Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

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

Mail

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Happy New Year, Drmies! In 2024, other editors thanked you 1093 times using the thanks tool on the English Wikipedia. This made you the #11 most thanked Wikipedian in 2024. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2025! Mz7 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
story · music · places

Advice needed

How can I convince user:Sky258 that, per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, airport connections need independent sources? Nearly all his/her additions are unsourced and reverted. Warnings did not help but blocking seems over the top. Do you have any ideas? The Banner talk 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD sock

There's something seriously wrong with OhNoKaren. The account is about a week old, and she's already created many AfDs. That's pretty much all she's done. I vaguely remember some deletion socks, although I don't recall that they had problems with the procedure as she does. Even if she's not a sock, I'm thinking her editing is disruptive enough to block, but I have to go eat dinner. Can you check if you're still around?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for helping reduce the use of "served as", "serves as" and such like for what are not public service roles. In those two examples, "was" and "is" would be preferable (this last sentence is obviously not for your benefit, but might help someone else who reads this). Edwardx (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that--but I'm even stricter than you are: I think it's almost always a euphemism for "work"... Drmies (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I would like to be stricter, but encounter too much pushback from other editors. I think at most it should only be for unpaid, genuinely altruistic activity. As an example, and without wishing too be too cynical, far too many politicians are self-serving. And of course, we need to take into account that some reliable sources often still use the term for state sector jobs, military and politicians. Perhaps once it is removed from more business bios, we can start an RfC. Edwardx (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edwardx, thanks--I thought I'd be careful, since I didn't want to butt heads with you after you sent me this nice message, but I agree with you completely. If you get paid, it's not service. If you get underpaid, it might approach service--but if you are underpaid and still make a fair amount of money (like, for instance, as president of the US), "service" is a bit of a euphemism. As far as reliable sources go--yeah, but in "serve as president" the operational part is "president", not "serve". I teach at a state university: is this service? I like to think so, for various reasons, but it's ludicrous to pretty much equate that with philanthropy (another item we see in ALL those articles), as if it didn't come with a paycheck and possibly health insurance. No Christmas bonuses, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Slopes

Thanks for your edits at Silicon Slopes. I had prepared this for a COI report, but was waiting for that editor's response:

  • On November 30, 2023, that editor stated here: "this account is not a business account, anyone using this account will be doing so with direct supervision of the account owner, ie. I will be standing behind them any time the login is used".
  • That editor then made a number of edits at Silicon Slopes that removed content sourced by secondary sources, and added content of a promotional tone, sourced by primary sources.
  • That editor wrote a lengthy declaration of their purpose on the article talk page, stating, "I kindly request that any changes avoid undermining the hard work and dedication of many business owners and community members who have strived tirelessly to erase the stigma and stereotypes associated with the region."
  • A Google search of "invise" and "Mike L." adds depth.

Certainly seems like a single-purpose editor trying to cleanse the article of well-sourced negative content. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I feel the same way. Did you see what they tried to post on your talk page? See the filter log. But the problem with the article (I'm sure you saw my pruning) is, in my opinion, much bigger than just that. The negative information isn't about that organization, as far as I could tell from that confusing article. But they're p-blocked from the article now; who knows, maybe they'll figure out how to gain consensus for anything on the talk page. I will reiterate that the argument "it's negative stuff and it shows up in a search" is completely inappropriate here. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to add some well-sourced content back to the article. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You think, Magnolia677, the subject is notable, that organization? Cause all I see in a quick search is some promotional BS. It may be better to consider treating it as an economical "ecosystem". Drmies (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I'm wrong: I should have figured that there was more in the history, including a lot of you. The article was about a region and for now I'm going to go back to this version; hope that's okay with you. Then we can take it from there. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is where it got messed up. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Utah's tech community has been nicknamed Silicon Slopes, a reference to California's world famous Silicon Valley high tech commnity.
— Sanders, Doug; Herrington, Lisa M.; Waring, Kerry Jones (2015). "Making a Living". Utah: Third Edition. It's My State! (3rd ed.). Cavendish Square Publishing. p. 73. ISBN 9781627131780.
Increasingly a growing technology sector—the so-called Silicon Slopes—has developed around the Salt Lake–Utah County line.
— Brown, Adam R. (2018). Utah Politics and Government: American Democracy Among a Unique Electorate. Politics and Governments of the American States. University of Nebraska Press. p. 48. ISBN 9781496207852.
In Utah Valley, the coinage "Silicon Slopes," invented by Google in 2013 upon announcing that Provo would be the third city in the nation to receive a Google Fiber network, has been picked up eagerly by business leaders […]
— Farmer, Jared (2014). Alter, J. Cecil (ed.). "THIS WAS THE PLACE: The Making and Unmaking of Utah" (PDF). Utah Historical Quarterly. 82 (3). Utah State Historical Society: 188. doi:10.2307/45063063.

