Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 114

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110←Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115Archive 116→Archive 120

Chicken schniztel?

Land sakes child, I didn't know such a thing existed until you mentioned it. In a couple weeks I'll make my yearly trip to Vienna and have my usual welcome-to-town wienerschnitzel at Reinthaler's. If I can summon up enough of the German that good old Dr. Loock tried to teach me in 11th grade I'll ask if they can do a hühnerschnitzel. Most likely I'll just get a blank stare. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Ha! Don't do it--stick to veal (which is what I assume is standard?). There is no veal at our house, not even lamb, though I snuck in some lamb chops the other day. Chicken schnitzel is standard Dutch fare; we make it with pork also. But the real kicker was the poblano sauce, which I adapted from a Mexican recipe for poblano-cream chicken. I hope you have a wonderful trip, Boris! Drmies (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Turkey schnitzel is very popular in Israel and among observant American Jews. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Chicken schnitzel exist, but Hühnerschnitzel doesn't. Would be Hähnchenschnitzel, and Putenschnitzel is also offered to those not eating red meat. Wiener Schnitzel has to be veal, the (more common) pork variety has to be labelled (in Germany) Schnitzel Wiener Art (Viennese style), which means the breading and frying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I never knew the old Vienna before the war, with its Strauss music, its glamour and easy charm. Constantinople suited me better. I really got to know it in the classic period of the black market. We'd run anything it people wanted it enough, and had the money to pay. Of course a situation like that does tempt amateurs. You know they, can't stay the course like a professional. Now the city is divided into four zones, you know, each occupied by a power: American, British, Russian and the French. But the center of the city, that's international, policed by an international patrol, one member of each of the four powers. Wonderful! What a hope they had. All strangers to the place and none of them could speak the same language, except of course a smattering of German. Good fellows on the whole. Did their best, you know. Vienna doesn't really look any worse than a lot of other European cities. Bombed about a bit..Oh, I was going to tell you, I was going to tell you about Holly Martins, an American came all the way here to visit a friend of his - the name was Lime. Harry Lime. Now Martins was broke and Lime had offered him some sort, I don't know, some sort of a job. Anyway, there he was, poor chap. Happy as a lark, and without a cent...
Yes, I remember the term Hähnchenschnitzel from a lifetime ago, but who am I to correct a brigade. If we're on the German tip, I LOVE Geschnetzeltes. The grammar of it is fun too...very un-German, no, Gerda? A past participle made into a noun? Drmies (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
If you and Gerda agree then Hähnchenschnitzel it is -- thanks! Dr. Loock's class was mumble years ago. With each trip I get just to the point of being comfortable ordering in restaurants or saying a few words to someone and then it's time to go home. Then I come back next year and start all over again, like that Greek dude with the big rock. Or is it a groundhog? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyndago

Did you even READ my reasons?-K-popguardian (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • You want to know something funny, I read your reasons before I read the article, because I saw Legacypac kindly moving your reasons from their talk page to the draft talk page. We can quibble over whether G11 was the best rationale for deletion, but this has been up and running in draft space with no decent sources for long enough. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You revert

I say your revert, don't worry, I won't touch it at all. I disagree (regarding your edit summary) that only the crats can remove things from the board, but it's not worth my making a big deal about it.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  R.I.P Trip Halstead 15:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

know your trees

The wrong tree-- The Larch, the Larch, the Larch.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Better than daisies I suppose. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"Consider the daisies of the field..." No, it just doesn't have quite the same ring. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Meh. Whatever you do, Please Don't Eat the Daisies. .--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of that too, earlier. Big fan since way back when. Who likes fun? Watch High Society with your kids, marvel at the unabashed alcoholism, and sing "Well, Did You Evah!" in the car with your daughter. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Charles Jinright

It came up in my watchlist that this article has been prodded on notability grounds. LadyofShalott 00:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah...I don't know. It was iffy at the time. What do you think? I can postpone and remove the PROD and it'll end up at AfD, but I really can't find much on the guy. He's hardly a Civil Rights here, and he's a power player only in the limited local sense... Drmies (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • TPS who ends up being implicated I did that last night in a random-article spree, and tried to find any coverage of him outside south and central Alabama, but even the Huntsville Times didn't have any significant coverage of him that I could find. I assure y'all as an Alabama expat that no disrespect of anyone or anything is intended! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't have expected him to show up in the Huntsville paper anyway. The Montgomery Advertiser mentions him often enough, I'm sure, but I'm sick of their website and their lousy archive--and again, that would just be local anyway. So you're an expat, and the Lady is an expat--am I a pat? Drmies (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I haven't spent any time looking for sources myself, but it does look pretty thin. It's not like he even served more than a few months as mayor, and the rest of his bio is hohum at best. LadyofShalott 02:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Idiots, useful & otherwise

Howdy. You have been cited as having blessed this edit (which bears the summary "Implementing consensus version from talk page and RfC result, given Drmies' explanation that their block warning was explicitly for Goldwater.) The diff resumes a long and odious edit war, fiercely and bravely waged on one side by the editor of that diff et al. At any rate, since it's quite quite clear there is in fact not consensus for this on the talk page, and since the cited RfC is falsely being cited to support these edits, therefore I am here to inquire: Do you know why this guy is citing you to support this stuff? I'm inclined to file a 3RR but I'm wondering whether I'm missing something. God help you if you are inclined to look at the article talk page for guidance. Signed, SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I never claimed Drmies "blessed" the edit — Drmies clarified that their block warning was to Goldwater. That's a gross distortion of my statement. And why don't you ping me SPECIFICO when you are writing about me on an admin's talk page? -Darouet (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Your edit summary speaks for itself. You continued to edit war, even after the undisclosed ANI thread was opened here [1]. EOM. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
One or more of you may be correct. But, it’s Spring. Go smell the flowers for a day. They’re under the snow somewhere. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, this is pretty bad. Drmies stepped in to revert an edit-warrior. A third editor opens an ANI about the edit war. After the ANI thread is open, Darouet slips out the back door to reinstate exactly the same edit that Drmies just reverted with a stern warning. And Darouet posts an edit summary saying that Drmies warning does not apply to Darouet. The reason for my initial post here was that at the time I didn't know about the ANI thread or Drmies explanation there of his intervention and warning. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of editors who crave and contribute to research, scholarship, article creation, and good vibes. And then there are the drama board trolls. We all decide who we are here. I agree with Objective. If you want to contribute constructively in this dispute, take me up on my dispute resolution offer - when I made it the first time you didn't join in. -Darouet (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
1. Nobody has made a Dispute Resolution request. 2. Your edit summary appropriates Drmies' warning not to edit war and you falsely state that it was about the editor and not the edit. Or are you now claiming that was a misunderstanding, or a boo-boo, or what? And your tendency to show up at the same place as Thucydides, like Clark Kent to his Superman, saying always exactly the same thing, is very unfortunate. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
1) I made a DRN request months ago [2], and you opted not to participate [3], resulting in the request being closed [4]. I again proposed dispute resolution last week [5], and Jack, Thuc and Power~enwiki were willing. By contrast you gave an ambiguous response including "stfu" [6], and then a second, also ambiguous response [7]. None of us are willing to formally launch another DRN when the last one failed because you declared you wouldn't participate after the fact. It just seems like you're trolling everybody. 2) I'll let Drmies further explain themselves if they like, but in their ANI post [8], they explicitly stated that they warned General Goldwater about edit warring," not Jack Upland (or presumably others on the page who are not "General Goldwater"). 3) I've made substantial contributions to the talk page, actually quoting and evaluating sources at length: Talk:Useful idiot#Sources and attribution of phrase. By contrast your posts show no evidence of research through quotation of scholarly material, e.g. Talk:Useful idiot#Screw Saffire. I'm not sure why you are so resistant to DRN, where a mediator would require that we follow policy. Surely this is preferable to glib and invective-driven pronouncements, totally lacking in content, that can only be enforced by edit-warring or misused admin tools. -Darouet (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Specifico, I'm sorry but I can't answer that right now: external circumstances prevent me from typing and are in fact making me dance. Let's just say that in principle I believe there's good people on both sides? Drmies (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Fluor Corp

I was hoping I could bother you for a minute to take a look at this? A month ago I submitted a Request Edit asking to remove an uncited sentence that was recently added. I got a prompt response, but the answer seems to be to ask me where the sources are and suggest GA status needs to be reconsidered, in light of the very content I asked to be removed. Of course, that doesn't make any sense, so I might just be confused or misunderstanding something. Maybe they thought I was the one that added the content. I don't know. CorporateM (Talk) 03:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done here. CorporateM (Talk) 18:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Y. Sorry Corp--I'm lounging at the Carew Tower. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Review requested

Would Drmies or any stalkers please look at Ignatius Elgin Shumate and check for neutrality? The article is newly created by me, and I have a COI, plus the sources are very much non-neutral. Thanks, LadyofShalott 04:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) At a (very quick) glance, neutrality shouldn't be a concern. Notability should also be fine, assuming was elected to the Georgia legislature in 1868 is verifiable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. LadyofShalott 04:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Warm greetings, LadyofShalott. The text reads neutrally to me, and the notability is clear. Potential for expansion seems excellent. As a reader, I want more information about how and when he ended up in the Confederate army, and any battles he may have fought in. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen. I was deliberately being brief. I thought the notability was there, and agree there is much room for expansion. I would rather someone else take the reins though; I was hesitant even to create this much. (He was my great-great grandfather.) There is much more in the Allen book, and it looks like a good bit more in the other book I cited. LadyofShalott 13:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Return of the Roman Catholic vandal

The Roman Catholic vandal is back, using 47.215.23.90. It's a static IP they've been using since May. I've undone their damage, but could you do the necessary and block them? Considering it's static, and they've been using it for more than 10 months, a 1 year block (at least) would probably be a good idea. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP (I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here). This popped up on my radar when I saw BMK reverting on a couple of articles I have watchlisted and then I saw this thread. I'm not familiar with the Roman Catholic Vandal but their contrib log was enough for me. They will need to find another hobby (or IP address) for the next year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Thanks. You can find more on the Roman Catholic vandal on this subpage in Drmies' userspace: User:Drmies/Roman Catholic?. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Gojira (band)

Hi. Talk:Gojira (band)/GA1 has been open a while so I was hoping you would be able to close it. Let me know if you need any help doing so. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hello Drmies, can you please take a look at Mike walt who was registered a day after you blocked Rubber man yash and recreated the same article. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Listing some more users below:

VRAJESH SHAH could be the master who was registered just before YASH SHAH (RUBBER MAN). Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Done under VRAJESH SHAH as the master (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VRAJESH SHAH). Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeking more help from the DM (Dutch Master!)

Let me have it on this one, if you please... last reference i added to Ricardo Sá Pinto, i don't think the translation is very good (yes, i admit i used Google Translate to try and sort it out, but then gave up after i could not).

