences each is ridiculous. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe--but AE is where the case should be made. What always works against filers of cases is if the evidence presented is not the strongest evidence, so yes, that case is probably not going anywhere. And it's hard to win such a case if the involved edits are so caught up in the news cycle; in that respect, your (older) examples could help build a stronger case. But the bigger problem I see, and I noted that twice today, is the use of DS/arbitration for minor conflicts that are happening right now. Longterm patterns, that's a different thing. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AE and Advice[edit]

I don't appreciate being told that the only reason I'm bringing an AE action is because of my recent ban. That is what SJP is implying. So what advice exactly should I follow? I brought diffs which clearly shows a violation. (And yes, when I violated my ban I was blocked right away without any AE action, but Coffee is not on duty I guess.) Isn't that the purpose of AE, to bring possible violations to admin attention to seek action? Why would SJP say I should warrant a block? I have these pages on my watchlist, and just for the record, Chesdovi has brought three actions against me to ANI and to AN without notifying me. Why shouldn't I be upset? I am acting in good faith. I posted this AE action because his edits violate the TBAN and have nothing to do with my block. The only part of my block that is part of this action is that it's still there, but that's just how things are, but that is not why I brought it. I've been dealing with Chesdovi for ages, similarly to how others dealt with him for ages, there's a reason why he's indeffed from this area. I don't think SJP's comments are civil or in good faith at all. How did an AE action against Chesdovi suddenly become about me? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The advice to follow is to be careful. That means a bunch of things, like, don't just dump a paragraph on someone's talk page without saying hello. No one likes rudeness. You got blocked for saying something stupid at AE, so I can't help but wonder why you'd be back there so quickly. And what you're suggesting now is that you're filing this because you're upset.

    I have no opinion on Chesdovi, whom I don't know very well, and I'm looking forward to hear from other admin--but one thing I'm missing here is some inkling of recognition that I may well agree with you on the basic subject matter. Another thing: your upsetness is not a very good reason to go to AE; the editing atmosphere in this area ought to be. In addition, you just had to get a shot in at Coffee? It's stuff like that that really antagonizes folks, and it will get you topic-banned from more areas, if you're not careful. I'm serious, Joseph, and I say this with your best interest at heart. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • About you? It's not--you got one little paragraph. Also, BOOMERANG. If you file something it's always going to be about you. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm upset not from Chesdovi, I filed the AE because he violated the TBAN and with him this is the only way it works. I, and quite a few others dealt with him for a few weeks when he was pushing a POV. I'm upset because SJP says the reason I brought the AE is from my ban, I already unwatched the page and I don't care that much. So it's upsetting that I now can't edit the way you're supposed to without fear. You are supposed to bring an AE when this happens. He edited 20+ cat changes, plus the move, plus bringing me to ANI without telling me, plus bringing me to AN and discussing the page without telling me, and where Nishidani told him my move was the correct move. That is why I'm a little peeved. I just don't know what else I am supposed to do. My shot at Coffee was a try at humor, sometimes you obviously can't tell sardonic wit when typing. I didn't mean anything of it. (It was my way of showing I'm over it, I'm already "joking" about his bannings,") Sir Joseph (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that shot at Coffee, I actually enjoyed it. No worries--I hope Coffee has a sense of humor too. But I'm telling you, arbitration is not to be engaged in lightly. It's always going to put you in the spotlight too, and I think that, considering that you didn't have diffs from more recent topics in there, that you could have thought about it a little bit longer. Look, if someone is topic-banned and blatantly violates that, we should do something about it, and we will. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't edit the area recently because one reason is that we just finished dealing with Chesdovi. If you look at the Western Wall and the edit history and talk page, you'll see a whole mess and that's what got the TBAN back in the limelight. I don't like TBAN's, but sometimes it is the only way. There are people that have POV's and they know it, but they know how to edit with a POV. But creating fake pages, like he did with the Boycott page is extreme POV. I didn't go through his contributions or post more because originally I thought that if the violation is a TBAN violation then just one TBAN violation is enough. But then I saw Jeppiz's edit that said he did 20+ in one hour, so I added that. Thanks and good night. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on semi-protection[edit]