The non-advertorial independent sources strongly disagree with that first paragraph, Doktoro. Personally, I am inclined to take the word of the Walter H. Annenberg Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania published in a state historical society journal over what is said in a self-published corporate blurb. Uncle G (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yamla (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just got back from a weekend trip

Is there something pressing I should be looking at this eve? BusterD (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Guofu

Thanks for catching that. It was a misclick. Things happen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I caught something? Yeah, some awful bug--been coughing and wheezing and sweating for days now. Kudpung, how are you doing these days? I would love to see where you live. Time is running out, isn't it, for all of use. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article assistance

Well, given what you said above about being ill (sorry), I'm not sure you'll want to do this, but perhaps it would be a distraction. A new editor added unsourced material to Danylo Zabolotny. I left the editor a warning, and they re-added the material, this time with sources. The sources are unverifiable (by me at least), and there are various other issues, copy editing if nothing else, and I think you'd be much better than I at reviewing the material. My knowledge of long-deceased foreign epidemiologists is nil. Besides, articles about disease are not ideal for a hypochondriac. If not up to it or uninterested, I understand. Regardless, I hope you get better soon.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not a hypochondriac--in fact I'm an inveterate optimist, unfortunately. Yes, I'm ill, and I think I have some infection that's also making an infected tooth unbearably painful: I need this root canal done quickly, but everything here has ground down to a halt because of two inches of snow. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK "badass" is not enough credit. He worked with Richard P. Strong during the Third plague pandemic which killed maybe 15 million people. Have a look at this here--I was confused because I didn't see a thumbnail, but this lengthy description accompanies a photo of him and Strong in full moon suits. Amazing. Can we use it? I'm about to plow through the "First Report of the North Manchurian Plague Prevention Service", and there's this article. These are just the first couple of hits; we need to do better. Talk page followers, get to work! Papa is actually sick! You shouldn't let him do all the work! Drmies (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your AN request

Voorts and I ran through the door at the same time, bonked heads, and fell to the floor.-- Ponyobons mots 23:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Miller Productions/ActuallyHayden

Hello - when I noticed this edit, I opened an SPI case for these users, but I see now that you've already blocked both, so there might not be much point to the case. Is it helpful to keep the case open? And if not, is there a way for me to withdraw it? (I couldn't find a way to do that.) Thanks! Wburrow (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick A134 sockblock

Hi Doc! As you may recall, during a little kerfluffle a few years ago, I said I wouldn't block users who overtly support Trump, unless the disruption was blatant. To my slight surprise, that has almost never (maybe never at all?) come up—most people don't plaster their pro-Trump views in visible places, and those who do mostly fall under blatant disruption. Today, however, I've run into one who's not quite blatant enough for me to feel comfortable going ahead with a block, especially because I've reverted one of their content edits, but is still a DUCK for sockblock purposes, to anyone familiar with Architect134. Would you, or a talkpage watcher familiar with the case, mind taking a look?

If it's not obvious on username and behavior alone, see [1].Courtesy ping User:JuxtaposedJacob, since I mentioned this to them elsewhere. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you run a check, I'm told the geolocation's a bit different lately. Obviously I can't see the shiny stuff under the hood, but I think Special:Contributions/129.222.253.60 was him. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they removed content, which we established in a talk page discussion was against content norms; would have AGF until Tamzin mentioned the LTA matter. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 07:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd almost forgotten about the outing and the smearing. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The right-wing trolls are out again, Tamzin. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