Happy Easter and all that, take care --Quite A Character (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No one expects the Dutch masters' militia... Geoff | Who, me? 22:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Beware... the Heroes are back. The Banner talk 22:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"Now place some blocks"

Your words, not mine. Then there was some talk of vaginal steaming. It just went downhill from there. I have to go buy a new transit pass. And an Oh Henry! You can get your kicks on the remaining bot-added WP:UAA reports, I expect it clear by the time I get back.--kelapstick(bainuu) 20:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It was close, but not blatant enough to block for the username in itself ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

Mr. Decan.reporter, an indefinite blocked user, is still fooling around at his talkpage. I maybe wrong but this (and especially the summary) does not look like "discussing the block" to me. The Banner talk 18:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • No, but really, I got better things to do than that. Anyone who knows what's going on knows to look in the history. You should have one of those boxes on your user page that counts how many times you've been told to fuck off. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
What is the best place to report that? It sounds a bit strange to go to AIV. The Banner talk 08:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't report it at all. But if you want admin intervention, ANI is the place. It's just that this admin probably won't intervene, since I'm the type of admin that typically allows blocked users some leeway on their talk page... I see that Lectonar has already removed TPA, which is probably as far as most of us would go. They didn't revert; I suppose you could revert (though OWNTALKPAGE or whatever frowns on that), but that won't take away from the "fuck off". Drmies (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Joe Walz editor's note on my talk page

Hello again. The editor responsible for many of the Joe Walz edits left a message on my talk page which I assume was meant to explain why they continue, but which made no sense. I wanted to let you know (and I can post this on the admin's notice board as well)t that the editor in question made it clear to me that he considers these edits to be funny, and has no intention to stop them. I would have let you know sooner (as the message in question was left on my talk page almost a month ago), but I have had a resurgence of the health issues I previously referenced which kept me away from Wikipedia for most of this month. I wanted to let you know that, due to the nature of this message on my talk page, all admins might need to be aware that this continues and that the editor behind this vandalism apparently plans to continue such edits. Just thought you'd want to know. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I blocked on general principles, then saw last edit was 2 weeks ago.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Dlohcierekim, 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:C0 is one also, playing good hand, bad hand, but the range is 2600:387:a:5::ab/59. What do you think? And can't someone write a filter to keep this immature trash out? Jgstokes, thanks, and all the best to you: I hope you get better. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
If you're talking range block, I'll need to see an optometrist. If that's IPv6, it just gets harder, though perhaps /59 won't create a lot of collateral damage? I guess a filter is the only way.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Robert Byrd

Hi Drmies, your edit summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Byrd&diff=next&oldid=833284270 got me confsued. Anon attempted to re-add information which was clearly backed up by sources as shown in the KKK section. So I don't understand why your revert edit summary suggests the same knowledge he has, unless I'm not getting it right. Cheers, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 17:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In any case I support the reversion. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 17:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If you support the reversion, why question the summary? He wasn't "high-ranking" and he repudiated his membership. The question is why it should be in the lead--that's where UNDUE comes in. The intent behind the IP's edit seemed pretty clear. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

American Society for Nutrition cleanup

Hello, and thanks. You cleaned out the ASN page. Goodness knows it needed it; I chickened out on removing all the stuff you called "corporate and organizational spam", so I'm glad you didn't, and did. But I'm curious as to why you removed the "Corporate relationship concerns" section, as it doesn't seem to fit that description. HLHJ (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oh, good point--maybe. The problem is that the sourcing doesn't seem particularly strong. I don't mind if you restore it (I think it's mentioned in the lead, no? I looked at a ton of those articles in the last few days...), but it really needs reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree that the sourcing was weak, except that the sources, while WP:SELFPUBLISH, are written by Marion Nestle and Michele Simon, and the factual part of the claim (the existence of financial relationships, not whether they are a matter for concern) is also supported by some of the organizational info you removed. I previously restored those bits after they were removed by someone who says that they are a ASN employee, so I probably shouldn't restore them again. Your memory is good, it is in the lede, but unsourced there. HLHJ (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I like to think I had a better reason to remove them than that person did, haha. Well, it's fine to restore some of the factual information, I suppose--you saw that I was going through an enormous amount of CORPSPAM, and if that material is relevant to "your" material, go for it. But better for all of us is a set of secondary sources that can do both: identify corporate funding and its problems. If you can find some of that you'd do all of us a favor. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I"m sure you had better reason :) . The "Meetings" section actually used the first person plural, e.g. "our mission". The "Nutrition Science Public Policy" section was about lobbying Congress, and I'd have been a bit worried about libel if the subject hadn't added it themselves. It was totally uncited. The "Mission" and "Memberships and sustaining partners" sections were on their mission statements, membership and funding, and self-cited, but it seems unlikely that the ASN would be wrong about their own membership requirements or who sponsors them, so guess we could cite them under WP:ABOUTSELF. The mission statements seemed entirely predictable, though, so I think you were right to remove them; the academic journal guidelines say something similar. I've restored only the funding/membership and "concerns" sections, and I've added some more sources and detail on what they say. I've also de-peacocked the language a bit more and trimmed the promotional text down. If you don't like my edits, let me know and I'll change them. HLHJ (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Kenneth E. Boulding

I think this is a dreadfully written article, full of promotion, useless trivia, and just poor writing. The guy may have been a prominent figure, but ... An editor reverted my rather large edits wholesale, and I don't want to fight about it. Anyone who feels like taking a look ... --Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I've run into that problem before. Academics should be better writers. But it can't beat some of the undoubtedly paid articles I ran into the last few days. Hey, hear that? Woodpecker! Lovely! Drmies (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Katherine Walker

Last holiday; the pub is just out of shot...

Not just comfortable but welcoming!--Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • ..."a fact that made Walker threaten to leave her husband" does in fact seem to have an encyclopedic/biographical relevance. What a remarkable woman. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe so, but I don't think the interior decoration and her children listening to the phonograph has much "encyclopedic/biograhical relevance". House & Gardens & Lighthouses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Actually, and showing my own bias of course, I think the phonograph sentence does have encyclopedic value, as it demonstrates the living conditions in the form of isolation the residents felt. The first thing about the article I would change is that in the lede it states she rescued 50 sailors, yet there's nothing about it within the article body. Surely there's more to be said about that! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) There's a lighthouse in our area, but I'm not sure if it's open to go inside. I know you can hike out to it, but it's not easy as it's a fairly long and sandy hike. Don't get me wrong. I like lighthouses. They're often lovely even from the outside. Your pruning was good. You still get a real feel for the woman but without the guided tour. I removed the tag. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The source is not online, and the sentence about the phonograph was awful: "A wind-up phonograph was prominent in the main room and her children frequently played records, longing to hear the sound of different voices."--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

For anyone who has a deep appreciation for lighthouses but lacks the opportunity to obtain one as a residence, do consider windmills as a second best alternative. They share many of the same qualities. MPS1992 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Plus, you can tilt at them. If your lighthouse tilts, you have a problem. DMacks (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
...which got me in the mood to search, and found Kiipsaare Lighthouse, Puerto Morelos Lighthouse, and Sharps Island Light. DMacks (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Mjroots, you still around? Someone pinged you. I see you doing shipwrecks now, but once upon a time you were my go-to windmill editor. And didn't we work on some lighthouses together? Somewhere is a list of Dutch lighthouses I need to finish. LadyofShalott helped me out with some of those, if I remember correctly. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I'm still around. Not sure that we worked on lighthouses though. Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I did do some lighthouses. That was fun. LadyofShalott 01:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Styling Garage

Drmies, I was wondering where this nomination stood at the moment. Have the sourcing issues been dealt with fully or partially, and are things so dire as to require the "X" icon or is an icon indicating less intransigent problems now appropriate. I'd like to get this moving again, one way or the other. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Revenge of the Pink Poodle

Looks like pink poodles are in the news - Extreme dog grooming: Harmless fun or threat to pets? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Not the first time, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm a poodle and I think mauve is my color this season! Now, back to putting onions on my feet. Geoff | Who, me? 16:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I received a note that content I posted on the Mike Levin article (linked also) pursuant to the findings of the San Diego County Democratic Party (noted below) was somehow libelous.

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkbreen (talk • contribs) 05:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC) https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/politics/politics-report-candidates-cannabis-use/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkbreen (talk • contribs) 05:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Nkbreen: You can link to, but not copy the entire contents of the letter here. See our copyright policy. See also Talk:Mike Levin and participate in the discussion there. --NeilN talk to me 05:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent discussion...

confused face icon Just curious...about whether or not racism should/should not fall under the same guidelines as WP:MEDRS because it seems likely that it's somehow related to mental health. I did some quick research to see if my thinking was even remotely headed in the right direction, and the answer is yes. I gathered up a few diffs if you're interested: The Western journal of medicine, Psychology Today, British Journal of Psychiatry, WaPo article (to see what the media had to say), and The Oxford Handbook of Personality Disorders. The latter is not an open access journal but if you can access it, I'm interested in their findings under Individual Differences of Prejudice, Racism, and Xenophobia. Atsme📞📧 15:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I do not think that, no. If we stuck to our guns and stayed out of the news, maybe, but there also should be broad agreement that racism is to be treated as a mental illness, and I don't believe there is. Plus, racism is the belief that one race is better than the other, and there's much more agreement that race is a social construct than there is that it is a mental affliction. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Muchas gracias!

Thanks so much for your encouragement. I was trolled by a fellow wiki last week, and when I wasn't laughing at the absurdity of the personal attack, I was feeling discouraged to contribute further to wikipedia. But I forged ahead and kept editing anyway because I love this project and want to improve it whenever possible. Thanks again for your kind words of encouragement. Kinkyturnip (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Ha, sure thing. I appreciate your work on that little article which certainly needed your help. Thanks for the note, and thanks for not giving up. And if you get trolled one way or another, there's help to be gotten. Drop me a line if I can do anything. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Smith (psychologist)

I downgraded this from CSD to AfD as I think we could do with consensus. It's in the usual place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

From the Simple Wikipedia

My edit to the marshal page was legit, look up far cry 5. Dont be an autist just because you don't believe my changes off the bat queer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:b452:6eea:51d2:20df:86a1:69a9 (talk • contribs)

The World Tomorrow (radio and television) protection

I saw that you had protected The World Tomorrow (radio and television). In the protection log, you said "you can't fix stupid, but you can semi-protect it". However, you actually extended-confirmed-protected the article. Was that a mistake and was it supposed to be semi-protected? — MRD2014 Talk 21:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Drmies, can you protect the Philadelphia Flyers article? Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently they were thoroughly beaten in a match and the other team is gloating. -KH-1 (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Sports fans are among the most pathetic people. Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Equal Justice Initiative

EJI published those studies, and received international media coverage for the last one, Lynching in America (2015), which is now in its 3rd edition. The discussion was from the report itself, and I had sources such as NPR and the NY Times discussing the report when first published. The LA Times covered it, as did the Guardian, as I recall. Founder Bryan Stevenson has talked about the lynching report, and its connection to his work on building a memorial to lynching victims in Montgomery, Alabama. The more detailed material about the 2015 report and the earlier studies, all published by EJI, has been in this article for three years.Parkwells (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, EJI published those studies. That doesn't mean that an article about the EJI should list them. I condensed the section you reinstated--the "main link" was obviously inapplicable, two of the reports did not have secondary sourcing, and some of the language was not neutral. That some material was in the article for three years means it was there way too long. If you really want to improve the article, incorporate a link to National Memorial to Peace and Justice and/or improve the article for that memorial. I know you worked on it some, but perhaps you also saw who wrote the stub in the first place. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Serenade (poems)

Hello! Your submission of Serenade (poems) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Parkchester Department Of Public Safety

Can you allow me to re do my article I am the creator of the article contents you deleted? Lobosuperstar (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New collections
    • Alexander Street (expansion)
    • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
  • User Group
  • Global branches update
    • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
  • Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Botdf