Hey again, got any thoughts on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Continuous personal attacks this WP:AN discussion? Short story: IP hopper harasses user for about a month and a half. About a dozen instances on the user's talk page, with some other harassment on sub-pages. An admin semi-protects the user's talk page for 3 days early on, then 7 days after the disruption continues. I noticed the disruption, unaware of the AN report, so I proactively semi-protected the editor's talk page for 7 days. The user complained that 7 days wouldn't help, so I extended it to a month. About a day later this was extended into an indefinite semi-protection. I'm sure this all falls under my learning curve, which is why I'd like to get another opinion on it. The blocking admin hasn't been very responsive. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Yielding. Not worth anybody's time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry--OK, I see the thread now. Well, "grow a thicker skin" may be true but it's hard to accept when you're being harassed. DENY is indeed the best option we have, unfortunately, besides long-term semi-protection, but I agree that indefinite semi-protection is not desirable on user talk page. Tough situation. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "thicker skin" thing got blown way out of proportion. The user was cursing back at the editor and my comment was entirely meant in the context of not feeding trolls by lashing back at them. Dat's it. Anyhow, I still think it's ridiculous that the user will be unapproachable by all IPs in perpetuity. Wouldn't mind that for myself, actually. I appreciate your note here. I'm ignoring the situation otherwise. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANRFC closes for older close requests[edit]

Hi Drmies. Is there any chance you can bestow your wisdom in some RfC closes for any of the closure requests removed here? I and five other editors who have close requests past a month old are apparently supposed to "Go ask someone privately and don't continue clogging up a board with requests over a month old". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Flattery will only take you so far, Cunard. There's suspiciously little activity in my PayPal account. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, that's just Nyttend being grumpy--nothing that a PBR and some gravy can't fix. In fact, I'm sure they feel so bad about that outburst that they're closing RfCs themselves. Let's see what I can do. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musée des Lettres et Manuscrits[edit]

Even today, Wikipedia English says the museum - with its stock of 130,000 rare manuscripts - is open for business. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its me again[edit]

Hi,

Remember me? You indef topic banned me a couple of years ago. Your decision to ban me was based on consensus reached by the limited number of editors involved in disputes with me. You probably remember that I was subjected to (unsanctioned) repeated personal attacks during my last ban appeal. At that time you wrote " I think that your commenting and speculating on someone's ethnicity is distasteful as well as wrong, if it's used to base a judgment on........hypothesizing about an editor's ethnicity inasmuch as you think it commandeers their POV is a lack of AGF, and thus blockable. Now zip it, and make an actual argument."

Would I violate my topic ban if I report another editor who I think did the same thing, taking in consideration that ethnicity they attributed to me is within my topic ban?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Antidiskriminator--good to see you again. I see you haven't lost your gift of gab, but how time flies...yes, I remember that community-decided sanction very well. As far as I'm concerned, your ban is on Serbs and Serbia 1900-current, not on editors with a specific POV, and if you want to bring such a case to AN, that's fine with me: but much will depend on what you do in that discussion and how you do it. AN is also the place where you can ask to get your topic ban lifted, of course. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using my powers of extra-sensory perception, I have left a DS alert for a person that Antidiskriminator might have been thinking of. If this kind of thing continues, it is indeed ban-worthy. The person knows something about sources, but the Skanderbeg article is practically a honeypot for nationalists. So I hope they'll move on to something else. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston:,
  • ...the Skanderbeg article is practically a honeypot for nationalists...? Nationalists.... I am the major contributor to Skanderbeg article (link). I don't know if your comment targets me, but I don't approve it even if you say it does not. Because of double standards. If regular non-admin editors are not allowed to write comments about other editors, admins (including you) should also not be allowed to do so.
  • ...indeed ban-worthy...? Again double standards. If you did not ban your fellow admin for continuing repeated speculations of my ethnicity and judgements based on it (when they were on your side) during my last ban appeal, I would appreciate if you don't ban this non-admin editor.
I do not assume bad faith, but taking also into consideration our previous interactions (content and conduct disputes, ban you issued to me and your subsequent repeated opposition to my unban) I am concerned about this unwanted contact with you and I would appreciate if you could limit your interactions with me in future. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator, Ed just did you a solid. Also, he's a friend of the show, and one of the hardest-working admins in the biz. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow thought that this editor (involved in many content and conduct disputes with me who topic banned me and repeatedly opposed my unban) actually just wrote a comment about other editors, probably also targeted against me. I sincerely apologize if I was wrong. Thank you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Peeper[edit]