École alsacienne

Es-tu encore malade? J'espere que non parce-que tu peux donc regarder l'article. L'ecole est dans un tres beau quartier residentiel. Comme tu peux voire, j'ai des problemes avec un nouveau utilisateur qui est un eleve a l'ecole. This is becoming too hard. I removed unsourced material from the article, some of which is not noteworthy, as well as some blatantly promotional material, although there's still quite a bit. You can see our "discussion" on his Talk page. Right now, we stand with his version because I can't revert anymore. I've left warnings on his Talk page for adding unsourced material and edit-warring, but that hasn't stopped him - although it's stopped me. :-) His latest accusation is that I'm "blackmailing" him. Probably a language issue coupled with a bit of old-fashioned French melodrama. After all, he accused me before of "defacing" his school.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree has reverted the user's edits and blocked him from editing the page for two weeks. BTW, I'd still like to know if you're feeling better.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping :) A speedy recovery from me too in case it's still there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merci, mes gars. Yes, better--it's an upper respiratory infection, bacterial, and it's getting better, but its aggravating this tooth business. Antibiotics are helping: I had a moment of clarity thinking wait, if my tooth is pounding, it's bacterial, and I can take some old pills. This was 1:30 AM, two nights ago, haha. The tooth will have to wait until March, grrr. Anyway, yes, getting better all the time, thanks for asking. Tobias doesn't play around, does he? One hopes that such editors see the light--sometimes that happens. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
💚🍀 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although the responses from that editor are poor, xe did not actually write that content, most of which has been in the article since its first revision. I'm not sure that I agree with edits like Special:Diff/1271559474, M. Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb, when sources like MVDP, confirming the Beck and Rieder information (and itself citing a dictionary of biographies with an apparently relevant biography), basically fall straight out of the search engines. I think that we really shouldn't be hitting the editorship over the head with blankings without at least a little effort to try to find out whether there's a source for the names and dates of the directors of a fairly well-documented school.

I don't see why the two first heads of the school are sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. Neither has an article, nor is likely to, what's the point? Maybe you should write an article about Beck (or both). :p --Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Théodore Beck? ;) Drmies (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, you're amazing! --Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jean Théodore Beck (1839-1936) and the special circumstances of the Ecole Alsacienne". Musée virtuel du protestantisme.
  • Encrevé, André (2015). "Jean-Théodore Beck". In Encrevé, André; Cabanel, Patrick (eds.). Dictionnaire biographique des protestants français De 1787 à nos jours (in French). Vol. 1: A–C. ISBN 9782846211901.
  • Mayeur, Jean Marie (1993). "BECK, Jean Théodore". In Encrevé, André (ed.). Les protestants. Dictionnaire du monde religieux dans la France contemporaine (in French). Vol. 5. Beauchesne. p. 61. ISBN 9782701012612. Agrégé d'allemand dès 1881, il devient le directeur de l'École alsacienne en 1891, succédant à Frédéric Rieder (1828–1896), qui en avait été le premier directeur. Sous la direction de J.-T. Beck — qui dure jusqu'en 1922 — Î'École Alsacienne connaît une grande extension en raison, notamment, de son goût pour les expériences pédagogiques novatrices.
  • Encrevé, André (1983). "BECK Jean Théodore". alsace-histoire.org (in French). Fédération des Sociétés d’Histoire et d’Archéologie d’Alsace.

Sex differences in intelligence socking?

On January 20, I blocked BoneCrushingDog for one week for edit-warring at the above article. Another user, AndRueM, older than BCD but with an editing gap between March 2024 and today, started editing at the article and the Talk page. Their first edit to the Talk page started with "You can see in my above sections that I had the exact argument as you to no avail." But the user hasn't edited in any of the above sections. Also, both users' editing style and editing platform (none) are the same. Behaviorally, I would indef AndRueM as a sockmaster and increase the block on BCD to indefinite as the puppet, but just in case I'm wrong, can you run a check? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the shape of its gusset.-- Ponyobons mots 20:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously, if there is socking it's more of the WP:MEAT variety.-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: I'm fine with blocking as meat, particularly because ARM is doing all this while BCD is blocked, but I'd need to know based on the CU, how likely it is to be meat. Maybe you could provide a finding as you would normally do if this was at SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Unlikely from a purely technical standpoint.-- Ponyobons mots 21:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, y'all, thanks--missed this. I was distracted and the stupid cat wanted food. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your story has a ring of untruth...there are no stupid cats.-- Ponyobons mots 21:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let the cat hear you, Drmies!--Kansas Bear 22:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the Kansas Bear. Hide your shoes if the cat hears you, lest you receive an unwelcome and odiferous nighttime deposit. Geoff | Who, me? 22:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're not keeping it. I guess that's not funny for the one or two people who don't follow me religiously on Facebook. And now for a dinner idea for Liam and me. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Above average section header

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bessel_van_der_Kolk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request a review

Can you review these? If these articles are also insufficient, please add them to the draft page.