Wait, hang on...I was in the middle of some restructuring. It looks like you may have straight-up reverted again, but really, I don't think we want to start with that material. Before you started trimming things, a newbie had come along and astroturfed the fuck out of the article. The older source material, while pretty bad, is really better than what you were trimming and cite-tagging. Chubbles (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • No, I didn't revert anything: I restored a few paragraphs from which I had trimmed some serious fat, and tweaked a few more. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about the edits by Dzkly or whatever? Right before their edits I don't see much difference in sourcing. What is the best version, in your mind? We can go ahead and work from that. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    I just wanted to make sure that useful referencing didn't get scrapped - it looked like Dsxly was overwriting content that had been sourced to sites like Absolute Punk, which is now defunct but was at one time a major online punk news source. (One caveat, though, is that Absolute Punk hosted both editor-reviewed news/reviews and user-submitted messageboards, and one of the sources linked to a user-submitted rumor.) The more I look at the article, though...honestly, I'm not all that opposed to WP:TNTing the prose content, there's so much hot garbage. Chubbles (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It's been a dumpster fire from the start. I had to lasso the moon just to establish the article in the first place, because it had been deleted and recreated so many times; there were editors devoted to trying to keep the article from existing at all, until the band debuted in the Top 50 of the American charts and their notability became undeniable. I chose not to keep a close watch on it, and most of the editors are teenage fans, so the quality of content is predictable. Chubbles (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Speaking of which: look at my latest cut. I just read this, and if indeed the singer was a douchebag leading a hate campaign, I'd hate to cut the content but the Buzzfeed article doesn't verify that, nor could I find evidence in reliable sources of the single etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a longstanding gossip train about BOTDF's members and certain legal infelicities that the Buzzfeed article touches upon. It has been introduced into this article hundreds of times, never once with adequate vetted sourcing. Chubbles (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ha, yes, I saw something on Tumblr. I also listened to a couple of videos, which confirm that I'm an old man. (But man that's some cheesy middle of the road synth pop!) Drmies (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for thanking me on my edit. You seem pretty blunt, yet pretty straightforward, and I respect that. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Well, you know, I do what I can on a budget. You may remember we could have run into each other on Gay Mommy's user page, or whoever that a-hole was. But yes, I was fine with the revert, but the moment you explain why it needs reverting the editor knows, and the admins know too. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Evade

Hi Drmies

FYI. This user is evading your block of 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), using yet another web host proxy, this time in the Ukraine.- MrX 🖋 18:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Hey--so it's two IPs, 91.210.164.207 and 91.215.152.12. Maybe someone who knows proxies better than me can look into it, and see if there's other stuff to be done, like checking the range, maybe? User:Revi~enwiki? Maybe NeilN has more tricks up their sleeve, after blocking one of them.

T.D. Hoxey

  1. 21:37, 22 January 2018
  2. 19:35, 6 February 2018
  3. 03:28, 20 April 2018

Warning: 22:06, 6 February 2018

Since you have experience trying to work with @T.D. Hoxey:, I thought it best to first see what you think rather than immediately escalating it to a wider audience. The most recent edit that changes verified information without changing the sources or indicating a verifying source seems over the line to me. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Ronz--I think you should start an SPI, charging that Hoxey and Vidal 1077 be CU'ed and blocked as socks. Tag NinjaRobotPirate, who placed a rangeblock referencing a "date vandal" a few days ago. Ask a real CU (haha) to see what else is on that range. I'd do it but I need a snack right now. Thanks for following up. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
And there was me thinking we had an Irish MP in our midst  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Good call on the possible socking. It doesn't smell of paid editing, but rather BATTLE and OWN to an extreme that I've rarely seen. Very strange. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I started browsing around, found a few things, and decided CU was called for--and then ran into the earlier block for the other, as well as a rangeblock with a telling edit summary. Sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes you can smell em. Bbb23, thank you as always for your time and your expertise. Yes, Ronz, what an odd thing, huh--but you and I have been here long enough to see some weird, weird fetishes. One of em was editing the list of fetishes, BTW. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Man, there are a few people on here who have dedicated their lives to making one trivial change to a specific article (or set of articles). This can go on for years. A few of them even have their own personal edit filter. There's one that I recently realized was a series of sock puppets stretching back several years, doing nothing but genre warring on the Eagles' discography. Dude is seriously obsessed with labeling "Hotel California" as "hard rock". Anyway, sorry I'm late to the party. I haven't been logging in to Wikipedia as much the past week or two. It seems like every time I do, there's a huge amount of drama waiting to be resolved. Did you ever realize that the F5 key is the "create drama" key? Try it! It works on almost any talk page on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Serenade (poems)

On 22 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Serenade (poems), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that J. Slauerhoff's 1930 poetry collection Serenade provoked critical responses ranging from "childish" to "pure lyric" with "refined technique"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Serenade (poems). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Serenade (poems)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Photogram

Hi Drmies. I'm new to wikipedia, so I'm not sure if this is how you respond. You wrote regarding my edit to Photogram, just wanted to reply. Actually Kwangho Cheh (최광호) is actually super well know in the korean art world although not so much in the US. There are a lot of newspapers, blogs, and textbooks that discuss/teach about him in korea. The reference I added was actually a link to a newspaper that wrote about him. I went to a couple of his galleries in korea as well. What would be the proper way to add this information to wikipedia?

Stephjaelee (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Stephjaelee

  • Stephjaelee, thanks for the note. Here's the thing: those lists always include people with Wikipedia articles, and typically exclude those without ("no article, no entry"). So the best thing to do is to write the article, which is also much more satisfying than just adding someone on a list. WP:FIRST has templates and guidance, and WP:NARTIST has notes on the guidelines for notability. Try writing your artist up, citing reliable sources (not just resumes, websites, etc.). Drmies (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh that makes sense thank you. I will consider adding a page about him....but this will require me to research his work on Korean websites or reaching out to him or someone on his team...which would be more than just going to galleries and reading about him in books.... I was looking for a quick way to add to the information about a Korean Photographer who was well known in one country but not in another due to language. I also added links to my edit that were newspapers or detailed in a blog, so people would know what I was talking about...would this not be enough? [1][2]He also doesn't have a korean page, because korean people seem to use Naver or Daum more. He does have a Naver page written in Korean, but I'm guessing that for these lists you only accept english articles correct? Stephjaelee (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Stephjaelee

(talk page stalker) Remember that we require information from reliable sources; so blogs and user-edited content are not going to cut it. We need you to source from books from serious publishers, reputable magazines and newspapers, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://m.chosun.com/svc/article.html?sname=news&contid=2008110701061#Redyho
  2. ^ http://blog.daum.net/hogreenlife/384

Douma chemical attack

Hi, could you please take a look at Talk:Douma chemical attack? Regards. --Mhhossein talk 18:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Funny--I brought that up in a class today, and the defense of the RT propaganda. And then we got talking about Alan Kurdi, and I saw that picture again of that little boy. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you want me to look at--I see what we discussed, and I saw your edit, and I suppose that got taken out of the article? I don't think I fully subscribe to the language of that edit; I remember we talked about context, and your edit does not account for the paragraph before the two you got material from: "Russian state media is pushing two lines: that they have spoken to witnesses who deny any attack took place, and that they have found canisters filled with chlorine in Douma, which were used for rebel attacks later blamed on the regime." Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Alan Kurdi's case was a sad story. Anyway, I just meant to say that there was an interview alleged by the Russian media, and for that I made use of the Guardian source. Sorry, I don't remember what we talked about the context, since we were discussing the inclusion of the Diab's interview. Russian state media strategies can be included, too, but what about the interview. How the language needs to change do you think? Best Regards. --Mhhossein talk 12:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fleurs de Marécage

Hello! Your submission of Fleurs de Marécage at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Meanderingbartender (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

6-ton

Are you sure this is what you wanted to do? Corbitt built 3,077 prime movers (including pre-production models). White, whose name you deleted, built 3,547 prime movers, more than Corbitt. They built over 6,500 standard models total, making White the largest prime mover and standard model producer. (All other manufacturers combined built about 6,000 standard models plus a few hundred pre-standard models).

I am not saying my wording was correct, only that you changed the meaning. I am not editing anything, but you may want to. No answer needed. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • True, Sammy D III; I missed the name "White": I thought that was the company mentioned earlier in the sentence. I've repeated the company names and wikilinks for clarity; we typically link in the lead and then the first time thereafter, and in this case there's also a considerable distance between lead and first paragraph because of that table of content. See what you think now. Thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the links in History look good. My grammar is bad, you can only make it better. I had fun counting trucks. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Ha, sure thing. Don't worry about it. They also serve who stand and wait--we do what we can with our strengths. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of my page

Can I please have my page back? I had a lot of stuff in it and I need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farnell45 (talk • contribs)

I mean back. Its self explanatory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Farnell45 (talk • contribs)

@Farnell45: no, it's not self explanatory. I don't know anything about your page, but looking at your talk page, I doubt that Drmies or anyone else is going to put it back on Wikipedia anywhere. But if you asked really nicely then maybe someone -- not me, because I can't -- would agree to email it to you. So being more explanatory might indeed be a good idea, if it's important. MPS1992 (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Farnell45, MPS1992 is correct; I'm not sure if without magic admin glasses they can see that there were 3,344 edits of webhosting on your user page. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User:蜂蜜色

I am pretty sure he is doing it for WP:ECP flag--Shrike (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) There's absolutely no doubt about it, I agree; This is their latest ~350 edits—all to articlespace—and all merely making an easy (over)link—see how every single one is in the opening line? Makes it much quicker for them than actually reading the entire article and perhaps finding a link that should be made...incidentally, they are probably socking, as, how likley is it that someone who has never edited before would even know about ECP and the requirements necessary to overcome it... imho, etc. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Eh... keep an eye on 'em, and hit 'em with {{ECgaming}} when the time comes. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: Good template! --NeilN talk to me 17:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Shrike, that seemed likely to me as well, though I had forgotten it was 500; I think I was thinking it was 50 and they were past that, which would make simply compulsive. It was good for my edit count, though. Indeed, nice template. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Hi Drmies, this is الناز (talk page). I couldn't leave a comment here with the other username (I'm guessing because it was a user name for fa.wikipedia). As you observed I have edited wikipedia a lot but back in the days, it has been 10 years since I edited wikipedia on daily basis. So disruptive editing that you mentioned in my talk page was a new thing to me. I went ahead and read the guidelines. I would appreciate if you could help my understand this better by telling me which one of my edits falls into this category so I can avoid that in the future. Thanks for making Wikipedia better! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elnaz (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Elnaz, my comment was based also on the suspicion that you had been editing that article before. The article has a history, of course, of POV edits, edits that are slanted toward the POV of the subject and are/were made with a lot of highly unreliable sources; there is plenty of discussion on the talk page. The Rouhof material in particular was pointed at. Now, I think you need to explain why you have two accounts here, both of which have edited this article--that is problematic. You can only use one of them. That you couldn't post a note on my talk page is because it is semi-protected (there's a particularly racist troll who has been bothering a bunch of editors) and you don't have enough edits to your "other" account. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Both usernames I have say the same thing, my name, Elnaz. One is in Latin script, and the other one in Persian which is my native script. I was excited about being able to have username in my language and I used it mostly to edit Persian Wikipedia. I was looking at the Persian page and thus logged in with my Persian account then move to the English page. I will be careful to do future edits with the English account. Is there a sane way to connect the two? Also, for the record, I have not edited the article before. All my edits were made recently, in April 2018 and because I noticed the poor referencing and POV. I found your message unwelcoming because you sent it based on your suspicion rather than my actual edits. Elnaz (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Writ Keeper, you ex-crat, you still know this better than I do. Any suggestions? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Well, there's no way to merge accounts or anything like that, so the only solutions will be non-technical. Basically, I think you just choose one of the accounts to use on enwiki and stick to that. Drmies is right in that you shouldn't edit the same page with both accounts--that's a breach of the sockpuppet policy. So, what I'd do is pick one of the two accounts and only make edits on enwiki with the chosen account, and then write notes on each account's userpage declaring the other account. Something like "This user's alternate account is الناز" on Elnaz and "This user's main account on enwiki is Elnaz" on الناز (assuming that you've picked Elnaz as your account to use on en). That way there's at least no confusion over accounts. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jwallace216153