Kind fellow user,

judging from the previous club career storyline before it was summarily removed (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcel_Peeper&diff=710254582&oldid=710254292), do you think you can garner a couple of refs in Dutch to source those contents, please?

Absolutely gut-wrenching, storyline was untouched for more than two years, I make a small but due correction (his spell with Lokeren, almost never in the Belgian Pro League), EVERYTHING was removed (similar situation happened last year at Danny Hesp). I ask this of thee because it's veeeeeeeery likely no sources in English are available.

Thanks for whatever you can provide, in advance, cheers --Be Quiet AL (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the assistance, I added two more refs (you can consult to see if I translated them correctly, but I think I nailed them both this time, they posed kindergarten-level difficulty!), I (we) am surely trying our best to help improve this here encyclopedia. Peeper's story would surely be a nice read, a pity my Dutch is so rubbish. In a nutshell, does he hold any grudge to the Soviet player that injured him? Is he faring well physically nowadays, aged nearly 51? Thanks --Be Quiet AL (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, no grudge, though he had a hard time going back to Kiev--maybe he was there for some soccer golf tournament or so. He was in good spirits but still suffered from it; he had a limp for the longest time, and that's bound to get worse with old age. But he didn't sound bitter. Look at Tyrone Prothro and see if you can find the video: of his catch, and then a few weeks later of his injury--terrifying. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh sheesh, I can't look at that again. He works for Coca-Cola now, is what our article says, but I doubt Alabama gave him lifelong health insurance and care--a good example of what's wrong with college sports. See this article. See also O'Bannon v. NCAA. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Prothro: wow, it's as if Faulk (yes, I did my homework)'s body was not even there, a genius (in his area) at work. The injury? Not as gruesome as I thought it would be (in visual terms, not belittling his pain, and I am also a bit ashamed of watching the video, what is wrong with us humans :)), his ankle was already "unprotected" after that slip, and then you add to that Webb's 200+ pounds on top of his leg, disaster.

2 - Well, O'Bannon sure likes his money, even when playing in college he was more interested in ads then playing and having fun? That explains why Lebron was a millionaire (or near that) at 18, that has nothing to do with sports and I absolutely loathe it. About the piece from the Times, where is a Jim Valvano when you need one? --Be Quiet AL (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice "talking" to ya'. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access[edit]

Would you please remove Talk page access for User:Tracescoops? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to ask this too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gladly. They can start this all over again from their next tirritating account. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My account[edit]

Hi dear,

My account is autoconfirmed, but my recent edits on Çağatay Ulusoy page didn't go through! Can I ask you to check it out?---Thanks a lot, and take care. (Mona778 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Mona778: that page is sent to pending changes. All edits on pages with pending changes are reviewed by "pending changes reviewer" users. Typically autoconfirmed editor's edits go "live" immediately but in this case there were other pending changes before yours that were not live (likely by a new user or IP editor). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: Hi, thanks for the reply. If that's the case, then may I ask you to review the page yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona778 (talk • contribs)
@Mona778: Already done! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: Thanks. (Mona778 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Admin magic-glasses question[edit]