Kartal1071 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am using Google translation. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kartal1071, can you clarify what you're using Google translation for? -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to contact you Kartal1071 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The_First_Caucasian_Expedition_of_the_Seljuk_Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Siege_of_Akhalkalaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is there any problem with these two? I will proceed with the arrangement accordingly. Kartal1071 (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're using Google translate to speak with other editors? What languages are you fluent in? -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spalding bloody common!

Main page: User talk:KJP1/sandbox10-DoB § Spalding Common

Oh no, Doktoro! Pommiepedia strikes again.

Did you know … that the Provident Allotments Club didn't lease some land because of Mr White's grand bullocks? (SBM 1899, p. 1189)

I need to go and lie down in a darkened room. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help with editors ignoring Manual of Style

Hi. I was wondering if you could help. I have come into an unusual situation whereby what I consider to be edits that are indisputable have been disputed. On the Genesis article, I made an edit so that the use of possessive apostrophes would be correctly applied as per MOS:POSS. That edit is here. An editor, @ToaneeM: reverted me here, citing a discussion that was neither relevant nor policy. I confess I was bewildered, as I have never before encountered problems with what I consider to be an unambiguous application of the MoS. I have attempted to discuss on their talk page, but they reverted me, inviting me instead to seek CONSENSUS on the talk page to apply the Manual of Style, which I don't think is in the spirit of the MoS. After some back and forth, which I can only explain by my bafflement, I was again reverted by a different editor @Pickard's Facepalm:, who suggested I was incorrect in my understanding of MOS:POSS, while restoring singular nouns without 's, in what I understand to be a direct contradiction of the MoS. This edit is here. I then attempted to discuss with the second editor on their TP, as I don't believe this to be an article-specific issue, but rather one that relates to editors incorrectly assuming that the MoS is subject in its application to CONSENSUS. I was tempted to go to ANI, but I'm not seeking any retribution, just a simple correction/confirmation that I'm correct in thinking that the MoS should be applied consistently across English Wikipedia. If you think ANI is a better route, I can take this there. I think, however, that an admin's input would be useful, as I'm as sure as I can be that my reading of MOS:POSS is that there singular nouns must always be followed by 's in the possessive. Any help appreciated. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without having looked at everything yet, I think I'm on safe ground when I say that the MOS is not the law. As far as the law on genitives is concerned (better term than "possessive"...), even Strunk and White weren't so sure, and I believe there's significant variations in usage (what's funny is that I stumbled over one of them today while recording a lecture on the Odyssey--can't remember the word). If I am correct in those, and if those editors are maintaining what has been the status quo in that GA, then their position is the firmer one, but I haven't looked yet at who all said what and in what way, which is another matter. Until I can dig a little deeper that's all I can say right now--sorry. Who knows, some of the talk page watchers may have time and ideas. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted @NEDOCHAN:'s edit back to the state the article was in. I presented an edit saying they should not edit war but instead discuss the change on the article's Talk page. This lets NEDOCHAN present their reasoning and for all article editors to be able to see it. Unfortunately, they declined (later seems just refusal) and instead (a) unhelpfully reinstated their changes and (b) unhelpfully tried to discuss on my own Talk page, thereby shutting out all other article editors such as @Pickard's Facepalm:. I again put the article back to its original state, again repeated the invitation to talk to editors. Again, unfortunately NEDOCHAN edit warred, refused to discuss with the group and posted to me only. They've explained themself above this involved multiple editors yet refused to engage with them.

Despite requests to talk, there was no sign of WP:FAITH ("When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus. When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them.") but sadly instead there was relentless edit warring, ignoring all requests for group discussion first. The words and actions came across as, "I'm so right why do I need to discuss anything with the group, I'll just announce instead", and were very unhelpful. One-on-one discussion with me is not what's needed.

