User talk:Drmies/Archive 116

Archive 110

←

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

→

Archive 120

Please let me know what I did wrong

Drmies, I think you said you're an admin in the user complaint filed against me. If you check my page, I did make obvious editing errors, which were pointed out to me, as I had no experience editing a controversial article. That was just the first day. I acknowledged my mistakes and have not committed any further violations that I'm aware of. You did mention I should change my title, and that there's something I wrote that should be deleted. I really don't want to break the rules. Can you please let me know what's wrong or what I'm violating?

Another issue: I hope you saw the part where O3000 referred to me as "extremely arrogant" and Slaterstevens said I "lack self awareness". Drmies, I know you disagree with my interpretation of NPOV, but these people seem to be after me for that reason. Please don't assume that everything they said is true, as you can confirm it. Haven't they violated civility? I also found this. I don't want these users going around defaming my account. Thanks --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

My 2p. As a new editor you seem to be working in high-angst areas of WP, where regular, experienced editors often fear to tread. I would say that these areas cause these kinds of reactions frankly. There is a terrible place, which I strongly advise you do not visit, Wikipedia:ANI, where these struggles, arguments, anger, sometimes outright insanity is starkly displayed. You need to learn your craft first, do some minor editing in less controversial areas, and basically get yourself known. A mentor may be of help. Irondome (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Those remarks don't add up to personal attacks or violations of civility. "Extremely arrogant" a bit, maybe, but that's something adults should be able to handle. But your comment there, in that new thread, which is like 5000 words long with bold print and all, and it seems like you are trying to explain how everyone was wrong because you know the rules better--some might call that arrogant. If you want others to trust you in this collaborative environment you typically need to do good article work, or display great helpfulness in ANI or other places, that sort of thing. It won't come from belaboring a point on ANI. What I strongly suggest you do is figure out why I and others have issues with your comments about the article and the sources, or why that diff that I put on ANI is so problematic--because it is. Take care, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Not all opinions are equal. For instance, Irondome up here knows Polish beers. I don't. We could duke it out. I have a right to utter my opinion, but that doesn't make it as valid as Irondome's. I can maybe get some website to publish my opinion, but that doesn't help: if a website or magazine publishes my opinion (on this topic), it can hardly be a reliable source. So, first of all you can't find as many sources that say Jones is not a conspiracy theorist, once you weed out the unreliable sources. Second, you can't just say "well all those are Democrat associated", because that's just not true, and not a smart comment. If you believe that all those sources that don't print or reflect your opinion are Democratic (note the -ic), then you're probably this close to believing that it's all a conspiracy. And the beauty of conspiracies is that they explain everything. But on Wikipedia we can't play that game. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I didn’t say: “extremely arrogant”. Not the way I normally respond. I did say at AN/I where we discuss behavior: The user page does bother me as it’s remarkably arrogant for a new editor. I would suggest the editor quote more accurately. But, more importantly, Belgian beers are better. Priorities are important. OTOH, as I heard someone once (OK many times) post, there are good people on both sides. O3000 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I completely see the message of the first comment after mine. Of course, I'm a source of one of those angry reactions.––I will admit, the Democrat reference shouldn't have been made. That's an angry statement. But, I don't think it's completely fair to rate one's arrogance based on their novelty. You don't seem to care, or have much knowledge of my substance. I have done prob. 20 hours of editing in the past few days, while many would probably take two months. No one would complain about someone who's been editing for two months for the same reason. I fumbled at first, but I attempted to clarify. I have obtained decent relationships with the people I fumbled with. Then, I tried obtaining consensus for edits I was proposing. I stated that most sources that talk about Infowars do not refer to it as fake news. A small minority do. As per the NPOV, they should be proportionately represented. I said it should be changed to "is often regarded as fake news" or similar. If two other users on the Alex Jones TP argued the same thing, how am I being arrogant?––The several users then tried to counter my arguments with obvious ignorance of the links I had provided for them. (I mean they didn't even have knowledge that I had put sources there.) I would most strongly like to make the point that you complained that my "5000 word long" thread tried to "claim everyone is wrong" is "arrogant". You are a moderator, and have decided to prejudge and explain the content of a complaint that you have not even begun to read.––Perhaps my problem is assuming good faith in others and not being the first one to file an arbitrary complaint about someone who decided to disagree with me inside of their own user TP. Why can't we all be supportive and say something like "okay, I respect your view but do not consent"?--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not "prejudging"--I'm postjudging. The view you're asking me to respect basically asks me to do away with WP:RS. I can respect your effort, but that's something else. And believe me, I read enough of the complaint. Now, when this is over, consider changing your name please. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I already filed a change. Sorry O300, I should've quoted you more accurately. But, don't get people so heated. And yes, I don't think you're bad people. I just want to make my point. Maybe you guys should get off that Belgian stuff and start drinking some Sleeman Clear. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good start. At ANI I said that you jumped into the deep end of the pool (a controversial BLP) before learning to swim. Not totally your fault as you didn’t understand what you jumped into. The problem was that when the lifeguards jumped in to help you, you fought them off. Look at my talk page and you will see that I tried to help. Others tried to help on your talk page. But, you appear to be consumed by the fact that you know the “truth”. No one knows the truth. There really is no such thing, outside of pure logic. There is only verifiability. Your reaction was to attack everyone that tried to help. This a is known as the 285th rule of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.[1]. Don’t worry about it. We’re used to it and don’t hold grudges against those that chose to learn. O3000 (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Property Theft, I think you are WP:HERE, and would make a good colleague, when you change that name and strictly take to heart WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I see you are building bridges with those who you perceived to have been your 'enemies' (my use of scare quotes). They ain't. WP attracts people who are naturally independent, free thinkers from a wide variety of standpoints, although the community does not tolerate Neo-Nazis or those who are basically nihilists, who wish to distrupt for the lolz. 'We' tend to be strong minded individualists, who stick to WP guidelines so the whole thing doesn't implode. We do that out of enlightened self-interest I suppose. If WP fell apart we would be forced to publish books or get a job. (joke alert). I think you need a WP:MENTOR to guide you till you are able to deal with this odd place. I will mentor you if you want for a couple of months, till you find your feet. O3000, Belgium beer which is good is Leffe, and the Abbey beers which I would like to explore. Stella is bitter over-hopped nastiness :) Try Polish mead, Perla do a nectar of the G-d's, pure 7% honey. My great great grandmother on my grandmother's side used to brew the families mead supply. That was in 1890's east London. Does Belgium have a mead? I'm interested. Peace, and that goes for you all :) Irondome (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Damn, I just read the Nihilism article, and it makes it sound like such a bad thing. I’m a Manhattanite (which now has an absurd number of craft beers) and don’t really understand Belgian beers – you caught me. I have visited Brussels many times and traveled by car betwixt Belgium and Germany. I liked the Belgian beers because I could drink them with alacrity and still wake in the morn and attend meetings. I did take a tour of the Artois brewery once. Turned me off beer for a time. Like sausage, better eating them if you don't watch them made. O3000 (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, O3000. London beers are great too, and I am fortunate to live less than 3 miles from the Fuller's Brewery. Damn they make good brews! And they do guided tours, and they have a pub more or less on site which serves up all their beers and ales. If you are ever planning a London trip, email me :) Irondome (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop torturing me, Ethel. We can get Fuller's bottled over here but it's just not the same as a pint of ESB drawn fresh from the tap. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Just get your arse over here SBHB. I can put up 3 in my flat, and a daytime session in that place is worth the airfare Irondome (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Not to interrupt the beer discussion, but thanks for the kind an informing posts. O3000, you too, but I just can't resist but to slightly and kindly part from your statement that there are no truths. In logic, maybe. But it seems there must be a truth in how to correctly interpret WP policy, such as NPOV. In my interpretation, if there are a few out of many sources calling something something, there is no obligation to list the minority. You might as well list the majority. Nothing in NPOV says you MUST list the ones that use the most negative terms. Anyway, I guess we're mostly passed it, but I personally don't mind long-lasting debates. Maybe I'm wrong. And although I try to eventually recognize and appreciate everyone's help, it's a bit hard to when they're feeding info to a new user the same way a Ferengi mother feeds food to her children (referring to some other users.) Irondome, regarding you as a mentor, I appreciate the offer. I'm unsure how active on WP I'll be in the next few weeks, but I'll let you know. That would be great. I'd appreciate help or info anytime from anyone here. :) --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You did not demonstrate a majority of sources do not call them that, you demonstrated some sometimes do not. This is the core of my issue with you. Please try to understand that you need to prove your case, and 4 or 5 sources do not a majority make (when I can find 4 or 5 sources that call it fake news). As I said most sources do not call the sea wet, that does not mean most sources disagree it is wet.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources which dispute that it pushes fake news are invariably unreliable sources we can't use here. Unfortunately, we have editors who imbibe such sources and then cause problems here, since the very foundation of Wikipedia is based on the use of RS, and editors who don't use RS in their own personal lives live in a misinformation bubble. That creates a conflict between their personal POV and the basis of all editing here, and thus they are constantly trying to undermine proper editing here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 09:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Lets be clear, he never found one source that says it was not fake news (and admitted he could not). The argument was that because some sources did not call it fake news that meant we could not say it was fake news (because not everyone called it fake news).Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It's also a strange argument. That's not how we do things here. If RS say it, then it may have potential as content. If it's controversial, then even more so, and the stronger the statement, the better, because it's good to document the clear facts and opinions out there, while the weaker, vague, or inconsequential ones can be safely ignored. If it's a WP:BLP matter, then we follow WP:PUBLICFIGURE, IOW we should include the strong statements, but with care (attribution, phrasing, denials, sourcing, etc.). -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 09:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that argument (in this case) is "According to (we then list all of the sources that have called it fake news) fake news". Even "widely" or "Mostly" is weazzle wording when it is the vast (if not the) majority of sources that call it fake news. This is not a NPOV issue, it may be a BL issue, yet I do not recall Jones denying it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• It's late--seems I missed a party. Went out to the sticks with the kids to try and see some Perseids, but it's too cloudy. Sipping on a Monkeynaut. Shout out to all the African-American brewers; move over and make some room, white hipsters. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Monkeynaut..outstanding. Great idea and a good IPA by the look. That is a fascinating article as well Dr. Nazi's would say I am not a 'white man' (WTF?) and the ultra-left would say i'm white privileged so don't count as a persecuted minority worthy of solidarity with (WTF?) so It would seem i'm fucked :). Irondome (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have received my new username. --GDP Growth (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