Can admins view diffs from articles/pages that have been deleted? For instance if I post these

as evidence in an SPI, can admin SPI peeps view them (somehow I can't bracket them like normal diffs)? "Thanking you [or any admin who wishes to answer] in advance", Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they can, and you can shorten the url by using a single bracket, rather than a double (I.e. Like a wiki link). --kelapstick(on the run) 01:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't really lead to the actual diff, though--these go to the page that tells me that I can look at the history of deleted edits. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelapstick: As I mentioned, when I posted this thread somehow I couldn't bracket them like normal diffs by using single brackets, which is why I used bullets instead; but now I can: [11], [12], [13]. I don't know what changed, I copied them from an email draft to myself, where I had saved them before that AfD closed ... Internet Bollocks As Usual je suppose. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Considering your point, would these be worthwhile or should I just say "See the three sign-offs on Talk:Sherman Bergman"? Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look Doc, just got settled into camp and am unpacking now. In true local fashion, my 9:00 am appointment with immigration didn't happen until 1:00 pm. But I am allowed to stay for another six to twelve months, so that's good. Softlavender, I don't know why it wouldn't do it from the start, but it does now, so that's good. I don't know what you mean by signoffs, but if you are associating an account at the SPI with edits from that now deleted talk page, it would be sufficient, since there are only 22 edits on the deleted talk page (alternately you could request a temporary undeletion in order to compare them). --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks all. K-stick, I think in retrospect my email draft had broken the links onto two lines, so that when I copypasted them here at first they didn't "bracket" correctly due to the invisible line break -- I've seen that happen when I copypaste a two-line article title into a non-coded citation: they don't hyperlink correctly if you catch my drift. What I meant by "sign-offs" is that the mass of SPA socks has a distinct "tell" in the way they all sign their posts (typing their SN after, and flush with, the tildes). Cheers. I'm not expecting any of this to make sense because apparently nothing makes sense today and I just have to accept that. Good luck with immigration (is it really worth it after all). At least Donald Trump isn't building an 80-foot-tall wall there. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to me. I think that anyone at SPI would be able to understand what you are getting at. I was renewing my Indonesian work permit, so it's worth it if I wish to continue eating three times per day with the lights on. A vice of which I have become accustomed to. For some reason they have to take my fingerprints every time, I am not sure if they thought they would have changed after six months, but hey, what can you do. --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have to eat three times a day with the lights on? Hasn't that solar eclipse finished yet? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
K-stick is picky about his eating, but I believe he makes love with the lights off. I remember that many, many years ago K-stick discovered a hard return in a citation template that messed up the entire formatting. He's good--at least when the lights are on. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'd know if you ever bought me dinner and flowers. I do remember that citation template incident, however. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"He never calls, he never writes ..." Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian chocolates[edit]

Just because. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are the best. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comma close[edit]

Hello - first, thank you for wading into the comma-fest that has gripped WP for over a year now. However - would you re-consider your close in light of WP:FORUMSHOP? We had a clear RfC on this exact issue less than a year ago, and it has continued to be an active issue around WP. I was unaware of this particular !vote, and would have !opposed, as I belatedly just did. This is the kind of thing that infuriates WP editors and lowers morale. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not without evidence of forumshopping and the disruption it caused. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If nothing else, it was bad form - we had an RfC last year, it's been discussed in various forums since then, with the same status quo results - and then this RfC was started, and editors who participated in the earlier discussions weren't notified (to my knowledge). It just feels like an end run around the previous RfC. Dohn joe (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language thing[edit]

Which, if any, is preferable?

Loham: The Yellow Metal is a 2015 Indian Malayalam language thriller film...
Loham: The Yellow Metal is a 2015 Indian Malayalam-language thriller film...