Is this unusual account blockable as WP:NOTHERE? Over 12,000 edits to userspace!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Holy shit. OMG not a single article edit. Well, you can be nice or you can be less nice. I mean you can be Cullen or Drmies. Cullen would ask them what they're doing here, inform them nicely of NOTWEBHOST, and warn them that their lists may well be deleted. Drmies might tag their sandboxes or delete them outright (see "3,344" above), but I don't think even Drmies would block them on the spot since--I don't know, since it's Sunday night. But I gotta say, that's maybe the most extreme example I've seen so far. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It's no longer Sunday night but, unfortunately, very early Monday morning. Do you realize how many lists would have to be U5-deleted? I'm not an expert, but I believe the mass deletion tool I use only deletes pages created recently (something about "recent changes"). Do you know a tool that will delete them all?--Bbb23 (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, make a list and then d-batch them with Twinkle. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you gonna eat d'batch of pancakes on the right or on the left? I have no idea what that means. --Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Magic computery thing in twinkle allows mass deletion of a list Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much. Stands for "batch deletion" but "batch-d" sounds silly (plus we have p-batch for "batch protection"). And und-batch (which has nothing to do with underwear). Primefac (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of...something. Anyway, you don't even have to "make" a list, just load Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jwallace216153/Books and mash the twinkle D-batch button. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to be a bit pedantic here and say that your link is a list (that you've "made") Primefac (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so d-batch stands for delete batch. I suppose p-batch stands for produce batch? They're all gone, although it was a bit weird watching the process (Twinkle did it in fits and starts). Also, I'm used to Twinkle closing its own dialog box when it's done, and it didn't. Thanks for the help. I doubt I'll remember how to do it in the future, but hopefully I won't notice anything like it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
(plus we have p-batch for "batch protection") - if we wanted to undelete the whole mess, we'd have to use und-batch (which only exists when there's a list of redlinks). Primefac (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought I'd read all the comments. Not only that, but batch protection sounds much more likely than batch production. I assume these Twinkle choices are available only to admins. Maybe Drmies can tutor me in reading.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought "produce batch" was a joke.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm always in need of fresh produce. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Y'know, when looking at their contribs and seeing that they were editing a page called "189-savant", I didn't think it extended from "Thought Vol.1" till "110-savant" till "189-savant".. I have no idea what they're doing. I'm going to send them a message frankly because I'm curious what they are doing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Witch hunt

Hi Drmies. Just a question really - you said on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_on_Baseball_Bugs_from_Wikipedia_Space that the term witch hunt has a very specific meaning and a set of connotations that is frequently highly inappropriate. For my benefit could you let me know what those are? I've used the term myself in the past (in the sense of "a campaign directed against a person or group holding views considered unorthodox or a threat") and wasn't aware it was potentially offensive. Thanks, Fish+Karate 14:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Fish+Karate, thanks for your note--I see you came out of semi-retirement a few months ago: thanks for coming back. I don't have to tell you that "witch hunt" is a term frequently used these days by a certain president to smear a certain investigation in an ongoing PR attempt to stack the deck against the investigation of possible misdeeds. It's one of those turns of phrase which, in some contexts, reverses the roles and someone starts playing the victim. My "many people don't know this" hoped to point at that usage by way of a cliche frequently employed by that person. What we have here on ANI is not a witch hunt--in a "real" witch hunt a victim is accused of a non-existent crime they didn't commit, with fabricated evidence brought to bear on a relatively powerless person. That is obviously not what is happening at ANI. Moreover, the editor to whom I made the comment is frequently active in that presidential topic area and so they should be well aware of its rhetorical force. So whether it is potentially offensive depends greatly on the speaker and the situation--I have no doubt that this is not the kind of usage you have employed, and I certainly wouldn't want to ban the phrase, haha. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Something off my chest...

It is not an excuse or a claim for mercy. Just a frustrating fact that I again have fallen into the trap of my own body. Disclosure: I am again in a depression, a type of depression causing - amongst others - loss of self-control. I am aware that my block log and my depressions have a close relationship, but even that realisation comes on hindsight.

Now, on the eve of what looks to be an indefinite block, I just have to admit that I am again let down by my body. Medication works far too slow, fighting back on my own is far quicker. But the pitfall is there... The Banner talk 13:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you for sorting out splitting details. It is so nice to know that in this big wiki universe, I can always count on you to know what's the right thing to do.

Rosiestep (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for taking control of Clyde Lewis last night. I see my reverts might have been a bit hasty, will make note of that. Wish they would provide an explanation instead of just blanking stuff...

Home Lander (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but I don't see (yet) where you reverted hastily. Having said that I'm only now looking at the full history: I may have been too sleepy to check the entire history, which I now see is extensive. I blame Plastikspork, who is my new go-to person if need an excuse. Somehow it's their fault, haha. Well, let me check a bit more; there may be more blocks on the way. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • So here is maybe what happened. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, I don't see that you did anything wrong at all. Again, thanks--thanks for helping us enforce the BLP. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Nicole Louise Pearce

Regarding Nicole Louise Pearce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive268#Nicole_Louise_Pearce) – there has been no discussion on the Noticeboard or at the article's talk page. Is it normal and acceptable for an article to be vetoed, criticism unanswered? I had expected that issues raised would be discussed. The users who took objection haven't justified their reasons, and do not engage beyond taking general issue. I suppose I just expected there to be a discussion rather than a seemingly indefinite vanishing of the subject. Crimescrutineer (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Hmm OK yes I see that one. Well, "vetoed", yes, your talk page post (one single unbearably long paragraph) somehow did not manage to sway anyone. So what we have is three seasoned editors (OK, two, plus me) disagreeing with you, an editor who has done nothing on Wikipedia besides trying to blackball this living person, making especially sure THAT WE ALL GET THEY'RE TRANSSEXUAL. I do thank you for redirecting my attention that way, and I will act on this immediately. First, I will delete it--done. Second, I will reinstate it as a redirect. Third, I will ping a bunch of people with more cool and more knowledge than me, Jayron32, LadyofShalott, GorillaWarfare, Cullen328, to ask them if they agree with my deletion under the BLP. It may well be that they don't, that they think this was overblown, in which a few mouseclicks will restore the redirect with the 'article' underneath--not yet the article, since the editors at BLPN (Bonadea, Nomoskedasticity) all saw that as severely problematic. Fourth, I strongly suggest you occupy your time with something else. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Despite my disappointment in not making the cool and knowledgeable list above, agree with the deletion of this article and reconversion to redirect. At best the deleted article is a content fork giving undue weight to minute and graphic details of the case; and a coatrack for a dissertation on transexuality and crime. At worst it's a breach of WP:BLP1E. The detail of the murder and a perpetrator's sexuality are adequately covered in the article on the incident itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
As one of the not cool and knowledgable crowd (which I suppose puts me in good company with Euryalus) I agree with the deletion. I was only able to get to the second sentence before it became clear that was the correct outcome. The rest of the article only got worse from there. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Euryalus, TonyBallioni, the ONLY reason I didn't ping you two (and a few others--I have a list here somewhere) is that you have the MOST cool and knowledge of everyone: you KNOW you're my favorites, and I figured y'all would have better things to do tonight ON A NIGHT WHERE SOMEONE JUST GOT DONE GRADING AND FOUND A CONTRACTOR WHO CAME BY AT THE TIME THEY SAID THEY WOULD COME BY. Sorry. But thanks--I appreciate y'all's second and third opinions. I don't make such bold administrative/authoritaytive moves often, and in hindsight I wonder why I didn't do it the first time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Meh. I remain mortally offended. It's things like this that make people incautious when helmet-hunting. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
As long as we can count on your donations. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I have never donated money to the WMF because I donate my time and my thoughtful edits almost daily to this encyclopedia, which I consider more valuable than cash. I read every word of the NPOV-violating deleted article, and that was an unpleasant experience. I support the deletion/redirect. This person should be covered neutrally in the article about about the murder. Wikipedia is not a lurid tabloid. The WMF and Wikipedia can surely do without any future financial and editorial contributions that Crimescrutineer might have made. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Drmies, you know me. I don’t stay angry at a slight for more than 15 minutes, unless they’re an Ostrich. Then it’s unforgivable. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
You know you are all my favorites. (Thanks Cullen; we appreciate your donations.) OK, I hand it over to the admins on the West Coast, and of course to User:Plastikspork, who never sleeps. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all for handling this while I slept. "Severely problematic" was a bit of an understatement. Oh, and congrats on finishing your grading, Drmies. I have a rather huge pile of it still to do, and more arriving tonight. --bonadea contributions talk 05:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Well you kneuw it wasn't easy... Drmies (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Concluding, Republished Elsewhere

I'll just republish it privately elsewhere, with comment about the simplistic unreasoned criticism found here that had it removed. Dismissal on paragraph length and extent of detail per se alone aren't helpful or editorial.

This wasn't an article about transexual crime, it included the subject's sex change while incarcerated having been the route to their release (chemical castration). This is clear beyond the third sentence (TonyBallioni).

The idea that too much detail can be present isn't befitting an actual encyclopaedia, particularly when the article at the redirect is scant. I mistakenly expected genuine criticism, not silence followed by paltry contempt.

If you have issue with the nature of the article I encourage you to attempt taking to task other blackballing creations with more followers, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer, which are loaded with the same purported problems.

After making ~30 donations to Wikipedia over the years I won't do so again. I now clearly understand the wariness academics have about this resource.

Jayron32, Drmies, LadyofShalott, GorillaWarfare, Cullen328, Nomoskedasticity, Bonadea, Euryalus Crimescrutineer (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the "I'm a Wikipedia donor and won't donate again because people disagreed with my edits" is the most over-used line by disruptors and trolls. Can't you come up with something new? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Power~enwiki Overused by whomever, that's my position irrespective.

  • Crimescrutineer, your comment on that talk page was not only hard to read but also insubstantial. Sorry, but if you publish something on a website you'll just have to accept that you got to play by that website's rules. As for paltry contempt--Wikipedia isn't sneered at by all academics. In fact, many people are saying that this is the greatest website ever and what many people don't now is that there's actually a lot of academics working there--the best academics, if you wanna know the truth. You want seriously? We're not that bad because there are some things we take seriously, and the BLP is one of them. We will not, for instance, put someone down by their gender in the opening sentence of an article. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Drmies I believe the comment on the talk page was more substantial than the criticism, in any event there was no input of any kind after a week despite the strong views against it.