A better choice. Let me know when you want to discuss mentoring. No pressure, as I understand you may be off-and on WP over the next few weeks. Just drop me a post on my T/P. Irondome (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems there has been some more talk here about my opinion. I welcome it. I'm not sure how Drmie feels about this long a thread, but feel free to come talk about it on my TP as to not take up too much space on Drmie's TP. For now, I will state a response here.–––––––First of all, BullRangifer, I appreciate your constructive criticism. I was not familiar with those (good) guidelines. With that said, I did not want to remove the "fake news" statement. I wanted to re-word it to say "often regarded as", or something similar. Just something not in WP's voice, as stated in NPOV. I am a new user, so I acknowledge I'm more likely to be wrong than most people, but I did read the NPOV very thoroughly. (There is also this, which I should have brought up, as "fake news" is defined as a neologism by WP and others.)––––––––Slatersteven, you said "This is the core of my issue with you." Therefor, I think I can convince you. Here are other sources in addition to the three that do not label Infowars with the term "fake news": [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. That's eight against four or five; the majority. --GDP Growth (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Orval Faubus

Dear Drmies (aka MrDemeanour)?

On the topic of Orval Faubus, I've only had discussions with MrDemeanour, but in another forum Drmies believes I have unfounded claims. Drmies goes on with some sporting or commentary that I do not understand (Auburn/Tide) and then goes on to critique me. I can forgive the animosity, but let's just stick to the facts.

Regarding this content: As a child, Faubus had a father who explained that "capitalism was a fraud and that both poor whites and blacks were its victims." This was likely the catalyst to his radical left-wing ideas. You are opposed to the word "left-wing" and so you removed the entire content?

Let's discuss:' Faubus was a Democrat/Dixiecrat: both were left wing. Segregation was radical back in Faubus' day.

One thing is for sure: Orval Faubus resisted integration (and he used propaganda): https://www.britannica.com/biography/Orval-Eugene-Faubus

Would it be more agreeable to remove the word "radical" or are you saying he was not a leftist?

Please clarify.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, You can't rewrite history: Faubus did not "take a stance against desegregation." In fact, he was a Democrat who stood for segregation. He was a segregationist who blocked integration at every opportunity and it took Republican President to stop him.

Here are the citations indicating that clearly Oral Faubus was a segregationist: http://www.blackpast.org/1958-governor-orval-e-faubus-speech-school-integration https://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/15/obituaries/orval-faubus-segregation-s-champion-dies-at-84.html https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/central-high-school-integration http://time.com/3258196/integration-little-rock/

He resisted integration (which means he wanted to segregate): https://www.britannica.com/biography/Orval-Eugene-Faubus

As an aside, I’ve noted that you’ve followed my brief time here on Wikipedia in several diverse areas and I'd like to remind you of the following: WP:Overzealous deletion WP:TENDENTIOUS SDSU-Prepper (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Let's see. you're arguing he didn't take a stance against desegregation; he stood for segregation. Aight. Then you say he "blocked desegregation"--sounds a lot like "he took a stance against desegregation", no? Was he a leftist? Do we have any evidence for this, or is this just you throwing everything to the left of whatever on one big heap? Dixiecrats were leftists? No, dixiecrats were Democrats, of a very specific kind. There's nothing left-wing about that. I don't know why you are wasting your time arguing that this dude was a segregationist. Only a fool would doubt that. And that "as a child" sentence of yours, that's pure original research. I don't know where you get that stuff from, it's not in the article, and it doesn't matter, since it means nothing; in fact, our article says he rejected his father's radicalism. Finally, "several diverse areas"--you had only one area. The stuff you did on Antifa is the same stuff you tried to pull in the Faubus article: tarring and feathering anything that doesn't align with your political beliefs. But that's just my opinion, dude. Now, are we done? I don't need to see you here anymore: your posts take up too much space. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I made this [7] suggestion a few days ago, but was assured by that editor that they had not one but two degrees from SDSU, so I guess they showed me. Then they wanted to argue with me about how U.S. Grant went back in time and militarily defeated the Confederacy while President [8] [9]. So much for the Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

River of Blood (monument). Drmies (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh. You're blocked, or so MrDemeanour tells me--he's sitting right across from me, crocheting a Soviet flag for our upcoming march in Washington. MrDemeanour, which side are we on? The side that supports the president's policies but is racist (with KKK and alt-right support), even though the president self-identifies as the least racist person ever? Or the side that is explicitly anti-racist, even though it is accused of being aligned with the KKK via the "Democrat" party and engages in domestic terrorism, according to no evidence at all? Very confusing. How about we just bake a cake and go to the pool party this afternoon? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Crocheting? That is so petite bourgeoisie! (Also, where do all the alt-right whitewashers come from? They seem to be swarming - or maybe crawling - all over the encyclopedia of late.) --bonadea contributions talk 17:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    • MrDemeanour (whom I've known since birth, obviously, since we're twins) gets that from his aunt. Underneath is a mean streak, though: they do not take kindly to what they call "gibberish", but I guess that comes with the territory (high school English teacher...). Drmies (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Followed some clues from my detective bag. And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!,That ol’ Betsy Ross..." [10] O3000 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well now I'm confused. Does your Soviet flag represent Bolshevik values (Helen Keller said she was a Bolshevik, by the way) and are you going to be singing L'Internationale? Or does it represent solidarity with Putin and his oligarch cronies? Or is it subtle irony in support of the Mueller Russian investigation? And what will you be wearing? This all matters. Softlavender (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL Irondome (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anymore, Softlavender. They want me to trust Putin's steely eyes but not the taxpayer-funded FBI. They want me to believe everyone is a pedophile, but not the one who talks about how hot his daughter is. Apparently the prez has survived 12 assassination attempts. The Democratic Party is the same as that of Reconstruction, they say, though it's obvious to anyone that the Ds and the Rs have switched position on all those issues in the South. I could go on; the disconnect is real. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Help needed on Persian people

Hi. I have come across some user who appears to be engaged in an edit war on the Persian people article. After I undid Mithraeum’s addition of an image that I found misrepresented and unneeded, they restored their edit, telling me not to “remove images without citation” (whatever that is supposed to mean) and “follow rules or face repercussions”, and then I received this email:

[snip]