I just don't have time today to pursue this, I'm very busy elsewhere. It would have been simple and WP:FAITH for NEDOCHAN to start an article Talk discussion and let all the editors have time to reply. NEDOCHAN may have then found something beyond what they expected to find. They may equally have been discovered as correct and managed spread their message through agreement rather than edit warring. I will look into this further...but not right now, I can't drop everything. In the meantime, I have put the article back to its original state. I hope NEDOCHAN will take a new path for the time being.ToaneeM (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page watcher) Looks like @Picard's Facepalm: has taken both editors in hand. Geoff | Who, me? 00:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Geoff. That seems valid to me. I'm not convinced BTW that this is a difference between BE and AmE, but I do know that the MOS is not a law, and that either way the s's thing is not a matter of grammatical correct- or incorrectness, but a matter of style and convention. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is the point. It has nothing to do with BrE or EngVar. Perhaps I misunderstood the MoS, which I thought took precedence. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geoff, Not, let's not redefine it as some 50:50 playground spat. NEDOCHAN refused to discuss before editing on article's Talk page, edit warring instead despite multiple reverts/notices from me (earlier one thanked by Picard's Facepalm). The problem is solved when NEDOCHAN observes WP:FAITH and discusses first to resolve, not ignores and forces changes in. Resolved now but took the long way round. ToaneeM (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Throwing my 2 cents in here. Firstly - I mostly conducted the edit with the very pointed summary because you both had crossed 3RR, and it needed to stop. I opted for that vs. 3RRing both of them - as they are both experienced editors. While some consider it bad form to notify experienced editors with templates, I often refer to WP:Do template the regulars. I opted not to this time.
    However - I also did it for a few other reasons:
    • On the band's official website they use an apostrophe without a trailing s. It has been this way for many years, and I believe that it may even be a part of BE that isn't documented (or at least not on WP).
    • In Eats, Shoots & Leaves by English precisionist, Lynne Truss, it is stated "that an exception should be made for words ending in an "iz" sound such as Moses where the possessive is Moses'". Seems Genesis falls squarely into that camp, as well.
    • Just like was or were they a band, and was/were they a band which has broken up or are they a band which has retired - this trailing s issue has been going back and forth for many years on the article. Every time it seems to achieve a consensus or otherwise gets worked out - several months later someone new comes along and we start the whole darn thing all over again, with editors even ignoring the wikicomments within the code. It has gotten insanely repetitive and exhausting.
    Like @ToaneeM, I also stated in the edit summary to take the issue to the article's talk page, where it had gone before. Instead @NEDOCHAN opted not to, first bringing it to my talk page, then on to this one - and who knows where else. I don't like chasing conversations around WP and I am not at all a fan of fractured discussions split across multiple pages. Talk pages on articles (and policy/guideline pages) exist expressly to solve that issue.
    This situation - among others on that page - has become quite testing and tiring, and I am even considering removing it from my watchlist to avoid WP:OWN - as at this point it seems like a losing battle. Appreciate the input left so far, and any more to come. Thanks. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 15:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I think that it's very unfair of all of these people to ask you to explain Modern English. They should know that in your field, Doktoro, the use of singular "you" is still a bit of a shock to the system, a novelty that is employed by the trendy youth of today, that makes the grown-ups think that they might be anarchists, or Protestants. Never fear, though, Doktoro! As always, we support your quest for youth cred, and will help you in keeping up with all of these hep and trendy fads of the modern beatniks. We will have you spelling "ghost" with an h in no time. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back a while--this isn't even the first example from one particular editor, a different one from the three above. NEDOCHAN, if you want to argue that this is a matter where the MOS decides, or some style guide of your choosing, that is not correct, I believe. I mean, in no particular order, the apostrophe is not governed by grammar, I do not believe this is necessarily a national variation though that may have some influence, the MOS is not the law, and usage--for Genesis, for Wikipedia, for the editors--should be the guide and that's a matter for the talk page. What I see is a longstanding consensus which I believe reflects a preponderance of usage perhaps particularly among BE users (and Genesis being from there, this makes sense). Any changes to that need to be discussed. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*

Since you already commented once here, would you mind terribly stepping in again and perhaps resolving things? Thank you; I apologize for the inconvenience. DS (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, of course--I saw one or two responses but then I lost track. I think the whole thing is silly. We're formalizing the fun out of everything. But I don't know if I can "resolve" anything--there are some editors out there who can slap with paperwork and alphabets much harder than I can. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the Gemini article

Hey Drmies, I think the user who modified the article is using an IP as a sockpuppet account now. Please have a look again, and revert. Edit: I have tried my best to revert it. Please correct if there's still inconsistencies.