I presumed that to take issue with something negatively here there would also be something constructive and reasoned returned. This wasn't a "talk" let alone a discussion.

The BLP isn't taken seriously when editors are derisive, proud of hasty wanton behaviour and discussion is a farce.

There was nothing defamatory or unkind in the opening sentence of the article, the descriptors included various scientific diagnoses, all of which were referenced. The opening sentences in the articles about other criminals aren't complimentary either, but they are factual.

There is nothing condescending about pointing out an individual's gender. It is simply fact. As this individual had several genders and a transitioning period over two decades under the public's eye, it is mentioned for clarification.

I don't believe in the veracity of contributing here, it is too emotive and unprofessional on the editorial side. The time and effort spent was too easily degraded (in fact banished) by people from outside the subject matter. I won't be commenting further. There is no reason to publish here when the editorial process can rapidly fail to meet even common-sense standards. The editorial here has been about control, not truth. Donating time or money here is counter-productive. Give your time and money to projects that only repair damage.

Crimescrutineer (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the greatest website ever, at least in part because it is written from the neutral point of view, and because it does not publish sensationalistic crime fetishism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
You keep saying you're going away, and yet you keep not doing it... --Jayron32 10:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Email

About to send you an email. Could you please check it in a minute. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TRM

OMG!

No good deed goes unpunished, it seems. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It would have been a good deed if Drmies had kept my name out it and just noted that, once again, admins are not pulling their weight at ERRORS day after day after day. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm about to stick my foot in my mouth, but it would probably be best if TRM could be allowed handle it as he has the desire and the knack.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim, I think a bit of excessive sensitivity came into play here. I have supported TRM in all their good and necessary work on DYK and ITN; I have made those edits where I thought I had the expertise to do so (not for that ITN matter, of course). Trying to pull my weight, in other words (I couldn't do it if those "current" and "next" things weren't linked, since that whole setup is a maze to me). So I suppose when I said "TRM needs..." I was using a kind of metonymy, using "TRM" to stand for "the project as a whole", since this is after all a collaborative place. Nor do I believe that the moment TRM's name is mentioned on AN the vultures start circling. But it's OK--I can live with an occasional error or missing hyphen on the front page; there's plenty of aggravation on this site already and I don't need more. So I'm just staying away, and I'll note that what always alerted me were TRM's edits on that "Errors" page that I saw in Recent changes. I'm just not going to pay attention to those anymore. Thanks Cullen, thanks Dlohcierekim. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Probably for the best that you remove yourself from anything involving me, especially when you "go public" and name me when the actual fact of the matter was errors on the main page (or soon to be). You definitely know better than to do that, you also know that I'm 100% content driven and want nothing more than the best we can muster here. I'm mildly surprised that you don't think vultures start circling, because they absolutely do, but perhaps you're unaware of that. Here's the synopsis of the "lessons learned": "Don't personalise ERRORS". Next time just say there are some urgent issues that need working out. Of course, you've already gone DIVA and said you won't be paying attention, but please, still, learn the lesson. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Sigh... I'm going to take a hard swing in the dark and suggest that Drmies "name dropped" you to give credit to the individual doing all the work, and not to signal to the vultures to start picking on a corpse. I have no reason to think that Drmies want anything other than the best we can muster here. That said, I think the last places on Wikipedia that TRM wants to be mentioned on are AN/ANI and ArbCom. It's only been a short while since a certain admin tried to drag TRM through the arbitration process. Drmies, you tried to do a nice thing and it went a bit south. I've had the same happen to me. I'd just live and let live. Don't get worked up about it. Just shrug and move on. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Drmies knows much better than that. Some conflicts about a year or so ago with Drmies I seem to recall where I was cast as a racist. I'd like to just shrug and move on about that, but it sticks in the craw. Much better that Drmies never crosses my path again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

block issue

why did only you block me when other members were violating the rules and I didn't threaten anyone nor do I plan to threaten anyone here so why did you accuse of threatening? Saad123890 (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  • You were edit warring with two experienced editors on a BLP matter. Simple. You didn't manage to convince Yamla or 331dot that you explained our policies and guidelines, and the fact that you claim that I said you were threatening someone (I didn't say that) suggests that they agree that you are not a very good reader yet--you haven't read or understood the policies and guidelines, and you haven't even read the block notice. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Well said.--Dlohcierekim (talk)

yes, I have read the policies regarding BLP and RS and second, those experienced editors weren't replying me back after repeatedly asking them so and telling them how should I can improve the two pages which I edited. its not easy when you waste so much time on editing and cite the information with credible sources and in the end some experienced editors who don't know anything about those people come and undo your editing and then don't even reply. sorry, but what I read on the talk page of one editor you clearly said you shouldn't threaten but it's ok that's in the past. yes, I am good reader sir but its ok and yes i have but what i want to know that why some two experienced editors can undo credible work of some who is new? how should i complain about them because they don't even reply me back? you say they don't agree but when they don't even reply what should say? so i would like to know how should i complain about them? lastly, i did read about the polices but I need to edit some information with credible sources can you please at least tell me why can't I put the real age of the actors? or should go read BLP policies again? Saad123890 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh my, I am not sure Drmies will have time to read all that when there's rather a lack of upper case letters and punctuation and other things that might be appreciated. But here are my ideas.
how should i complain about them -- if your complaints would resemble this paragraph to which I am responding, then the best advice to you is not to complain about other editors at all. It may result in more problems for you.
when they don't even reply what should say? -- when they don't reply, you should start a New Section on the Talk Page of the article explaining what material you want to add and listing the reliable sources for the material. And asking for other editors' views about whether the material is appropriate based on those sources. You don't seem to have done this. MPS1992 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

yeah sure I will do that start a new section and if still, they don't reply? and why there will be problems for me? can't we complain about editors who cross the lines? Saad123890 (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If you don't know where the lines are, you are not in a good position to understand who has crossed them. MPS1992 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Saad123890: If you can not achieve consensus for your changes, best to not make them. If after a week, they have not responded, you might which to seek WP:dispute resolution. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks thats what i will do then go to dispute resolution if they don't respond within a week. Saad123890 (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

Do you know anyone taking care of the Louis Farrakhan page?

We are about to have an edit war and I don't know if I can stop it. Editors Seraphim System and MShabazz both have valid points but I can't seem to get them to work together. Peacemaker is not something I have a lot of practice at on wiki, so perhaps you can refer this on for me. Thanks, C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oh. Seraphim System. Really? I haven't had breakfast yet, so there's little I can do right now. Hey, I see you're in hot water over at ANI. I'm not about to thrown in my comments, but I will say that I also use the thank function to support what I think are good edits, even if I got nothing to do with those edits or those editors. Now, can you try to stay out of these messes you seem to get into? Drmies (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Given that the vote on AN/I is going two to one against me, I needed to plan for some help with watching this so thank you. If course, Swarm will most likely take this as me swaying your vote, anyway thanks again and good luck with that page, it has been a headache of people with agendas. Cheers - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Swarm is no fool or conspiracy theorist. I didn't look at the ANI thread because of this message; I read it before I read my talk page, because John from Idegon had pinged me. C. W. Gilmore, I am not quite sure why you pinged Swarm here. No need to explain it to me--please think it over for yourself. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I saw the votes for the Indy Ban coming in against me, so I have been thanking those that have help me, passing out work that still needs to be done and cleaning up my home page. Swarm wrongly accused me of thanking people to swing vote on the AN/I. I can take a lot, but I do not like people falsely giving meaning to my actions, and pinged Swarm to be sure, he would see everything I'm doing and why I'm doing it. Anyway, I will leave and say no more on the subject. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, if Swarm reads this, they'll know I disagree with that assessment. You can tell them I said so. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with vandalism

Sorry to bother, but a while back, you helped put a stop to some ping-pong editing on the Steven Soderbergh page. Basically, a user named User:LivinRealGüd and I were debating whether to add the fact that Steven Soderbergh conceived a love child out of wedlock. I thought the debate was settled, and you agreed that the love child fact should stay on the page. Just wanted to let you know, that the user reverted the edits and is starting a vandalism war again. Isn't this against Wiki policy? I thought as a mod you had the right to decide this. Why can she/he/it go back and restart the debate? Zeldathequark (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  • As a mod I am indeed infinitely powerful, but I don't know I want to jump into this fray. The problem was the sourcing, and the charge was that the source isn't strong enough. I suggest that you take this to WP:BLPN. In the meantime, I will revert your edit since this is a BLP. If you get a consensus that the source is good enough to support this in article space, you can put it back. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm laughing so hard right now: "some ping-pong editing". For heaven's sake Drmies, use your infinite power to stop this ping-pong editing! Thanks mate. LivinRealGüd (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I got a note saying there's something happening on BLPN and I believe the pinger (if you're the ponger...) filed there yesterday. I have to let that run its course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

forum shopping

Please see my talk and related mfd and deleted versions. Need some laundry done.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: University of Dhaka

Hey, Drmies! I've noticed that there's a significant content dispute over on University of Dhaka, and I was wondering if it wouldn't be more productive to discuss the issue with Mizan Al Mim rather than just blocking or censuring the editor. I received a chat message on my talk page which seems to indicate that we should possibly assume good faith even though there is an edit war. Thoughts? - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 21:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Well, they're blocked now for continued copyright violations and promotional writing. In other words, it's somewhat past the realm of good faith... Drmies (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Aartswoud

On 10 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aartswoud, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that around the Dutch village of Aartswoud, the former polder landscape and its seasonal water levels are being restored? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aartswoud. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Aartswoud), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Just an FYI, your name came up at an ANI discussion regarding 72bikers. Apparently this editor has been doing what you advised them to do? –dlthewave ☎ 01:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Entertainment recommendations

You've probably already seen this, but wow. Also, if you're not watching Atlanta, your life is the poorer for it. MastCell Talk 00:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I read this yesterday (the author and I are going to a certain localilty tomorrow) and that made me kind of not want to watch it (also I'm too old for hip music), but thanks for the link and the nudge. I wasn't ready for that execution, but neither are the victims, I imagine. Anyway, I admit I like the song. Yes, my life is pretty poor but I'm also getting some work done, most of it in the ivory tower, cause there's bills to pay and my Brian Krzanich slush fund ran out, and with Michael Cohen under suspicion I'm afraid my monthly payment for my POV editing is under threat too. Thanks MastCell! Drmies (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It's the little things about the video that amaze me. Did you notice, after the shooting scenes: the gun is handled with extreme care and reverence, while the shooting victims are ignored and discarded. MastCell Talk 00:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Yep. I saw plenty of documentation today of how we treat black bodies. No need to put that in the past tense, of course. MastCall, come on down to Montgomery and I'll show you the sights. I kept it pretty cool until I got to this setup where former prisoners told their stories and you could listen through a phone, like in jail. I met one of those guys. Sent to prison at 13, spent 18 years in solitary. This guy. He got out and I had lunch with him and some other people, and now his story is given an appropriate setting. Cause that's what's going on here with the monuments and affirmative action and "my family didn't have slaves" and "nobody ever gave ME anything"--the legacy of slavery is ongoing, and our criminal justice system is evidence. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Our criminal injustice system. Put the emphasis on whichever word fits best. An unjust system is criminal.
This inspires me. To understand the subject of justice, one must first study injustice (and poverty). Then the teachings of MLK, Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Du Bois, John Kenneth Galbraith, Robert Reich, and John Rawls come into focus. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Special:Diff/841197627