The difference is the hyphen between Malayalam and language. Most of our cats, like Category:2010s Malayalam-language films, seem to favor the hyphen. Danks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • They're both a little awkward because of that concatenation of pre-head modifiers, but "Malayam-language" should be hyphenated, according to most grammars, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I'll take awkward over grammatically effed any day. The casual Indian cinephiles (not our regular users) get bent out of shape if you don't feature their language/ethnic group/film industry prominently, but I don't think it's clear to most readers what Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam are without context. Anyhows. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thefuckeruser[edit]

They're probably going to keep making edits like this. Should they have talk page access revoked? RA0808 talkcontribs 18:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, they self-reverted. Maybe they saw the light and are ready to formulate an unblock request and a name change... Drmies (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Gernot Wagner[edit]

Special:Contributions/50.153.133.162 has asked for a deletion review of Gernot Wagner. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 01:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying hi and requesting good offices[edit]

Hi Dr; I am requesting you have a look at a couple of spamicles when you have the time: Rallé (artist) and Club Dancer 2016. I'm unsure about notability on both, the first being a long-term vanity/autobio, the latter a short press release by a COI account. Probably neither can be speedied, but I'd appreciate you or talk page stalkers having a look; I'm sorely tempted to dismantle the resume of Rallé, really. To be viewed very much at your convenience--these are not hot potatoes. I hope all's well with you. I'm still looking after Ms. 99 as she continues to recuperate from surgery, so I'm channeling my creativity over the stove and in the car. Today I even had to blow off a rare painting session in favor of taking her to the chiropractor (grits teeth beneath tarnished halo). I hope you're well, and not suffering the deluges I hear about down south. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe later, 99--I'm suffering from a deluge of bad faith and manners, and this is spring break. Here, we are fine; it's our brethren in Louisiana that are suffering. Please send my regards to Mrs. 99. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of bad faith and bad manners to go around this season. Take the high road, and be of good cheer. Wishing you all the best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't even talking about Wikipedia yet. :) Drmies (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to this edit [14], it's become plain that my numerous offers to treat you to ale and coastal cuisine can no longer by delayed. Give me your home address and I'll ship you some libation asap. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you send a lobster with marching orders it's bound to get here one way or another. Glad to help. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the ideal response[edit]

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Brilliant. I had considered at length whether or not to comment on the polemic/soapboxy nature of that post, so obviously shoehorned into the discussion where it didn't belong (as it did nothing to address the issues of the thread) just for the sake of criticizing parties not involved. But ultimately I decided that would only further the waste of time, and instead opted to WP:DENY validating it with a response. I forgot the golden rule that humour is always the ideal intermediary between inaction and overreaction. Thanks for a much needed smile in what is turning out to be a very long day. :) Snow let's rap 12:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything to make an editor happy. And I can do more--for 20 bucks. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
100 dollar bill
    • Just in case - payment up front. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the prompt action. [reply]
      • Thanks. I've been throwing blocks and semi-protection around like it's moon pies at the Mobile Mardi Gras. Hope it hits no one in the face. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For Abdashtart I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 22:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I input request[edit]

Hi, There is an AN/I in which my attempts to get admin involvement at [WP:Brian Martin (social scientist)] are being portrayed as disruption. I see that you edited at Brian Martin.[15]


Will you please post your evaluation of the article to the ANI/I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=32 AN/I:WP:Brian Martin (social scientist) : other editor is feeling stalked/harassed. And is also attacking me. SmithBlue (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Paige[edit]