Will link it here for convenience.

Gemini (chatbot) Thank you. Paowee (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wamalotpark is undoing articles again.

It seems that (User talk:Wamalotpark is undoing article changes for MOS:GEOLINK on United Center and Charlie Sheen. I just wanted to give a heads up. I posted on his talk page again.

Thanks Brotherbenz (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started a conversation with you on your talk page, and made an edit request on those pages instead of undoing. I made sure to say I would start a talk if you disagreed after I explained my edit if you still disagreed. I have also made an effort to start talks for any other dispute I have. Wamalotpark (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I accept my mistakes and I am trying to make efforts to be encyclopedic and form discussions instead of edit war. @Brotherbenz can you give me a reason as to why you think your MOS:GEOLINK edits are warranted? That's all I ask. If you don't want to, or if this is not the right spot, I'll let my edit requests on the respective pages play out, and I won't bother on the topic anymore. Wamalotpark (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wamalotpark, thanks for coming by--I don't have time for more than one quick remark, and I haven't looked at all your contributions, but I'm wondering--if this is indeed what happened--why you'd go and make like a TON of changes with a similar edit summary pretty much in the same area that got you in trouble before, without seeking advice on project pages or whatever. If you did and I missed that, I'm sorry--but I just think it's a dangerous thing to do. As with the "Genesis's" dispute which popped up here, this may not be a case where right or wrong is the deciding factor, but rather consensus and style. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm not sure if I understand your question, I made those changes after we had a discussion on the baseball Wikiproject. And for what it's worth, I changed them to "baseball" from "professional baseball", even though my initial stance was "professional baseball". Wamalotpark (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And for the edits on United Center and Charlie Sheen, you're right I should have asked for advice on the article pages. I thought by being willing to start the discussion myself if there was another reversion was the better option first, but that was wrong. I don't know what you mean by "Genesis's" dispute. Wamalotpark (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article edits

I would just like it to be known that I accepted my temporary block and understand why it happened. Any articles from this point on I will have a discussion if there is pushback on my edits.

I started a discussion on the page I was blocked for at United States Board on Geographic Names.

I was part of a discussion on the baseball related articles at the Wikiproject for baseball, and actually changed my point of view to the opposing side and made corresponding edits to MLB teams about it.

An undo to an edit I made to United Center, I was sure to add that I was willing to start the discussion myself if there was still pushback on my edit, which there was, but I guess I should have just started a discussion in the first place. I have made an edit request on the talk page. As for Charlie Sheen, that one I take full responsibility for, I honestly did not know that I had made that same edit to that page that was contested.

Overall I hope you can see my intention is to make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you. Wamalotpark (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I just left you a note in the section up there. I gotta run, but thanks for writing and I'll get back to this if you need me to. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather from the conversation on WP:ANEW that you've been going about it the right way, I think, so that's all good then. Thanks. Genesis: look up, a section or two. It's really about a similar thing. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not looking to argue, or fight. Yes we had a small discussion, but you kept pushing that my edits were wrong on the talk pages (ie.Talk:United_Center#Edit_request and Talk:Charlie_Sheen#Edit_request, and your revisions are right. Just saw you reverted me on United Center, and going around on other articles doing MOS:GEOLINK edits. I am waiting until someone can visit the articles and make a call. I am not going to continue to revert and get banned over something so stupid as Wiki. Brotherbenz (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair, I won't revert anything further as well. As for other MOS:GEOLINK edits, I am free to make those. I would appreciate if you answered my discussion with signed replies in the talk page for United Center as to why you think that link is necessary to add to the text. Also, we came to an understanding on the first part of the edit regarding the United States, so I wasn't sure why you were willing to talk with me about that and not the other part. Wamalotpark (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, a third-party editor updated the link in Charlie Sheen for us. New York City is such a large city that it doesn't have to be linked at all. Wamalotpark (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1272740720"