Vanamonde93 is proposing a topic ban against me, he is basing his aspersions on these diffs,[9][10] [11] (these were legit reverts that I succinctly explained in my edit summaries) claiming that I have played my "part in the recent edit-wars", besides citing this as evidence against me, saying "has much the same attitude of treating Wikipedia as a battleground; for further evidence take a look at his talk page, where both Drmies and I told him off for making blanket reverts of suspected socks without sufficient thought or explanation". Can you comment there please? MBlaze Lightning talk 16:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to comment at the AE discussion, Drmies, but the fact that MBlaze is misunderstanding the reason for the proposed ban is itself indicative of the need for it, in my view. I won't clutter your talk page; the evidence is at AE. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not misunderstanding anything, but you are grossly misrepresenting those diffs because you have an axe to grind. MBlaze Lightning talk 16:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • MBlaze, it is hard to argue that you did not also get involved with edit wars. I won't support a topic ban for you but that's purely because I do not now have the time and inclination to go through all the evidence. The thing is, few in that AE thread seem to be entirely innocent of dramafests. Did you see Sitush's comment, about turning away the moment certain groups of editors start bickering? I find that to be beneficial to our project. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 gun control

Hello. You recently reverted 1 sentence of my argument on the Nazi gun control argument for being not cited. However, there was in fact a citation at the end of the sentence. I will add another citation and make it seem less POV for reversion. In the future, if a warning template doesn't fit the reason, you can type a message. Thanks for the consideration! Lightningboltz03 (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Lightningboltz03

(talk page watcher) Hi Lightningboltz. The template Drmies added to your user talk says the following: "Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nazi gun control argument, without citing a reliable source." This can mean either that no source was cited or that a source not considered to be a reliable source (as defined per WP:RS) was cited. If you look at the edit sum Drmies left here, you see that the latter is why he removed the content.
After looking at the source, I'm inclined to agree with Drmies on this. Academinc papers, etc, are tricky to cite as sources because they tend to be seen as WP:PRIMARY in many cases and may just contain opinions and theories of the authors. This doesn't mean that such sources can never be used, but it often does mean that they have to be used carefully and properly attributed (sometimes even inline). The paper appears to have been uploaded by the author so we have no idea whether it was peer-reviewed by the editorial staff of some respected academic journal, or whether the author just uploaded it because he could. We also don't know whether the author is considered a highly reputable expert in his field. Academia.edu also appears to be a for-profit site where academics who pay a fee can upload their papers and not something which has a strong reputation for established editorial control or peer review. This gives the paper more of the appearance as being something user-generated than WP:PUBLISHED. I've already probably gone into too much detail for a user talk page; so, if you strongly feel that this source is an RS, then initiate a discussion on the article's talk page to see what other editors more familiar with the subject matter think. You can also ask for opinions at WP:RSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. Academic papers--it depends on what "papers" mean. A paper I wrote for a class when I was still taking classes isn't acceptable, but one could call that an academic paper. That's not about "primary"--it's about having been published; what matters is, as Marchjuly says, whether something is published or not. Academia is not a peer-reviewed publication and so those things really aren't acceptable. I can upload anything I want there, and that particular paper is (sorry to the author) just a lousy paper which would never pass peer review: it's too opinionated, too short, too underdeveloped, too selective in its sources. (I'm speaking as someone who has been through the process.) I assume that you read RS? Drmies (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Tompkinson

There's a tricky BLP issue at Stephen Tompkinson, an article where you assisted in a big clean up some years ago. Daisyet17 (talk · contribs) claims to be his daughter and has been making a couple of changes which, on the face of it, are fairly trivial but nonetheless concern me. She has had advice from me on both their talk page and my own but continue to assert that it is self-evident that she is his daughter. While it all might seem a bit draconian on my part, I am concerned because there are ways that she or her (alleged) father could resolve this, eg: via publishing the info on his agent's website. In addition, he has had a somewhat chequered personal life (not all of which is mentioned in the article) and there is potential for bad blood when an alleged child of a failed marriage starts making edits to a bio article. She is way over 3RR (so am I, but claiming the BLP exemption). Should I just let it go? - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion

Tigers courtesy of Wikiexplorer. Note the yoni-patterning.

Not even surprising, given these latest changes. Raymond3023 (talk)

(talk page stalker) I'll leave you to deal with the IPs, Drmies, but I've semi'd the page for two weeks. Vanamonde (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, never mind...it's the IP I blocked before, so I've given them more of the same. Vanamonde (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Obviously you haven't blocked the IP. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
He blocked 122.173.71.185 (talk · contribs · count), a different IP in the same range. I assume it was a mistake because that IP hadn't edited in almost a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I am talking about this IP as per my above link. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Bbb23 is quite right, I blocked the previous version, but I've now blocked this one, too. Vanamonde (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Bleh. Thanks Ivanvector. Raymond3023, you're a sensible and rational human being, right? I have a proposal: have a look at that edit to Yoni and settle it. At first glance the content itself doesn't seem all that bad, though I don't know if the content is actually verified by the source that is already in the article (that's the problem when foolish editors simply insert information). A note on the talk page with an explanation will serve as a record. Who knows, maybe there is value in their edit. What would be even better is if a couple of editors get together to figure it out: imagine the India-Pakistan camps coming together around the vulva--wouldn't that be a blast? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I dropped a rangeblock as well. I'm calling this dude the Yoni vandal (it has to be a dude, with all the stupid shouting and stuff--haha I'm essentializing out the wazoo here). Drmies (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I didn't know there was a "Yoni vandal", but a quick glance suggests Yoni vandal is Wikiexplorer13? My block is based on a different assumption, anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, duh--I guess I knew that already. I made a crack in an arbitration thread about my poor memory--you can see that I wasn't lying, since I commented on that SPI. Or maybe it's just overload... Drmies (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Time to take a sabbatical, Doc . TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I wish. At least with Adso of Montier-en-Der I'm combining business with pleasure. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Stay in touch with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiexplorer13. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Wario's Woods expert

Hey! Thank you for blocking Wario's Woods expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have pretty good reason to believe they are a sock of Iodhogushuiodgbhusaishyb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (just check out their edits!). Would you recommend opening an SPI? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Ha, there's a few more there. I'm sure there's an SPI and an LTA case, maybe more than one. There's not much point in us doing more about these ones--just look out for the next ones. I saw you reverted--thanks. The hint, I think, is in the W alliteration. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Quail

And that is why I am not an administrator. General Ization Talk 22:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • It's a miracle that I'm still one. Did you see what they've been doing, under four different IPs? And one of our editors actually entertained them on that talk page. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
User talk:LittlePuppers#WP:DENY. General Ization Talk 00:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I've been on that talk page before so I decided against leaving a note... Drmies (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I see and understand. General Ization Talk 00:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
General Ization, you may be amused by this. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Meetup Page

Hi. My name is Kristin Hodgson, and I work on the Brand team at Meetup. Over the past several months, I've noticed unusual edits to the Meetup Wikipedia page.

For example, the article has been experiencing edits like Meetup “put the future of the company on the line”[13] and saying that Meetup’s # resist political groups were contrary to Meetup’s mission statement (citing only Meetup’s own mission statement)[14]

The current article still says stuff like “after years of declining usage, and lacking the funding necessary to compete against rising competition," which is not supported by the citations given.

I posted at NPOV[15] hoping to attract one or two disinterested watchlisters/participants. I was happy that this attracted two un-involved editors that started making edits[16][ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meetup_(website)&type=revision&diff=834047873&oldid=834046789&diffmode=source], but both were immediately reversed.

Is this something you'd be willing to look into? There is a discussion on Talk about the list of competitors on the page.

Thanks, Kristin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion on my talk page

Dear fellow WP editor, what rode you to delete a message by another user on my talk page??? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, a suspected sockpuppet gives you the mandate to delete messages on other peoples talk pages? Where did you learn this procedure? Was it discussed anywhere? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You have sufficient experience here and at de.wiki for you not to be so obtuse. Drmies reverted a sock. For whatever reason you reinstated the sock's post, which as long as the post doesn't violate policy, is technically acceptable. See WP:REVERTBAN. There's nothing more to be said, and you should go do something more constructive than continuing this dialog.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb. No good deed goes unpunished. BTW, Bernd, not "suspected sockpuppet"--block-evading IP editor. I don't care if you reinstate that post; you can do it a million times. But this is not the kind of edit that improves anything in article space, which is the only valid reason to not revert a blocked or banned editor's edits, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, the content of a user's talk page is under his control alone. Another user may add a question or hint, but no one has any mandate to delete content there, for whatever reason. What happened here was as a violation to this principle. To make this crystal clear for the future, I added an extra hint: User_talk:Bernd.Brincken#Deletions
Bbb23, follow your own advice before you give it to others: You 'should go do something more constructive than continuing a dialog' between other parties. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You are quite simply wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That "notice" won't prevent other editors from deleting inappropriate content from your Talk page. Your notion that you own your Talk page is just as misguided as other notions you have. At this point, if I were Drmies, I'd boot you off my Talk page, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm so that's four admins you've managed to rub the wrong way. NOT THAT WE WOULD KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT POLICY OF COURSE, and some of us (I can't vouch for all of us) even have common sense. Bbb, I like to think of this joint as a happy place, so I'm not booting anyone off just yet, but Bernd, you're bringing the Monk down, man. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Who's the fourth? Are you having trouble counting again like at WP:ANEW?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
[17], bean counter. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Bernd.Brincken#Deletions is probably the missing clue. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Funny thing you should come by, 78.26--this morning I heard on the radio that the F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald Museum here in town now rents out the upstairs apartment as an AirBnB--with gramophone and jazz records! Come on down! Drmies (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Now you're talking! See, that's how you rub an administrator the right way! wait, that didn't come out right.... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Substitute admins for men.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Drmies is ahead of me. I can't count and I don't know what a revert is. [18] --NeilN talk to me 17:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Five.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You guys have a lot of time, responding to all this! BTW Doc, I just noticed that your tp has been semi protected since November, which is probably why I haven't seen 99's cries for help in a long time!—SpacemanSpiff 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Six. I was going to post a reply this morning, except my work computer decided to shut down and then install around a couple of thousand Microsoft "improvements". Three bloody hours. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Black Kite, Windows 10? I had the same thing a few days ago. OH THANKS for the reminder: I need to pay the second installment of that new PC. Spiffsterix, they ping me occasionally. Yeah, there's a bit of trolling in the talk page history. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Aye, Windows 10. Oddly, 8 used to work perfectly well. Hey ho. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Windows 10, you say? Is that why my computer cuts off in the midst of making a post.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, now we have five admins on a mission! Oh, sorry, was it six? Any mission statement? Come on, the world really needs orientation. In these times. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
We sure do.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Can I play too? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
No mission statement yet? How about this beautiful tune? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Never found them exciting, but thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
And here I thought MISSION statements weren't kosher... Primefac (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC) I also think this brings us up to Se7en...
They're unkosher in WP articles, but not in the community - better have a mission statement you can read than a mission without a statement. So avoiding-boredom was a wrong guess in this case, I'm still curious. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Musing in passing

"boxing clever"?