Any particular reason this has been full protected for seven months? That seems awfully excessive...surely we could try it as semi-protected for awhile? I wanted to expand a little on the Around the Horn segment, in particular noting that he has appeared more frequently than any other panelist and he has a chalkboard gag, but I can't do that as it's full protected. pbp 15:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait--you haven't looked in the history? The reason has a name, it's Jared. Ordinarily I wouldn't mind, but if you look and see how much of that stuff needed to be revdeleted, I think you get the picture. But it's a valid question, just not for this page: I suggest you post at AN, so a few more admins can weigh in--and ping NeilN as well, please. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What was "awfully excessive" was the constant garbage being spewed into this biography for years from this sockmaster's autoconfirmed accounts. Admins have a mandate to protect our BLP subjects from such abuse, and in this case full protection was needed to facilitate that. The material you wish to add to the article can be proposed via the {{Edit fully-protected}} template as noted at WP:FPP.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ponyo. PBP, this stuff is really, really awful, and it's been going on for years. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what I'm hearing is one bad apple ruined everything for us all. Man, that sucks. pbp 18:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they made it more complicated, yes, but that's the way it is, unfortunately. And this one is so far gone you can't recognize it as an apple anymore. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as another admin, I'll weigh in that "awfully excessive" better describes the vandalism than the protection. Jeez. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: I guess my gut reaction is that this is more heavily protected than Donald Trump; and that, in general, articles weren't supposed to be full-protected for extended periods. Also, I thought, in general, that if an article were repeatedly vandalized by a single editor, it was better to block the editor than full-protect the page for more than a few days. @Drmies: AN, not RFPP? pbp 21:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, yes, that's true. But in this case, the vandalism is coming from many socks of the same person, so it's not as simple as just blocking them, and BLPs are just too sensitive to play whack-a-mole. Which isn't to say that we can't try changing the protection; only that it makes sense for it to be protected. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a fair point, but what is happening on these articles (there's a half a dozen at least, maybe a dozen, plus a whole bunch of redirects and alternate spellings) is all pretty serious and needs to be revdeleted. The redirect I pointed to you earlier has an obscene copy of the original article hidden under it. Yes, AN, because I think that this isn't something a single admin who happens to be walking by should decide on. But that's my opinion. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A puppy for you![edit]

The Guard Dog Award
For tossing that IP-hopper that was vandalizing dog articles, you get a cute puppy! They were driving me crazy. (I suspected they were all the same person after seeing the ANI post about a different hopper, and because of the similarities between edits.) White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. But thanks really to Sagaciousphil, who can also point you to the SPI. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @White Arabian Filly: This is the SPI. Some further information can be found here, although that seems to be pretty stale and is very far from complete. I don't know if it's one person or a small group; geolocate generally shows Philadelphia but occasionally Baltimore. There have been long standing problems on Simple wiki as well. Gareth has been doing a terrific job of keeping on top of it and I hope he'll continue. I usually just revert/rollback then put a warning on the IP talk page including pings to admins who know about it; as happened yesterday, one of them will then normally block and semi protect heavily targeted pages. It seems to be about all we can do at the moment. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on socks, but I was thinking one or two people. The edits were just too similar (no, Black and Tan Coonhounds don't grow to 120 pounds, without canine growth hormone, anyway. They added that 3 or 4 times). One of the IPs also struck another Coonhound page twice, both times I reverted. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind it so much if their edits weren't so utterly inept. Is our children learning? 97.82.7.63 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just added two more blocked IPs to the suspected puppets section. Both used the infamous "Please accept" edit summaries, and were bumping up weight and height of dog breeds. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another barnstar[edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
I wasn't proposing to send you ale out of gratitude, though that's reason enough. I just thought you looked like you could use a drink. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know it. But it's Friday night and spring break is over--and over spring break I managed to do most of the work I couldn't get done during work hours. Vacation is for young people. Also I'm sipping on a Piraat--an excellent beer. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies - Anjan Contractor review page[edit]

Mind taking a look at Anjan Contractor for notability and seeing if you think it qualifies for a Keep?3Dnasa (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, not really, but thanks. I'm trying to decide if your name is a username violation. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
:-) Adamstraw99 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
all the work you do, you get one Winterysteppe (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too promotional?[edit]