In an earlier edit, they removed an image from the same gallery because they thought it was a replica, but then added a reconstruction of the Alexander Sarcophagus themself—which I think is alright but contrary to their own activities.
I was wondering if you could help with this. Thanks in advance.
—Rye-96 (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Great Dane, if you're not too busy, what do you make of this? Like, this? I'm troubled by it--but I also got a few things I need to finish right now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Puzzling! Why would we want to include a 20th century painting in that gallery? More puzzling: sideburns? Favonian (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wait. I didn’t know I couldn’t share emails here. Should I also remove the email content from the talk page of the Persian people article? And does that mean it doesn’t count at all?..
  —Rye-96 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I played it safe (see Wikipedia:Emailing_users#Reposting_emails_publicly) and I suppose Black Kite agrees with me--thank you BK. Evidence from emails should always be handled privately, just to make sure--in my opinion. You can email them to an admin, or to ArbCom. In this case, sure it "counts", but I didn't have time to look at it, which is why I asked Favonion. I see that the editor didn't much appreciate the comments on their talk page; I'll look again later. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

jfyi: [11]. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I just noticed that some part of the email content has also been censored on that talk page (and why). What’s funny is that I have already shared my You-Know-What on my user page.
—Rye-96 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Ponsi

In the middle of building page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Ponsi was changed because according to: "Editor's summary: /* Buildings */ weren't notable by themselves" In the process of documenting "by secondary sources" with references, however, however, these were wiped out! Instead of sending a note, the whole section of "Buildings" was erased by an architect and was replaced by "Gallery"...!?! Gallery of what?

I think that a note or a talk would have been better than the presumptuous note that the buildings "were not notable by themselves"... ovA_165443 16:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• That buildings are notable by our standards is easily proven by the existence of an article on those buildings. At the very least there should be serious secondary sources verifying the claim. "Gallery"--you yourself inserted a gallery (with one picture), so the change of header is pretty much a given. That it's in the process etc.--well, you could start with those secondary sources. As it is, you were compiling a resume. And something similar applies to the other article, which is excessive in many ways, including all the different sections that are basically just linkdumps. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I see, ok! ovA_165443 00:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) |}