You're a recovering arbitrator so perhaps you can prognosticate. How much longer do you think the dispute-resolution apparatus of the English WP will continue to be tied up by a handful of narcissists seeking salve for their bruised egos? EEng 22:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Far be it from me to name names. EEng 23:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I never paid much attention to this until recently, but narcissism really is the word. EEng 16:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, Spring must be here, at last. Just for you... a handful of narcissus feeling crammed in a box. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Martinevans123 that is really beautiful, thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries, Doc Flowers. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. I think that one in the bottom right corner deserves an indef block
You heard it here first: best remembered as a farce ;) - mind the date. Erschallet, ihr Lieder! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Seriously: a solemn mass for choir and two (!) organs, - and our conductor said that our great organ (File:Wiesbaden, Bonifatiuskerk, orgelgalerij.jpg) is about the size of St. Sulpice's choir organ. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Why make do with one organ, when you have much more fun with two! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
With two, it's a bit tricky to coordinate. The composer has a great way of inserting accents from the big organ in the middle of longer syllables, to not interfer with the diction, but if that big organ is far away, timing is tricky. Today's organist played both parts from one keyboard, and deafened us at times ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Greda. I have enough trouble trying to co-ordinate one. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The Amazing Race 19

Not sure why you removed the detour description for just one leg? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Because I can't fix everything. What I can do is fix something and indicate to you why referencing matters. Did you even realize the overlinking, for instance? Drmies (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the "destroyed" cruft and I restored the Detour details on the page. This was given on sourced link: https://www.cbs.com/shows/amazing_race/episodes/78412/ ApprenticeFan work 03:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
User:ApprenticeFan, I suppose you also need to read WP:OVERLINK, if you insist on wikinlinking "fish market" and stuff like that. The content you added is still full of trivia, no citation is offered--but worse, without secondary sourcing you cannot make the argument that any of it matters. So we have yet another article lacking proper secondary sourcing, full of poorly-written trivia, and full of irrelevant wikilinks and little colorful flags and symbols that fall foul of WP:COLOR. This is why I suggested Wikia as an outlet for y'all's desires. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I just found it odd that you removed only one section (of many) on that article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP RfC comments

Hi, I have moved your comment from the "comments" section to the "threaded" section as it seems to fit in better there. You may wish to leave a !vote in the "comments" section as well. Regards, --LK (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't understand this at all. Comments may not be threaded? You moved User:JzG's comment too--his comment was not an appropriate comment for the "Comment" section? Shouldn't "Comments" be renamed "!Votes"? Drmies (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: User:Lawrencekhoo took it upon themselves to dicate where a sitting Arbcom member's comment should go...at Arbcom? Kafka, you got yourself some competition  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hold on--I'm not sitting on anything except for my keister, and it is well-known that I know NOTHING about proper procedure. (And this wasn't at ArbCom, though for a second I also thought it was--it's BLPN.) I really only know who to call on. Complicated stuff: GorillaWarfare. War ships: The ed17. Schools: John from Idegon. Motorbikes: 72bikers. Medieval shit: you, sometimes. Real medieval shit: Ealdgyth. Proper writing: Eric Corbett. Existential questions: Bishonen. I can go on. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
An excellent list (and one which is sufficiently flattering to all parties to hide the fact that it is a list for getting other people to do stuff for you :p ) But as you say, if it's the BLPN, then my apologies are due to Lawrencekhoo, because at BLPN, anyone can do what they like. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Please write down that diff somewhere so when I blow up a template I don't get yelled at. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
WHAT Serial Number 54129 SAID. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm somewhat hurt at finding my special skill unlisted. EEng 16:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please leave any skills I may have unlisted. Special or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I am gratified to find myself not included in the list. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I like how ~550 years ago isn't "real medieval shit" though :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Y'all note the "I could go on" bit. I've called on dozens and dozens of people, and I am grateful to all of you. I am especially grateful to Kelapstick for FINALLY placing the Worst Block In The World. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems as if that block left him with nothing better to do in Cambridge Bay than to look out the window and study, you know, the weather. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey, that's my job to wstudyatch study the weather. I get paid to watch snow melting. It's so much more exciting than watching paint dry. I still think he should have left it until I noticed it. I was busy changing the password on my newly acquired modem and locking myself out of my Wi-Fi. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's fascinating. I love Canadians. This made me study my own block log, which led me down a rabbit hole, including an ArbCom case from 2013 which made my blocking admin an ex-admin. Oh, and I also didn't really notice my block--I think I went to make coffee and so missed all the action. All the best, CambridgeBayWeather. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Publications

Hi, I'm questioning the deletion of the Publication list on the page for David Silva (linguist). My understanding is that for academics, listing major publications ia part of the case for notablity, as it gives a place to link to reviews of the work, etc. I'm in agreement that a Wiki page should not be a resume, and so should not list everything he's written. But I also would find a selection of the scholar's works to be something a reader would want to know about this person when they are reading the page. Thanks. LingLass (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi. For all academics a book is always a major publication, so it's a given (to me) that we usually should list books (unless there are other circumstances, like someone self-publishing etc.). But articles, that's a different matter--if an article is cited and thus is verifiably important, we can list that. But in the list for Silva I see no secondary sources, and there is nothing inherently significant in the individual entries. Plus, we don't usually gauge importance by individual articles, though in the end they add up to the h-index, of course. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Félix-Marie Abel

On 25 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Félix-Marie Abel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Félix-Marie Abel, a Dominican priest and archaeologist, identified several battle sites from the Maccabean Revolt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Félix-Marie Abel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Félix-Marie Abel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop following me around, undoing my edits, thanks. There is a policy against that. Attack Ramon (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  • You have made some poor and unnecessary edits, and now you're just inviting more scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, now you're being really dickish, edit warring over a tag. Anyone can see that some important sentences/paragraphs are unsourced (or, at least, not properly footnoted per our editorial conventions), not just the section that I already marked. The Zapffe novel, the historical marker, the burial, the sabre, the length of time. If you don't know what you're doing, don't be doing it. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Monte Testaccio. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Attack Ramon (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

August 2017

Hello. Do you remember who you thought 194.68.94.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was when you blocked it in August 2017 for block evasion? I have created a SPI report for Hyperboreangiant as you blocked 194.68.94.68 soon after blocking other Hyperboreangiant socks, but I now think 194.68.94.68 may be a sock of someone else. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I think Bbb23 is on the case...I'm sure it was related to that Nordic Resistance club. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • But thanks for pointing me that way. A year-long block for more than a year of fucking around seems fair to me. And now that I looked at the SPI I see what you mean, or why you asked me. I don't know why Bbb decided not to run CU, but if they don't want to, who am I to say we should. Anyway that Freeboy account and the IP seem to do strange things together (the IP on Freeboy's talk page) and they make the same idiotic and irritating edits, so I just blocked them per NOTHERE. If you make a note of that at the SPI, the clerk will figure out how to file the paperwork. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I probably should have notified you earlier as I was basing the SPI largely on your blocks of the IP and Hyperboreangiant socks. I think the strange pattern of reverting their own edits may be an attempt to obscure POV pushing. I will look through their edits at some point soon to see if this is the case. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

For your help with Middle Eastern/Jewish articles Shrike (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Shrike, I appreciate it. There's tons of interesting material there, from German student organizations (I've delved into those before, in other contexts) to the Zionism of the interim. Let's finish this article up, get it on the front page, and do more. BTW you were right about the count: the actual front page appearance hadn't been counted yet. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
[19]--Shrike (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doria Ragland (2nd nomination). NeilN talk to me 23:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if it will interest you

But I prepared another draft [20].Any help will be appreciated -Shrike (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Ha, sure! I'm working on some terrible writing right now but will have a look later. Thanks Shrike! But with 388 pageviews for Abel we hardly made a killing. We need sex and puns in the hook next time. Or Trump. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure?I don't think it shows final stats for today.--Shrike (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
What really is interesting and might be DYK worthy its the pro-Zionist declaration that he gained from central powers to counter Balfour this can be expanded from this source [21]--Shrike (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey is the Encyclopedia Judaica online, that volume 8? The link to the archive goes nowhere. If I have that I can also add a note to the mashov. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You can download the PDF[22] from archive after it see p.5784 in pdf--Shrike (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
WAIT: if I click on that am I downloading the entire 21-volume set??? That's awesome but more than I can handle on my laptop, haha. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Its 270 mb or can email you the text --Shrike (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Got it--thanks! Hey you may be interested to know that I did some work on Abel Herzberg, a fellow Zionist. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you think its him de:Max Oppenheimer?On secound he is too young so I think they meant Franz Oppenheimer because I couldn't find any Max Oppenheimer that will suit the description?--Shrike (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Ozzy2018

Why block that user so quickly... Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 06:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry my fault. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 06:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder...

...that the evidence phase of the German War Effort arbitration closes on the 30th, so you only have a few days to fill out your placeholders.

Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I know--but I'm at the beach and Alberto is in the way, haha. I'm also waiting on a historian to give me a report on Panzer aces. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk pages of blocked editors

Hello Drmies,

Can you or one of your stalkers give me a link to guidelines about the use of user talk pages by blocked editors? My understanding is that their talk pages should be used for unblock requests with perhaps some allowance for "venting" about the block, but should not be used for edit requests while they are blocked. Am I correct? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Cullen328: Just a quickie, but there's some pointers at WP:PROXYING and bits and pieces scattered discretely over WP:BLANKING, WP:OPTIONS and WP:PROTECTION. Hope all is well! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Two recent discussions: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive297#Use_of_user_talk_page_while_blocked, Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Proxying_for_blocked_users? --NeilN talk to me 23:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
With as far as I can see skimming the discussions, no consensus. Personally, I address it on a case-by-case basis but generally lean against allowing "editing" while blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Me as well. But really, I'm not going to tell an editor with a good history who is blocked because they temporarily displayed bad judgment to knock it off if they start planning article edits for an article not related to their block. --NeilN talk to me 23:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Are we talking about a specific editor? I thought we were discussing general principles.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for interrupting. But, if you’re talking about Mr._Daniel_Plainview (talk · contribs) AKA Hidden Tempo, he has a long history of abusing his own TP after blocks. O3000 (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
General principles (at least, I am). I was just providing an hypothetical example where it may be better to look the other way. --NeilN talk to me 00:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the recent conversation at User talk:BrittonBurdick is what motivated my question here. Another editor thinks that I am being heavy handed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Cullen328, I think in those circumstances you were correct, and not heavy-handed: while there may be some diversity of thought on this issue, your position is well within the mainstream of admins, especially given those circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I would've done the exact same thing as you, proxying warning and all. --NeilN talk to me 01:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I tend to be on the firmer end of “for appealing your block”, but I’ll look the other way if someone asks for a few minor things done. If someone literally starts writing an article in their user talk, well, I revoke then: there has to be a line somewhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: that comment caught my attention, although from a point of view of never having been blocked and also not being able to hand out blocks. Surely if someone starts writing content for a new article in their talk page, unrelated to whatever got them blocked, then that is prima facie evidence of a constructive mindset regarding contributing to the encyclopedia. As opposed to, say, editing their talk page to proclaim to the world about how it's WP:NOTTHEM or a WP:CABAL or pointing out instances of policy violations elsewhere and grandstanding about policy matters or threatening not to donate to Wikmedia any more. I think there was once even some unblock request format -- not WP:STANDARD -- that involved drafting useful content on one's talk page to indicate that one was capable of contributing constuctively. Surely it's not the worst possible, bright line, thing for a user to do? MPS1992 (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • BTW, with 18 edits to my talk page I was expecting to have been blocked at the very least, and maybe desysopped. Thanks for hanging out. I got my bald skull burned on a Florida beach, and now we're about to run from Alberto (not Gonzales). Drmies (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Doc, they sell hats in Florida. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Some with mouse ears. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You know, it's cloudy, you think you won't be on the beach long... BTW Cullen, they sold hats in that store where I took that lovely picture of that lovely t-shirt with Trump on top of a tank. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, I shouldn't tease you since I got sunburned badly in Florida once. TonyBallioni, those mouse ear hats originated in California, home of dignity and good taste. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

Want me to walk you through the BLP violations? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI

--JustBerry (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What is it, Lassie? Did little Timmy fall down the well? Primefac (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Because I saw this...