There is a new editor (User:Joon5395) who has been adding links and references to OnDemandKorea (a TV streaming site). I reverted some of them because they seemed promotional, but more have been added so I thought I'd get another opinion. Other editors have removed "International broadcast" sections, citing WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I read through MOS:TV as well but I'm still not sure. For example, what do you think of Descendants of the Sun#International broadcast? There isn't anything particularly noteworthy about OnDemandKorea and Viki streaming the series. Random86 (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, does this answer your question? I forgot to say "rm overlinking, overflagging". [time slips away] OK, you were absolutely right to have doubts; I have just blocked the account indefinitely for being an advertising-only account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, kudos to both of you. I would not dream of expanding my area beyond K-pop groups, given the magnitude and frequency of the problems there. Dr. K. 01:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick reply! It certainly looked like advertising to me. Random86 (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI shenanigans[edit]

I practically had a heart attack after seeing this! Would appreciate if you could semi protect the page. Thanks, GABHello! 03:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Can i give you a cup of tea? Winterysteppe (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, that would be nice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A comment[edit]

You should not delete my page(Winnie Siu Davies ) you are so impolite! It is my assignment and I did not finish and you delete it! How cruel you are!

  • Sinwchong2, I'm sorry, but the article started as a copyright violation, which we cannot allow here, and in addition it was promotional. I suggest you look at WP:FIRST. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can give me back the page so I change it tomorrow? It really takes my time to do that and I don't want to re-do it
      • New comments in this section please. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • NO, Sinwchong2, sorry, I cannot put it back anywhere, since (as I just discovered) there's more copyvio in there: you basically copied the artist's own website, this one. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am flipping angry now...[edit]

The stupidity of those two is beyond belief. The first deliberately introduces mistakes in the article, the other backs him up. Both guys refuse to believe that there is a village/hamlet/human settlement with the name Doora. No matter what arguments I bring in on Talk:Doora, County Clare#The non-existent village of Doora. This really looks like vandalism to me.

Advice needed, before I go really bananas. The Banner talk 19:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wish I knew what to tell you in this strange dispute. An RfC on this meagerly populated talk page might not attract many more visitors, even if you advertise it on Wikiproject pages. What about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Sorry Banner--there's little that I can do administratively; that is, I understand that you consider this vandalism and I hope you understand that I can only call it a serious content dispute, no matter how sympathetic I may be to you and your case. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem there is that when one guys has to bite the dust, nr. 2, 3 and 4 will show up to protect his nonsense. The Banner talk 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand but it's still a content dispute. I'm telling you, Banner, find a larger venue for dispute resolution, where maybe uninvolved and knowledgeable editors can judge your evidence. You guys are going around in circles... Drmies (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Hi dear,

May I ask to remove the pre-fix on Aşk-ı Memnu (TV series) edit summary hastily wrote by me (resourced) to (sourced).--- Thanks (Mona778 (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  • Sorry, I don't have that much power. Make what is called a "zero edit"--a minor edit to the article, so you can add your note in that edit summary. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem dear, and thanks for the suggestion!--- Happy days to you too! (Mona778 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

An article you might be interested in cutting - Wally Swist[edit]

Re that question I asked about some months back to which you said you said you were doing a lot of trimming puff on poets' biographies - I might have something for you to look at: Wally Swist. I don't know much about poetry but to me it's the most obviously self-authored thing you ever saw. Thoughts? I can just delete the works section if you want. Blythwood (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh dear. Well, some of the presses are notable, at least within the relatively unassuming sphere of American publishers of poetry--like Finishing Line. And he's got a book with Southern Illinois UP, which is something. The monograph with Edwin Mellen, yeah, Mellen is hit or miss, but it's not regarded as a very selective press. The last three sections, starting with "Anthology Appearances", certainly need to go. And none of the references seem to be reliable. So I'd say that a. the article needs to be tweaked, at the least; b. it needs to be culled seriously; c. it totally lacks reliable sources; but d. the subject should, IMO, probably be notable. On the bright side, we're talking about an older guy (no disrespect intended), so at least it's not bloated with URLs of published poems... Is his work any good? It's just rough and I feel for the poets, since they don't get the coverage they deserve. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea. I heard about it from a social media post noting the blatant euphemism for never having completed his degree. Cut everything you said; will probably try to fix it a bit tomorrow (or do a better assessment of notability) when I've had a better read through and look for citations. Thanks for the quick reply. Blythwood (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing--but I think you owe it to the subject to read at least one poem. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Cruz talk page[edit]