I thought I'd let you know about this. --JustBerry (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You bet. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Tuckerispoopoo

You may also wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. The creativity of the human mind is truly inspiring sometimes. Vanamonde (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Miesmuscheln listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Miesmuscheln. Since you had some involvement with the Miesmuscheln redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Plantdrew (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: those idiots...

They're called the Westboro Baptist Church, and our article about them is very NPOV. They're widely considered a hate group, and other Christian denominations have condemned them. Good for them. Andrevan@ 02:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

We also apparently still call a spade a spade, unlike the AP. Good for us. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Agreed. Andrevan@ 19:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Did someone mention the ace of spades?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Pia Ednie-Brown

Hi there, I was going to write an article on the Australian architect Pia Ednie-Brown but I see an article about her has previously been deleted/ moved to your user space. Can it be retrieved so I can edit it, or do I have to start over? Was it deleted because an editor thought she wasn't notable enough? TIA, MurielMary (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That looks interesting. My question would be, do you have two or three independent and substantial sources about her? Drmies has preserved the article and its history, so you can look at what was used back then and also what he threw out as unreliable, and I suggest also looking at the deletion discussion. I hope you can revive it. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I have this article? Yeah, go for it. Work on the version that is in my user space, if you like, and if it's good to go we'll move it to article space. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Adso of Montier-en-Der at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 08:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Adso of Montier-en-Der

Hello! Your submission of Adso of Montier-en-Der at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Would

I smell your rose and knot you a willow. Willow, willow.

As the only rational editor here, what do you think of these changes? Is the use of would in this manner a US English thing? I see it a lot and it pisses me off for some reason I can't explain. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: is not the only one pondering these choices. Geoff | Who, me? 14:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Ugh. I've removed plenty of "would"s, esp. in sports articles ("Tua would go on to throw the TD that won Alabama the National Championship", that sort of thing), and I do think it's US usage, worthy of an apology to Fowler, Corbett, and all other stylists. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Blame it on Will: What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But I think Sitush (and the distinguished Drmies) have the modern usage correct in the context of the articles mentioned. It's less wordy. "That which we call a rose by any other name smells as sweet." Geoff | Who, me? 17:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It is certainly verbiage and to my mind it is pretentious. A bit like Wikipedians who write of themselves in the third person on their user pages. Wrong image added here, though: Munch's The Scream would be my preference. - Sitush (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Doria Ragland

219.79.126.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has asked for a deletion review of Doria Ragland. 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 08:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red tools and technical support

We are preparing a list of tools and techncial support for Women in Red. I have tentatively added your name as you have provided assistance establishing the editing history of split articles. Please let me know whether you agree to be listed. You are of course welcome to make any additions or corrections.--Ipigott (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I came here to ask

... As is my wont, a hairy article topic fell into my lap. I've asked about it at the BLP noticeboard. I think I can see how to write this gentleman up neutrally, and there are certainly sufficient sources: not only the new coverage but stuff going back years including the WaPo. I would describe him in the lede as a perennial candidate rather than a politician or an anarchist. The thing is, should I do this? There are obvious BLP concerns: even if I (or someone else) managed to do a good job, it would be a magnet for non-neutral embellishments. I believe there is also a policy against writing up candidates right before elections, though I may be thinking of a DYK rule, and I can't imagine an article based on the reliable sources being interpreted as an endorsement. I'm also aware that there's also a whole complex of terrifying ArbCom rules, regulations, and official inscriptions in log-books that concern post-WW2 American politics and that I doubt I will ever understand. (The ArbCom rulings on pedophilia I feel more confident I can both understand and avoid being entrapped by.) I place this set of queries before the brains trust here, partly in the hope that someone else will do it. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm totally with you, certainly with that last hope. I don't think there's such a rule, about writing someone before elections. I don't know what hairy person you're talking about, but I'll be happy to harrumph my approval and protect the article if need be. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Nathan Larson (political candidate). There is a little more stuff I didn't yet include (past convictions, position statements in past elections), but as it is, I hope I have been fair. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) There is something to be said when "He has advocated greatly curtailing women's rights and decriminalizing pedophilia and incest, and is a white supremacist." can be said to be flattering :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair. I was aiming for fair. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And the expected flood of edits has started. I have to go to bed. I am sure I will get a discretionary sanctions alert on my talk page while I sleep, but I'd also like to beg for some eyes on the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Aha, via pix on Commons I finally found where there was a deleted article. Could you or someone else with the admin glasses please tell me whether there are any links there to 3rd-party coverage of his platform back then in his first run for Congress? All I can find are blogs and forum posts, and the actual campaign page didn't get archived in time. (If anyone wants to evaluate my wording or the stances I'm taking on the talk page, or tell me I'm wrong not to include his misdemeanor convictions, this is also a good time for that. I know my article topics are all over the place, but this is quite a stretch and I don't have your or others' BLP expertise.) There is a requested move on the article talk page right now for a move to (politician), and my usage and that of the other person opposing may be out of step with modernity or US conventions or something; if so and if it was a decent article except for TOOSOON, maybe its history should even be undeleted along with the move??? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: [23], [24], [25], [26] The article was two sentences long. First was the standard bio opener. Second was "As an anarcho-capitalist, he favors the privatization or elimination of all government functions." --NeilN talk to me 18:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! At least one of those made it into Wayback and is usable. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hounded by Hijiri88

I suggest you do something about Hijiri88. As soon as I was blocked and unblocked for a minor violation of the 3RR (which had absolutely zero to do with him), Hijiri88 immediately started stalking me ([27], [28], [29], [30]), and he blatantly canvassed both Curly Turkey and Softlavender in an attempt to WP:GAME the original 3RR noticeboard and have me blocked again. Given that I haven't interacted with Hijiri in months, I suggest you intervene before I take this whole mess (going back to February 2017) to the Arbitration Committee. DarkKnight2149 17:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The AN3 discussion was just rightfully closed, though I have no doubt that Hijiri88 will continue to persist. If inserting yourself into another user's affairs (after multiple heated disputes in the past dating back over a year) just to canvass your buddies, trying to get them blocked again after a legitimate unblocking on a minor issue isn't blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, then BATTLEGROUND behaviour doesn't exist. DarkKnight2149 18:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
How very characteristic of you to play ignorant when obvious, unambiguous disruption is coming from the other side of the fence. I'll just let the Arbitration Committee deal with this situation, as well as every instance of it going back to early 2017 (and probably before that). I think this undying collective disruption more than warrants it. DarkKnight2149 22:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Huh. What rudeness. Go to ArbCom or whatever. Why is this my concern? I don't live on the other side of your fence. And "undying collective disruption"? We're watching Death Note, and you sound like one of those young, arrogant, stereotypical characters from that show. It is not my business to solve your problems. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
*Facepalm* I have nothing more to add. As I told them, you'll be notified when it's filed. It's highly improbable that you don't know what I'm referring to, but whatever indeed. DarkKnight2149 22:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd love to know where it is that I took ownership of Hijiri, or en-wikipedia in general. If there is something I forgot, I wonder why you took this familiar and insolent tone with me rather than remind me. Don't notify me unless I'm a party to your ArbCom quest, and don't come back here unless it's with happy tidings, preferably with beer and cheeses. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

Hello, Drmies. In light of your persistent and aggressive rudeness, I ask that you stay off my talk page in future. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(watching) @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Yes: you should definitely continue with this path on your wiki-career. It will certainly make everything easier—even quicker— for everyone. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 23:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I really hate this new trend of people immediately banning anyone who criticizes them from their talk pages. It reminds me of small children putting their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you" when their parents tell them they're in trouble. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
If admins think that they should behave like people's parents, then perhaps that's the problem? Drmies could have criticized my edits without being so pointlessly rude. There was nothing immediate about my asking him to stay off my talk page; I did so only after "persistent and aggressive" rudeness. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I've read his commentary there, and I don't believe it was so aggressive as to warrant a talk page ban. It's disingenuous of you to characterize a single discussion that took place over three days as some kind of "persistent" bad conduct. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I did not "characterize a single discussion that took place over three days" as constituting, by itself, persistent rudeness. The persistent rudeness involves Drmies's comments in that discussion and other, additional matters. There is no point in discussing what they are. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I see no rudeness or aggression in that discussion: you are being disagreed with. That's not a reason to ban people from your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh really? If you want to know, the thing that made me suggest to Drmies that he stay off my talk page was this comment, in which he suggests that I am not a bona fide article writer. I don't expect people to constantly shower praise on me because I have written three good articles, but I do expect some kind of basic respect. Having slaved over those articles and tried to do everything humanly possible to improve them (and I intend to do more), I am pretty damn sure that I am a bona fide article writer. It would be nice if other editors could acknowledge as much. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
When an editor's competence is questioned, it is natural for them to consider such comments to be rude. As for going forward, the guideline linked at WP:NOBAN should be helpful. MPS1992 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Editors frequently disagree in much more heated terms than that, and while I see grumpy disagreement, I'm not keen on page bans on that basis. Acroterion (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Same goes heer Drmies; except, not holding TB's elevated status and pay-packet, my talk page tends more, of course, towards cheesy socks and beer stains... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, since I don't want FKC's comments here, it's fair that they don't want me on theirs. I assume that some have looked at that odd reason to revert a PROD, that table of content, etc. I've had plenty of very strange disagreements with this editor, but I thought that the last year or so they were making progress. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop Harassing Me & My Edits

It’s clear that your political biases are coming through. Every bit of information on Dave Williams (Colorado politician) page was correctly sourced and cited. You can accuse me of COI but it’s obvious that you have a political agenda and if you won’t stop in your aggressiveness and disruptive editing then I will submit a complaint and seek assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UostwisRDewoh (talk • contribs) 07:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Protect closed RfAs?

This makes me think that we should perhaps protect closed RfAs, or at least those of people who died? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this one, Tony. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

If you interested

User:Shrike/Mount_Hope(Ottoman_Empire) any help would be appreciated.--Shrike (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Shrike--looks great, but I'm going to have to pass until next week or so--I can't concentrate much on serious article work right now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Adso of Montier-en-Der

On 12 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adso of Montier-en-Der, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 10th-century monk Adso of Montier-en-Der wrote a biography of the antichrist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adso of Montier-en-Der. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Adso of Montier-en-Der), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

12 June, nice company (or contrast?) to If Ye Love Me, sung today and in 2010 on this day. How did DYK know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
There are no coincidences; it's all providential. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_114&oldid=1140648417"