The Heidi Cruz talk page has recently had comments added which were BLP bios. I have removed both of the comments added by the editor Wikipietime and place a warning on his talk page. There is an edit summary left, however, which is also a BLP vio. Is it possible to have it deleted? Diff is here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same editor is now pulling shenanigans. Wouldn't this image be considered a form of polemic? If not, I would think there is some policy violation happening here. At any rate, I have nominated it for speedy deletion at Commons. [16]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw--I don't know. As personal attacks go, this is one that I would shrug off, maybe with a Miltonic (para)phrase--"I like the gift as I like the giver" (2.321-322). Drmies (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity in infoboxes[edit]

Are you aware that Template:Infobox person already has an ethnicity parameter? I moved that RfC to VPPOL and advertised it via CENT because it had been originally posted at the effectively invisible and very off-topic location Template talk:Infobox, attracting input mostly from template editors only, and none of the relevant forums were notified. I notified them all yesterday, but you closed it almost immediately, probably being unaware of this history. I think it should be re-opened and allowed to run its full length, perhaps even an extended length to match that of the "religion in bio infoboxes" RfC immediately above it, since they are closely related questions, and closure of the one will prejudice the other. It's fairly likely that some people will have objections to removal of the ethnicity parameter given that it's been around a while. The RfC's wording makes it seem like it's a proposal to add one, but those familiar with it may want to argue that evidence shows it is not problematic to have it. (I disagree with that view.)

PS: I apologize for my part in the tense nature of our last interaction. While I disagree with some particulars in your "Jr." close, it wasn't personal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you SMcCandlish; I am sorry too for being terse, too terse. Now, there is so much on that page right now I'm having a hard time keeping it straight. Yes, "Religion in infoboxes" is there, and I saw that--you had just opened that. I see now more precisely what you meant. But from where I'm standing, it doesn't really matter where some discussion was taking place: if an RfC attracts such a broad array of editors, it was not in the wrong place, as far as I'm concerned. And I still don't think that what I determined to be the consensus will ever be overturned.

    On the other hand, as a gesture of good will and because I gladly accept that you think (I think) that in this new location it will attract more comments, I will be happy to reopen it. I'll place my close in whatsitcalled, the comment thingies, so I can undo it later when I'm proven right. :) Ping me whenever you like if you think it is ready for closing; I don't usually frequent that page. I would have suggested AlbinoFerret, but I see they're mostly retired. :(

    One more thing, dear SMcCandlish: I think I am aware of lots of things, but more intently of some things than of things. That makes me a very poor know-it-all, certainly when it comes to technical stuff, but I think that in general it makes me a decent candidate for closing things because usually (as in this case) I am not personally, emotionally, or editorially invested in the subject matter. Having said that, I thank you for the note. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I certainly agree that consensus can form anywhere when it's not a WP:FALSECONSENSUS. The concern was that nearly no one but "infobox warriors" and a few WP:FRS subscribers were aware of the ethnicity RfC. I defended the validity of its comments-so-far at Template talk:Infobox, but as my sometime-opponent on various things, Pigsonthewing, pointed out, it was also drowning out template-related discussion, being in the wrong venue, so I moved it to an appropriate one boldly, and advertised it. I'm fairly certain that your close on the ethnicity RfC will be reusable later. But people would be apt to fight about it afterward if they thought they had a case that it wasn't visible in a more proper venue for long enough. Especially when it comes to infobox stuff. So, basically it's just a practical measure to let it run a bit so we don't have essentially the same RfC re-opened in May. :-) If you see the discussion at the infobox talk page, there were competing proposals to a) snow close it per the comments so far despite narrow input, or b) procedurally close it as invalid per wrong venue. I basically short-circuited that argument-about-the-argument by changing venue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_98&oldid=1142977944"