Squat Theatre External Links Erased

This has become uninteresting. Take it to the article talk page please. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squat_Theatre Please explain links are not 1) external 2) important 3) needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osvaldo valdes 165443 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC) ovA_165443 16:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC) From wilipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links "" The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."" How do you fit in???? ovA_165443 20:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I've been asked that question before and don't have a good answer for it. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Eva Buchmuller and Klara Palotai of Squat Theatre are aware of this page and of the External Links, they approved them! If you have no reason for blasting them out the wiki universe why did you do it? You can always put the back... ovA_165443 00:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't need approval from article subjects. Since you are obviously in touch with them, one wonders about your connection. Do you have a conflict of interest? How did they contact you, or did you contact them? Did they provide you with links, articles, money? Drmies (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) A-you are going break the pretension meter....you are not "wikipedia" and I don't understand your question...can you explain? conflict of interest? money? B-You still have not explained yourself...you're changing the subject! ovA_165443 00:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC) No I am not. We move along naturally, though I'll be happy to drop in a few more things: please don't reformat talk page posts, and when you leave messages, stick to our format: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Technical_and_format_standards. Now, what those people think of our article is of no interest whatsoever, which is why I'm not wasting any more time on it. That you are in contact with them means you are in contact with them, which (again) suggests you may have a conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) hu? I suggest you get off your high horse, go back in the conversation and explain: "don't have a good answer for it" bc it is not an answer...don't you have better things to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osvaldo valdes 165443 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Pity you didn't answer the question. I put a COI tag on the article; that seems warranted. As for "don't have a good answer for it", that was in response to "how do you fit in", which I thought was an odd question, but it deserved an honest answer. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) "" The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."" So, yes, how do you fit in? You never answered how you fit in if it is MY burden to provide justification. you just talk about everything else and avoid the subject at hand! And..."you didn't answer the question. I put a COI tag " I did work on that. Your point was taken, but, back to the subject of the thread...WHY did you remove the external links?????? ovA_165443 01:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Well, you didn't provide justification. You keep not signing messages. You keep not answering how you are in touch with the article subjects. Your English is not good enough to ask and answer questions, or to understand answers when they are given to you. You don't seem to understand that your links were essentially a kind of spamming; I doubt you ever read the EL guideline. So take it to the article talk page, which is where this belonged since the beginning. Also, you keep making mistakes, and correcting them afterward; a clear sign you don't use preview. That means that every time I try to respond I get an edit conflict, which is bothersome. So I'm bored with it. Goodbye. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Lafargue DYK I put some hooks up on the page--I know you were interested in seeing some, so I'm letting you know in case you wanted to take a look. Cheers, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 07:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC) BLP violations You might want to take a look at Praytheearth - I just came across this while reviewing pending changes at Boogie2988 but the BLP violations are reasonably serious in terms of linking to defamatory accusations made by ex-girlfriends on personal YouTube videos, and there are some violations also about the ex girlfriend like [12] that might need to be redacted.Seraphim System (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Why does that dude even have an article? I see nothing whatsoever that resembles a claim to or proof of notabilty. John from Idegon (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC) @John from Idegon: Inclined to agree, I've nominated it for AfD.Seraphim System (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks. I did some scrubbing and explained at the AfD. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) THE GLOBAL INVEST and socks It appears that you deleted THE GLOBAL INVEST a few minutes ago as G3. I think there is sockpuppetry, because User:Minhasaim submitted an empty draft with the same title within the past few minutes. I can't check the history. Whoever created the one that you deleted is probably socking. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Hmm there's a blocked user in the history of the other article they edited, a username block, as well. Thanks; I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Why did you delete my sandbox? You've deleted my sandbox & I can't understand why you needed to do this. (talk • contribs) 05:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC) MAN LIKE MARZ (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC) This sandbox looks ok to me, like a user preparing wikitables to put into articles. I'd say one thing though, User:MAN LIKE MARZ, individual goal lists are not usually put into player articles, so you might want to think about that. Black Kite (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I simply use the sandbox for myself to keep track of the current Preston squad's goals for personal enjoyment. Is that not the point of it being a "User Sandbox"? MAN LIKE MARZ (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC) No it isn't. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC) No. If you're preparing material to go into articles etc., then that's fine. If you're using it as a personal sandbox, then that fails this policy on using Wikipedia as a web host. Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean P. Jackson The creator of the article in question just moved it back to Draft:Sean P. Jackson. Any objection if I close the AfD with a note that the sole contributor has withdrawn it back to draft space? —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I saw you did, C.Fred, and I'm fine with it, but the larger issue (of promotion, and/or self-promotion) is still there. Had the article gotten a clear delete that would have answered one question, perhaps, for the editor. As it is, their comment shows they still don't know what we do here and how we do it; outright deletion might have indicated to them that the person wasn't notable--but obviously you were working with the facts as they were before you, the article having been moved back. We just need to keep an eye on that editor, and it may well be that they end up being blocked for promotion anyway. Thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC) C.Fred, it seems I missed a lot of the action on User talk:Sjacksonn01 that followed your closure of the AfD and your subsequent comments. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I guess I took the move to draft as a mild concession: they were saying they haven't made clear that the subject is notable, so they'll work on it some more and try to resubmit. That's why I left the closing message I did. However, based on their 17:09 comment today, they may not be long for editing the article, whether it be topic ban or block. I just saw that comment myself. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Yep. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC) A cry for your expertise To mop or not to mop, that is the question. (Hamlet, Act III scene I) Dear Mr. Administrator, Considering your expertise on which users are "trolls" and which discussions are "finished", I would also be interested in your expert opinion on the following issue: - The article Fox News mentions many times the (conservative) bias of this media outlet, which is supported by, among others, an article from the website of CNN; - The article CNN has no mentioning whatsoever of its (liberal) bias, despite the availability of a variety of reliable sources for seth bias. On the talk page of CNN there have been some users who shed light on this, seemingly, double standard, but all these discussions are closed now by you -- with the argument, and I quote, "I'm an administrator--sorry, i can do these kinds of things", while at the same time calling me, one of the users that drew attention to this matter, a, and I quote again, "troll". Possibly, the (evident) double standard missed your attention, in which case I would request you to re-consider your previous actions and re-open the discussion about CNN's bias on the talk page of CNN. Kind regards, Reedseque (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC) There's plenty in the archives, most recently this, Talk:CNN#Left-leaning_Liberal_Bias. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC) BTW, much of the section you pointed to included edits by Mr. Daniel Plainview, a long time sock problem (and even a possible origin of a recent sock). I considered sockstriking the edits. But I was heavily involved, it was closed anyhow, and thought it would make a mess of the thread. Not certain the correct procedure in such circumstances. (Pardon the imagery.)O3000 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah you can strike through everything, but that's a lot of work. One wonders if anyone has discovered anything interesting about this brand-new user. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Well, if you're talking about the recently blocked sock, he wasn’t given enough rope for a positive id. But, I think you guys satisfied his inclination for erotic asphyxiation. (I won't add an image for that.) Ah, if you meant our new friend, just another guy who knows the truth™. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Jeffman12345 Please revoke TPA. That was really fast :) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 04:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah. *yawn* Drmies (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Someone like your userpage [13] ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 04:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Ugh. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Demotion You obviously lack impulse control. Don't try to strong arm other users or your admin rights will be demoted and you will be banned from making edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithraeum (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) @Mithraeum: You should really try backing up for a bit, tell yourself that the other editors are trying to help the site, and think about how to approach this with the perspective that this is a collaborative project. Negotiate instead of bullying while accusing others of bullying. Threatening people (especially when you don't really have policy backing those threats) only makes you look like the bad guy. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Also, edit warring against the WP:STATUSQUO doesn't help either. Wait until there's a consensus that includes more than you on the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Ian.thomson Check my talk page, he is been pretty much vandalizing it for no reasons. They're trying to censor content for political motivations and this guy is just playing along. I haven't done anything wrong to back down, its him abusing admin privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithraeum (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC) 1. Drmies isn't censoring or abusing anything. 2. They're not going to be demoted or be banned from making edits. 3. You should read the Law of holes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC) @Mithraeum: I did check. You're not in a position to view what's going on objectively. You keep approaching this with the assumption that everyone but you is editing in bad faith, which is the opposite of one of the foundational site principles (one that must be followed or else the entire project is a waste of time). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Question: Would this demotion involve a pay cut? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC) My pay gets halved all the time. Or doubled. Same effect either way. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC) You know what? You deserve a 4x increase in pay! I'll see it gets done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Why do we tolerate people like this? What do you suppose the odds are that they are going to learn to play well with others? 1%? Less? How many editor-hours is this person going to chew up? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC) WP:ROPE. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Seems like a bad deal. We let you disrupt, harass, and insult for a longer time, and in return, you will complain when you're banned the same as if we'd done it 2 weeks earlier. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I agree. Waste of time. Delaying the almost certain inevitable. BTW, there's a small amount of abusive IP socking by the user. Not enough for me to block on that basis, but, with the rest, it certainly supports an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I didn't block them the first time cause they had such a cool username. For those blocks you don't get the bonus check. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: check the Talk:Persian People page as well. The image is being removed for no reason. I have simply copied an image from another Wikipedia article, but unfortunately due to the open source nature of this platform, mob mentality prevails. None of the people commenting on that talk page have any substantive reasons for removing the content other than strong arming another user. If this isnt resolved, I will definitely follow up with a bona fide wiki authority. Can't have bunch of clowns abusing admin privileges. Mithraeum12:29, 16 August 2018 (EST) I have "demoted" Mithraeum instead, by means of an indefinite block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Having read through the entire mess, I was about to make my quarterly administrative contribution when I noticed you beat me to it, with more flair than I would. Oh well. See you all in November or something. MLauba (Talk) 16:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I love a Disney ending. Softlavender (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Sent you an e-mail, Drmies, about an editor harassing people Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Lolifan (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you. I'm on it. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Lolifan, I looked over it but without any evidence of actual on-wiki harassment there is little I can do. Besides, if you do have such evidence, it is probably better to email it directly to ArbCom: they are better equipped to handle those kinds of things than me. If you have such evidence, ArbCom is your next step. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Questions about reversion and deletion of my content You recently reverted edits I made on two pages: Wisconsin Department of Transportation and Tennessee Department of Transportation. In both cases your comment was only "You need better sourcing than that." I am just curious about what you found insufficient with the sources I cited. Additionally, you nominated my user sandbox for deletion. You comment on the deletion discussion page, "Can't really figure out what this is, but at least it looks like a violation of some copyright guidelines, and etc.", confuses me. I would like to know what specifically violates copyright and ultimately why a sandbox would be nominated for deletion. I would appreciate if you could clarify these for me. Thank you. Knoah [ User ][ Talk ] 00:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Hello Knoah. For the sandbox, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For the Wisconsin article, the sourcing actually might be acceptable and I don't object to a revert, but for the Tennessee page, half the content is sourced to a "franklinhomepage". Such "controversy" content should really have bigger sources than that, and in the TN article it seems you're alleging corruption--otherwise I don't know what that second section is supposed to do. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC) August 2018 This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Not acceptable. Reedseque (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC) First a demotion, now a block. Whatever will you be threatened with next? Loss of paid vacation? Docking of rations? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC) No don't dock the rations again. I can't live on 5 grams of coffee a week. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah, it was so awful, you tried percolating the cat.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I believe the proper escalation after being demoted and then blocked is to be mocked by a Frenchman with an outrageous accent. I fart in your general direction! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC) cat protection and coffee ration person here (you say 5 grams a week, why not put the cat out? Wikipedia:Service awards‎... ?), you have no fart in your direction, the distance is too far to reach you... JarrahTree 14:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC) cat flung out and dispensed, sorry to have tainted the landscape JarrahTree 15:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Hmm does that explain that there's another cat across the street now, the spitting image of our own Toasty the cat? Drmies (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Range block Think you might want to revoke talk access for that range - [14]. Home Lander (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Oh I thought I'd let them whine a bit about trans this and Asian that and Marxist whatever. Ha, it's always funny to hear incompetent writers whine about English professors. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Large birds You might want to keep an eye on your userpage, in case it gets any funny ideas about joining a flightless-bird revolution.[15] DMacks (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Hmm that could be dangerous. Thanks. I should do something about that userpage, one of these days. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Sharon Pincott Hey Drmies, Something weird is going on at Sharon Pincott - it looks like a raft of WP:SPAs have created a puff piece. I started cleaning it up and started a discussion on the talk page which resulted in 19 reversions of my edits to the article. I'm wondering if you might lend an eye. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah, Arnie1000 needs to slow down. That was indeed a puff piece. I left them a note--I hope they pay attention, since we both know how these cases frequently end. You've done some fine pruning; I hope you're not done. ;) Drmies (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC) 22:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Please can I ask: Is Swister Twister not a seasoned editor? It is that user who approved format and content intially, and guided the creation of the page, and the initial approval of the page, extensively. Thanks Drmies. Let's close this discussion here and continue it on User talk:Arnie1000 as I've done on my talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Climax Blues Band Apologies for the childish antics. When will I have the opportunity to set the record straight for Climax Blues Band? Thestormbrewer (talk page watcher) Hi Thestormbrewer Just a few general comments. Wikipedia's role is not to set the record straight; article content is only intended to reflect what reliable sources (preferably secondary and independent ones) are saying about a particular subject. Please read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs for more on this. If reliable sources start covering the matter in question, then it might be possible for such content to be added to the relevant article as long as it's done in accordance with any other relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Something appears to be out of sorts with your signature, not only on Drmies talk page but on other pages as well. Are you following the suggestions made in Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts? The easiest way to sign your posts would be to add four tilde (~~~~) at the end. This will add your username and a time stamp to the end of your posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC) 47.60.50.206 and JamesOredan Hi. Am I just seeing things or is 47.60.50.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) JamesOredan evading his block? It seems to me WP:DUCK applies. Kleuske (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Celebrity Big Brother UK 2018 S22 I don't understand. Channel 5 don't do much it Endemol as they cerate the show, the deliver the show to Channel 5, they do most of the work. Channel 5 just sit in an office and say yes and no to things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slindsell15 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC) I don't understand either. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC) At Elstree (where the house is) they have all their production team and everything they need to put the show on channel 5. They would have to know the rating for each episode more or less straight away, that's how the team find out if their ideas are giving strong or not so strong views. If they don't have the ratings they don't know how well their show is doing. Channel 5 don't really do anything other than sort the bill out and air the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slindsell15 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC) I still don't really know all that you're saying, but all of it doesn't matter: such information needs to come from independent, secondary sources, and that's really all there is to it. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC) what I was trying to say is endemol are the production company so they will have the overnight ratings aswell as channel 5. So it is a valid source. Anyway if wiki really don't use sources like that than fine but i'm very surprised. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slindsell15 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Slindsell15, I know what Endemol is, and I know that they will probably know the ratings. But you may benefit from learning the difference between primary and secondary sources. Moreover, why would you think that they would be truthful in their tweets? That this surprises you surprises me: it is one of the basic rules for writing an encyclopedia that aims to be neutral. And will you PLEASE sign your messages? I asked you once already. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC) The Little Nigar 2 22 August Happy birthday C.D. Remember the dog food ad? I need an admin to move this Debussy-related hook to the full queue 4 for tomorrow, the composer's birthday, complementing the TFA, - only a few hours to go. It's under the special occasion hooks. I hate to push but am sure that our readers will not understand if we bring it a few days later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Oh I'm sorry Gerda, but you'll have to ask someone who isn't pressed for time and who knows what they're doing... Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC) I asked several. Those who know what they are doing give up now. Perhaps someone is left and watches? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Alex Shih did it! - This is quite a musical week: Debussy 22 (TFA), Bernstein centenary 25, Vaughan Williams dead 70 years 26 (TFA). Will write about compositions every day, o clap your hands! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you and all who helped here with The Little Nigar who joined his creator on the main page on the composer's birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Ha, I saw the title pop up in class--I was showing my Freshman Comp class the front page, which led us to Debussy. I gave you a shoutout cause we looked at the FA review, and you're the first one there. My one German student didn't seem to know who Bach was. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC) You'll shout louder for my contribs to the peer review ;) - I am so proud that I omitted one word on both occasions. Today's little gift: pour le piano. What do you think, should the DYK perhaps center on the pictured lady? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Today's gift is 13 Anniversaries, for the composer born OTD 100 years ago. Today's request is to insert the above link in Q2 for tomorrow, O clap your hands to O clap your hands (Vaughan Williams). You - or someone watching - will manage, I am sure. I will clap my hands. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC) references for further reading on Manhattan project man only i need something of a source to read further that Manhattan project actually engaged in active combat in france and italy offensives. Galib x360 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC) Instead of inserting unnecessary comments/tags in the infobox of a Featured Article, you could have asked one of its authors or left a note on the talk page. Or you could have read the article, and then you would have learned that the Manhattan Project was a bunch of science and technology building a bomb, not anything that would strap on boots and go into combat. Also, my name is Drmies--not "man", which is questionable. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC) Sweet, and supportive Hi Drmies, this is actually quite sweet and supportive of you for the candidate. Thought I'll leave my appreciation here. Best, Lourdes 15:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC) You may have seen a note on the talk page where I complain about a question that seems designed to trip the candidate up. I prefer to try and do things the other way. Thanks for the note; I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC) Books & Bytes – Issue 29 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes Issue 29, June – July 2018 New partners Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts Wikimania Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update Global branches update Bytes in brief Hindi, Italian 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) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC) ANI Notice There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC) And the discussion is closed (maybe too quickly?) both at ANI and at the Teahouse. Of the whole lot, [16] was the only one I saw that was troubling; telling vandals to "fuck off" may be discouraged but isn't too concerning, and telling people to put unsourced gossip on Facebook should be encouraged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Too quickly? I don't know. Let the process have its course. At least the old boomerang was avoided. As for that "fuck off", well. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC) The Setting the Bar Low Barnstar The Setting the Bar Low Barnstar I am awarding this barnstar to you in recognition of the fact that you don't irritate me. Now, one might think that that criterion is setting the barnstar bar pretty low, as for a high jump bar. Unfortunately, around here it's actually setting the bar low as for a limbo bar, which is setting the bar very high indeed. Thanks for being a pleasant oasis. Disclaimer: There really aren't many people who irritate me. (I can only think of one right now.) But you were simply due for a barnstar. Feel free to interpret this as a "thanks for being an all-around good person" barnstar. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC) I do prefer not irritating you, Mandarax. We're all going the way of the dinosaurs anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Wow Cullen getting chewed out by Dear Leader. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Jimbo is shooting his mouth off without understanding the depth and breadth of the tendentious editing. I respect the guy but will not cower before him. Curtains can be pulled back, after all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Pinging Jimbo Wales in the spirit of fairness. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC) I commented on your talk, Cullen. I thought wow two other places: My nomination for RD of Dieter Thomas Heck was declined as too late, only because I thought I better update before nominating. - On Biblical criticism, a user's first FAC, we see editing that seems not helpful, to put it mildly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you, Gerda Arendt. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Michael Hardy's comments struck me as rather similar to some of the claims made here, where an editor's position that discussions of the reliability of certain sources contained BLP violations was rejected by the community. As such I'm glad Cullen328 called out such an effort, and I hope Jimbo recognizes that forcing someone off his talk page when it's supposed to be a forum for community discussion isn't going to go well. Vanamonde (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC) so I whipsper (unrelated) that Talk:Who cares about post-promoted articles should be back to FA Volcano (South Park). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Y'all stayed up much later than I did. Don't talk too loud--Cullen is out on the West Coast, and at his age he needs all the sleep he can get. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC) An inexplicable reaction from the Dear Leader. Cullen328 Let's discuss it's response was measured, dignified and correct. Cullen is a class act. Irondome (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Does Wikipedia have an electioneering problem? You are as impartial an administrator as I've run across. Do you see a problem with this vs. this and this. Or this vs. this or this. Each edit may be justifiable in isolation, but there does seem to be a potentially concerning larger pattern of cheerleading vs. booing the Blue and Red "teams". Maybe that's just what 'Merica and Wikipedia have come to in the year of our Lord 2018, but your thoughts would be appreciated. Shatterpoint05 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC) (talk page gnome) Note: I deny that 2018 is my Lord.[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 20:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC) We got plenty of problems, that's for sure. I looked at the first two since that's all I can do right now. I suppose one can argue that both are valid--they're not the same thing. In the one there's actually a position change, whereas the other is an opinion by a media pundit. Still, I'm a bit surprised, since I thought that Snooganssnoogans had a pretty low level for inclusion, given this revert they made just the other day. Oh, this is of course fine too, though I had to think a bit about the edit summary. So, no I don't get what you get out of these edits, but that's OK. If you want to argue that this editor leans one way, I'm sure you can, but the thing is their edits by themselves fall squarely within Wikipedia guidelines, and there's those who lean the other way, also editing within guidelines, balancing it all out. At least that's the principle of it! I still think (another pipe dream) that we should stop following the newspapers and not be so eager to stick it all in. Olympics and football games, sure, those can do with immediate updating, but we're way too news-oriented, IMO, and that brings in politics automatically. There is, however, no solution, not at this time, for this problem. The recent Sarah Jeong spat is a nice illustration, where just about everything in the system worked, with an unworkable situation as a result. There are six archives of the talk page already. And the problem there wasn't just the political teams; it was mostly all those other ones--a flood of Gamergate-style SPAs, for instance. We could always have more dictatorial oversight, but no one wants that, I hope. Thanks for your note. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I second that comment about relying on the news too much. <rant> A decent Wikipedia article is about 5000 words of prose; but a national political figure will get many times that number written about them every day, and if we just start including everything that RS report (as some people seem to want to for elections in the English-speaking world), our articles get flooded with recentist crap. Which means our bios aren't very good, but also that we get a ridiculous number of spinoffs that really aren't meaningful in the larger scheme of things: "Endorsements from individuals and organizations in the 2015 Canadian federal election": seriously? How is that of enduring value? We're an encyclopedia, not an archive. </rant> Vanamonde (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC) It was alleged here that Snoogans edits almost exclusively to add negative material to Conservative bios. I've just had a short look at his recent edits and it appears nothing has changed. I will note that all the edits are entirely within policy, so I guess there's nothing really to be done. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC) I would love a bit more reticence. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Alexander Shunnarah If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on Alexander Shunnarah requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. White Shadows Let’s Talk 23:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah, user:White Shadows, I got interrupted by a damn squirrel while I was typing it up, and before I could explain why he is notable. You like it better now? And to give you an idea of what we're talking about: [17]. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I think the article is definitely much better now. Definitely a bone-headed mistake on my part, and I should have noticed that you were the creator of the article. Something tells me you aren't likely to go around making stubs about completely non-notable topics. My apologies again, and it's great to run into you outside of RfAs!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Please don't apologize. Plenty of people think I write up crap anyway, haha. Anyway, IF YOU NEED ME, CALL ME ALABAMA. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Ryen Russillo I'm sorry my edits clog your inbox but jeez, at least I'm updating the article. (Yes, I will look in to using that feature.)Bdavid1111 (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC) I quite understand The question "where do you fit in?" is quite normal language in common usage here in the UK. It means to ask about your position within an organisation, in this case, wikipedia. On the other hand, though your command of English language is demonstrably better than my own, I believe you are perhaps not a native UKian? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC) As far as I am aware, User:Drmies hails from Alabama. Many english speakers do not reside in the UK, I have found. MrDemeanour (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) How do they pronounce "Gouda" in Alabama? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC) We need an audio file for this. MPS1992 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) Write it down, put it in front of a hog, and if they're willin', you'll find out. You might want to stand back, though. I don't think it hails much in Alabama. The jury's out on whether they speak English in Alabama.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Gotta be "goo-dah" (rhymes with "doo-dah"), rather than "how-dah," no? Geoff | Who, me? 18:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Okay, but how do they pronounce "doo-dah"? MPS1992 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Kind of like in this song as performed in this movie, of course. Geoff | Who, me? 19:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) It's Dutch, and, IIRC, they pronounce it hoo-dah, or something like that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) This gives me flashbacks to living in NYC (long before the internet) and not knowing how to pronounce gyro, which were sold on every corner. (Disclaimer: I still don't know, but at this point I no longer care.) Softlavender (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Same here. You're old, Softlavender? When I think of you, with your fluffy name, I think of a teenager, or a tween, whose biggest concern is whether to put her hair up or down, all carefree and innocent. With cats, and a Vespa. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC) My Greek restaurant owning relatives say gee-ros (hard g, long o). John from Idegon (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Statement from uninvolved Softlavender: In my opinion, nothing quite beats the horror of how they pronounce "Van Gogh" in the UK. Softlavender (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Well, according to Youtube the French pronounce the name as "Verncent vawn Gergogay". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Roxy, I know very well what you mean, and what the idiom is. But the user here wasn't trying to ask that, I believe; I don't think they were aiming at some existential, ethical, behavioral, moral, psychological, or otherwise introspective investigation--I think they were asking what the hell I was doing removing their external links. Please take Bbb23's commentary with a grain of salt: they are a millennial and part of our "new economy", which means no one knows what they're doing but they get better pay and health care than the rest of us. As for Van Gogh--he was a Limburger, or Brabander, whatever, and I'd denounce him and sell him to the Belgians if he wasn't such a god. I finally went to the VG museum in Amsterdam a couple of years ago and OMG it was really that amazing. Glane23, you win the internet tonight. AND SOMEONE TOOK OFF WITH MY BLAZING SADDLES ANNIVERSARY DVD AND LEFT ME THE BOX Drmies (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Millennial??? I'm a helluva lot younger than that. Roxy, don't do what he says. Salt is bad for your health. Just 'cause Drmies likes to eat bacon doesn't mean everyone has to ingest such unhealthy food. A votre sante.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC) I'm baconed out, and I didn't say anything about that. Sorry, Überadmin. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC) In the UK his name is pronounced Van Goff, which is right and proper. When I lived in Ramsgate, Van goff used to live just up the road from me, except that he was dead by then. There are actually two blue plaques, one in Royal Road, and one in Spencer Square, if I recall correctly. Royal road was an excellent road, leading to the harbour. Many eccentric people lived there. On the corner was the Artillery Arms, a pub from the early nineteenth century, where we used to get very drunk. Van Goff deffo used to get slashed in there too. John Le Mesurier would go in at lunchtime. He was just like Sergeant Wilson in real life. I hope this clarifies things for you all. Irondome (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC) VAN GOFF? WTF? GET OFF MY TALK PAGE Hey, I’m half (halgh) way through (throuff) writing an article on how GH sounds with one ear cut off and you’re messing up my research. Worse, someone at the Blazing Saddles article is insisting it’s fiction. O3000 (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC) This I believe is what Softlavender was alluding to. Now, of course I do not say Van Goff. But the painful fact is that most English people do not say Goah, with the soft h, as is correct. Being bloody lazy, they say Goff. I do not, but a lot do. It was nice living near to where Van Gogh lodged. Seriously magical vibe near that house. [18] Here is a good link which shows Van Gogh's presence in Ramsgate, where he lived, and works the area inspired him to do. Irondome (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC) DrM. The mother of one of my mates at primary school was from the Netherlands. She spoke the most neutral english English I have ever heard. It was a couple of years before I was convinced by her that she wasn't a native speaker. Then I heard her say "Gouda". Her dog was called "Vleck." It was a Dalmation. I've just now got it, fifty years later. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Haha, vlek--that's funny. There's a brand of jenever called "Vlek", and their slogan was "even een Vlekje wegwerken"--"getting rid of a little stain real quick". Drmies (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 11 years of editing Hey, Drmies. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 00:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC) WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT No need to get,surprised , some people have more than 12 years of experience. Kpgjhpjm 01:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC) DankerInformation Hi Drmies! I'm just messaging you to let you know that I updated the block information for this user. He also had another account (DankInformation) that he was also using to vandalize the same article (Gibsonburg High School) - both accounts are now blocked :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Ha, only now I see that those are different account names. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC) User talk:Dr.K. Sorry for interrupting but to what Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material did i contribute to? AlbusTheWhite (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC) You didn't. That was another editor, now blocked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Please undo your own edit Drmies, normally when someone removes a personal attack, we don't reinstate it before discussion. You have given your opinion on GW's talk page, but you are clearly focusing on the wrong part of her post. It would be (if you forgive the example, you can easily write a similar one about me) as if I now accused you of a "campaign of stupidity" because you were stupid in unbanning Guido den Broeder, and I claim you are doing something stupid now as well. But in this case, it is worse (well, I see misogyny as worse than stupidity). Fram (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC) ANI discussion I have started a discussion at WP:ANI#Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested. Fram (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Talk page access May the force of the bitterbal be with you... As far as I know, talk page access when blocked is only and only for discussing the present block. I am challenged over that and much to my annoyance I fail to find a policy, guideline or RfC about that. Can you (or your stalkers) point me in the right way? The Banner talk 07:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) You'll find a similar discussion here: [19] - the policy you're looking for doesn't exist, it's a relatively common misconception among some admins. MLauba (Talk) 08:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Revoking and restoring talk page access is discussed many times on WP:AN and WP:AN/I, so there should be proper base for the practice. If not, it should have been shot down there. The Banner talk 08:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) @The Banner: For what it's worth this is being discussed at ANI right now. I hope the next admin that steps into that minefield has better luck. SQLQuery me! 09:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC) I wouldn’t call it a misconception as much as a grey area. The current status quo is that it is done on a case-by-case basis per this discussion. How a review ends up at AN/ANI largely depends on who shows up/what was being done on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC) I read this as "admins are just fooling around with revoking talk page access until someone gets hammered over it". That is difficult to believe. The Banner talk 18:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Agreed Couldn't have said it better myself. On a slightly related note, based on my blocklog of late, the essay Wikipedia:Why we block Nazis appears to need to be written (Courcelles could also likely help pen a chapter of it.) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks. That was an odd series of comments. I've never worked with Courcelles as a writer, but check this out! Drmies (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)I have actually started offline work on an essay I had previously referred to as WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. The essay takes itself a bit more seriously than my off-the-cuff title. It's basically an explanation that white supremacists/white nationalists/nazis/identitarians/fascists/whatever hold fundamentally divisive and demonstrably beliefs, that many actions taken as a result of those beliefs are universally considered evil by anyone not sharing those beliefs and that a neutral encyclopedia has nothing good to say about those beliefs. I can post what I have if you guys are interested. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Agreed: NPOV does not mean that we give a space for Nazis to use server resources as a webhost for their symbols and views in user space (which is where it usually is an issue). Such actions are inherently disruptive and incompatible with the principles of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement, and we block for them. As a private website, we are free to kick people off for hate speech if we find it disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC) I've posted what I've written so far at User:MjolnirPants/nonazis. For the record, I only ever intended WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS to be a redirect. I think, Tony, that the title you preferred would be better. And I'd really like to get as many admins as possible to help with the essay, even if it's as simple as copyediting, just to show that it's endorsed by the corps of admins. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Move at Swimming at the 2014 South American Games – Women's 100 metre breaststroke ‎ Hi Drmies (and Drmies' talk page watchers). I'm wondering if someone who is more familiar with page moves might take a look at this edit. I'm not sure the name convention for these types of articles is to use title case capitalization for the race name (at least that doesn't seem to be the case for Category:Swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics), and it also seems that changing from "metre" to "meter" was not warranted per WP:RETAIN. The article is currently at AfD, so not sure how appropriate it would be just revert the move. Also, I'm going to add that even though this appears to have been done in good faith, the account which did it is only a few days old and appears to be using Twinkle to be focus on lots of administrative/maintenance edits. Perhaps this is not as uncommon as it seems to me, but most "newbies" don't seem to start out like this, do they? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC) It's definitely an improper move ("metre breaststroke" is where it should be). Now that the AFD is going, though, it might as well stay there until the discussion is closed, since it's more hassle than it's worth to revert while it's open. As for the nomination itself, it's not completely out of character (similar events have been redirected to their "parent game"), but in this case it's likely going to be speedy-kept. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Thanks Primefac for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Beer in Costa Rica Hi, I just noticed that you removed the list of beer breweries in Costa Rica back in Feb. 2018, and while I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory, I started those lists to keep track of the history of the local scene, and inspired by what I saw on other countries related articles (Beer in Japan and Beer in New Zealand for example). So, I'm somewhat disappointed that our country effort gets wiped so easily, while others stand. Would you remove the other countries' lists, or could we get back the one from Costa Rica, what would be your position? I agree the beer list is not really necessary, but the breweries were nice. Thanks. Roqz (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Roqz, I can't edit every single article. Please remove those kinds of lists anywhere you see them. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Roqz, I looked at a whole bunch of such articles, and very few of them had the kind of directories we're talking about. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC) about encyclopedic yeast extracts related to improving the encyclopedia whoa, you touched beer in Australia? - you must be bad - basic part of diet for lots of obese and diabetes stricken oz personsJarrahTree 00:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Ha, never had one--cause I suppose Foster's doesn't count! Drmies (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC) The last time this Australian saw a can of Fosters was in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC) I hope it was tasty. I had one of those big cans when I was in college, ages ago. It was better than Bud. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Well, that's not saying much... TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Sssht I was trying to be nice... Drmies (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC) There is a gigantic Budweiser brewery about six miles from where I live. Isn't a BLP violation to attack Bud? Ordinary working class people work there, after all. Plus, some Clydesdales perform there a few times a year. So, it could be a BLH violation as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Cullen, I never took you for a Bud Heavy man. It’s better than Natty Light, though. I’ll give it that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC) My main memory of beer in Australia is that it was really, really expensive, like a six pack was 2+ times more than the U.S. or western Europe. Is this because of sin tax or monopolistic business practices or what? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC) It's a backlash from Wake in Fright. Yes, the continent is so large that such things take decades. Not that I'm an expert on alcoholic beverages, nor know anything about them at all. I do wonder how the lede of that article avoids mentioning beer or alcohol at all. MPS1992 (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Thats fiction, reality is much worse, I was once (a very ling time ag) stuck in Marble Bar, Western Australia - the beer is the only thing to support survival JarrahTree 05:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I gag every time I even read the words "Vegemite" or "Marmite". Could someone please redact or change the title of this thread? Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC) what a bunch of gastronomic cretins - to have our secret weapons denied into binomial stupidity yeast extract - - one worded items confuse youall JarrahTree 04:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page gnome) BTW, nutritional yeast is also great in popcorn. —PaleoNeonate – 05:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Good faith In the latest comment at Talk:Jordan Peterson, you said that you "don't doubt" my good faith. However, previously you ignored to comment on content instead of editors, ignored to get the point of editing policy, you mocked my understanding of journalism, editing policy, stated it's my ignorance, that I "think that the NYT doesn't publish journalism", also claimed that I "support" the personality. In the last comment you back off saying that it was actually commenting on my "competence", for which article talk pages should not be used for, but your comments, including "win a prize", "ridiculous" etc., don't pass WP:Politeness and WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Then you called an administrator to make a review based on your claims about my actions which makes the whole situation even more ridiculous, at least from my perspective, as he claimed things I did not do, seemingly making it WP:SANCTIONGAME. Explain yourself per Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Also, your edit summaries ([20], [21]) don't pass "Be careful with edit summaries" and WP:ESDONTS.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) ...how about WP:GIBBERISH :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC) ^ ^ ^ This. Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Hmm so you were criticized by two administrators for not understanding something very basic, something pretty much essential to the writing of an encyclopedia. You confused opinion with journalism, you confused primary with secondary, you failed to see the difference between something that has an editorial board and something that doesn't, and after that you accused the NYT editorial board of somehow overlooking an obviously slated piece. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC) And what, pray tell, is wrong with "summarizing: notable journalist. not an opinion piece. reliable source. not proven to be a controversial opinion (except among apologists, apparently). take it to RSN if you like"? I thought I was writing a pretty neutral, factual, and comprehensive edit summary... :( Drmies (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Concerns Regarding reverts on Brett Kavanaugh I noticed you recently engaged in a bit of a revert war with User:Kn0w-01 on this article. While I fully appreciate your concerns with the article and acknowledge the edits were quite biased, there are contraversies surrounding it that should, Carefully, be written upon and I feel you may have been slightly aggressive in how you handled the situation. This isn't me going on a tirade that ""you're some fascist republican conspirator trying to silence the people"" or anything. I just was hoping that future situations could be resolved with a slightly more courteous attempt to explain the situation rather than the, frankly, aggressive editing that was made, as well as the fact that both you and the other individual technically violated the WP Sanctions on the article requesting no more than 1 revert per user every 24 hours. Jyggalypuff (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks, but if you fully appreciate those concerns, and you had looked at the other edits by the user who seems intent on making Wikipedia a forum for personal opinions, and if you were fully cognizant of the BLP and the fact that BLP violations are not allowed to stand anywhere at all, you'd be leaving a note on the other user's talk page. I understand that with 144 edits you may not be fully aware of all these ins and outs. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC) I would be, but they've already been blocked indefinitely and their last revert edit comments were aggressive enough that I can't really argue it was unmerited. That said I am happy to admit I'm less knowledgeable in this than I could be, most of my edit work is mostly just in fleshing out heavily under-trafficked articles that chances are maybe a dozen people will appreciate in the future anyway. Feel free to call me out on it or link me whatever if you think I can learn something for it. As is I only saw the incident because it immediately followed me making a minor edit to a broken ref tag. Jyggalypuff (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Look--the dude inserted, in Wikipedia's voice and without any kind of reference (engineered or not), that the Supreme Court was mostly a bunch of rich people who had no interest in the concerns of ordinary citizens. That may well be true, and I'm biting my tongue here, but there is no way someone should put that in an article, especially not an article that got almost 10,000 page views yesterday. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC) I meant more so on understanding more on what you felt I didn't understand, either way I fully accept your judgement in this and agree with you that the individual stepped far over the line. Apologies for bringing this to you and I hope you have a lovely day.Jyggalypuff (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC) You too--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Admin's Barnstar For stepping in and sorting out that whole Barbara Lerner Spectre nonsense. Brustopher (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Haha, is it really sorted out? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC) QUESTION Why was my sandbox deleted? I was just running a simulation of Drag Race. Nothing wrong w that. If it has to stay deleted can I at least get my results back again so I can move it to Wikia?Nduke24 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC) No, there was something wrong with that: WP:NOTWEBHOST. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC) FYI User:VolteFight is this kid who has been trying to stuff himself onto Wikipedia under various articles. I notice that the last batch of accounts seemed to be sleepers, which isn't his normal M.O. Can you CU to see if there are others? See my recent user page tagging for the last batch. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Gogo Dodo, Drmies isn't an Arb or a CU. Softlavender (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Au contraire Softlavender, it's well known that Drmies is the best checkuser.[22] -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC) (scratching head) How/when did that happen? I thought arbs relinquished their CUs when they left the arb-sphere. Softlavender (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC) We can keep 'em if we're gonna use 'em. Same for OS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC) The BEST. And BENEVOLENT. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC) And not to forget the Great and Powerful. Geoff | Who, me? 16:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC) CU-confirmed. I didn't find any more. I can't judge if I should block a range, Gogo Dodo--I'll send you a possibility or two. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC) User:Paramatma Brahma is the next one. GogoDodo, expect another email. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Your comments at Talk:6ix9ine#Rap trivia were like a hammer hitting a nail. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Ha thanks! A barnstar is much nicer than starting beef. But I guess every genre of Wikipedia article has its own hobbyhorse, its own trivial blind spot. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Query Is this the same guy as that HarveyMecken3 sock you just blocked?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I suppose... Drmies (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Well, so much for that, then. Thank you for your time.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC) There's nothing more to say. Already blocked, and CU revealed no other accounts. I rolled back their edits. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Hi Thank you for agreeing with my removal of content in the article Education in Greece, i was the IP user 94.66.222.241 then but i created an account shortly after — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Unknown1 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Some baklava for you! I understand why they made you an admin, you're a great editor Mr.Unknown1 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Reverted edit In reference to my reverted edit, I believe a more thorough consideration would allow some of my edits to go through. I’m not trying to slant the article to make it sound like the conspiracy theories are true as one user asserts, only make sure referenced material is accurately represented. While some progress has already invalidated part of the reverted changes, the third paragraph states an accuracy I was trying to fix. The declassified documents are also indirectly mentioned in the next paragraph, and a dead url is a dead url. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)I just looked at your edit with a fresh pair of eyes, and I have to agree with the revert: You added a {{who}} tag right before the text answered the question of "who?" You couldn't read forward 4 words? Not to mention that the source supports the content: historians in general dismiss the theory that Hitler fled to Argentina (though I will add that the source needs to be replaced with a higher quality one). You changed a quote. Changing a quote is pure dishonesty. We don't ever change or edit quotes unless absolutely necessary, and even then, we always clearly mark what we changed. You made claims about declassified FBI documents that aren't supported by the source. You broke two of the cardinal rules of WP three times: You put spin on content with your {{who}} tag and you misrepresented sources with both the quote alteration and the FBI claim. I'm sorry, but those do not represent good edits.article ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Just to clear up, I edited the quote to match the source. My other edits had a well-founded reason too, but ah well. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Thank you MPants. UpdateNerd, you can argue this, if you like, but you really have to do that on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Question about Eranrabl/SuperJew Greetings Drmies, it's been three months since I asked this User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_44#Eranrabl/SuperJew. That's frankly ridiculous for an admin to blatantly ignore a polite request for clarification on the rules, therefore I ask you (as the admin who was behind the unblock request's denial). I'm wondering, what's going to be the final result of the whole Eranrabl/SuperJew "sockpuppet" situation? I understand that the admins seem content with the status quo, but I'm genuinely curious as to what other steps of mediation could be taken in this issue. I'm curious, did either of the accounts violate WP:BADSOCK? Because I really don't think they did at all. Also, I feel that the reasons given behind the decision seem to contradict several policies. What would stop me from claiming that @Number 57: is also a sock, as he has similarly edited football articles and Israeli ones? It has been three months and this Julian Assange-esque impasse shows no signs of resolution. Having both users in purgatory isn't right, nor is it fair. - J man708 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC) @J man708: ARBCOM are considering this at present, although very slowly. I emailed them ten days ago about this as I think there's clearly some kind of quirk with Israeli IPs that is making three editors (Eranrabl, SuperJew and the IP that keeps making ethnicity-related edits) appear to be the same person and the behaviour evidence suggests these three editors are not related. I've also pointed out to Arbcom (or at least to BU Rob13) that they're in possession of some facts (ie real names and details both editors have stated on their talk pages) that allow them to see that Eranrabl and SuperJew to be different people in real life. I don't know why nothing has happened yet. Number 57 16:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC) I've just prodded the Committee on this again. ~ Rob13Talk 17:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Oh, that's the soccer editors, no? Rob, thank you for prodding, and you too, Number 57. Yeah, all of us will just have to wait, I'm afraid... Drmies (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC) What does it mean about the soccer editors, please? MPS1992 (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC) ? Editors who edit soccer things. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Oh, thank you. I thought it was a euphemism for something horrific. Assuming that it isn't, which editors are referred to? MPS1992 (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC) So, what's the next step? How long does ARBCOM usually take? This seems unnecessarily slow. - J man708 (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Well, you can email them... Drmies (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Thank you for blocking all those socks Just wanted to say thank you for always being so quick to block (and mop up after) the socks that keep popping up over and over again. I greatly appreciate it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC) I'm sorry we let this happen. Glad to help; I hope this helps a little bit. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC) You've got nothing to be sorry for. Besides, I'm so used to this particular LTA now that their ridiculously comments and laughable empty threats don't bother me one bit. I'm just sorry that this guy leaves a mess of stupid edit summaries and comments that sypsops need to clean up after. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC) OK, so this is the STOP CHANGING!!!!!!MY EDITS COCKSUCKER!!!!! person? I think I asked you (or someone else) this before--but there's an SPI, is there not? I remember, but only vaguely--and it might not help much anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC) New section ;) John from Idegon (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC) How's the pay? I already got hussled today to stand for Faculty Senate. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Bout what you'd expect. We'll start you at 50% of what I'm getting, with a 2.76189% increase (based on performance of course) quarterly for the first five years, at which time you'll receive a 150% increase, two weeks paid vacation, sick leave and a pension. Of course you'll be summarily terminated one week later for no reason at all. John from Idegon (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC) No good deed goes unpunished. Bongomatic 04:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Revive me Persistent little pest aint he. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Yep. I forgot what to put in as a reason when I ran CU, since there's so many of these jackasses and they're all the same. I had totally forgotten this one's name. And there's this other child who leaves stupid messages for me all over all the other wikis. I don't even look at them anymore--they get blocked and reverted anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC) On that subject, I have received two alerts on this subject header text on the fact that I was mentioned in some reviewing block template with the reason they claim isn't the sock of the LTA, in what is probably the same user as Ad Orientem is saying here. Conversely, see this when they say it has been used by this LTA. (Yawn!) Iggy (Swan) 08:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Hi Doc Long time no speak. Hope all safe and sound with you and the fam with the weather and all. I have been gone for a while, but dipped my toenail back in recently and came across the issue noted here, but Mr B seems to be off WP for the moment. Any other CUs you know and love you could recommend I ping on this? Don't want to make a federal case of it on some notice board, just wanted to get someone to opine and action, if appropriate. Stay safe Bongomatic 18:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Bongo, I am so happy to see you again. Just a few days ago I was going through some old DYKs--you are one of the ones who really got me going here. MBisanz is on vacation? I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC) The mother of all DYKs. Bongomatic 04:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Oh--I know that ArbCom hands out permits, but that's about as much as I know. KrakatoaKatie is pretty adept at technical stuff: Katie, would you mind looking into this? Thanks Bongo, and you take care too. Please drop me a line if you run into exciting things. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC) IPBE is granted for extraordinary need. I don’t mean to be flippant, but ‘I like to use a VPN’ isn’t a compelling need, so I’d need more information before I’d grant an exemption. Katietalk 00:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC) @KrakatoaKatie: After this RfC the "exceptional need" requirement was softened to put more emphasis on the "trusted user" aspect of granting IPBE for VPN use and the policy was updated accordingly. The question here would be a judgment call as to whether having to disconnect from their secure VPN each time Bongo wants to edit Wikipedia constitutes a "need". --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC) I'm not up to speed with the need to block anonymous proxy access for confirmed users in good standing in the first place, so certainly can't make an informed argument. But 'I like to use a VPN' is the same statement as 'I like to use baseline recommended Internet security', so I'm surprised that a) this doesn't come up a lot; and that b) the functionaries haven't spent time thinking about how to accommodate good security practices for editors. Bongomatic 02:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Update. Don't know precisely what happened or how, but it appears that I can edit while connected through NordVPN now. Don't know if their IPs have been unblocked or what else might have happened. I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but NordVPN has always had some servers set aside for editing WP. They obfuscate some of their IPs specifically to avoid sites that block proxies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 50.201.7.46 Remember this? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#2600:1702:3310:6C30::/64 He's back, as 50.201.7.46 (talk · contribs). I have reported to AIV, is there anything else I can or should do? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Widr-the-ever-vigilant has blocked. Vanamonde (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks--to all. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Suspected sock @User:Drmies Hi, I need the advice of an admin, and I have previously found you to be helpful. At Talk:Coordinated Universal Time an IP user, 92.24.107.165, has been posting trollish remarks (which have now ensnared me twice, I'm ashamed to say). Another editor, User:Jc3s5h hatted one of the resulting threads while I was replying to it, with a summary saying that the user was banned; when I inquired, the explanation was this. I reverted my comment (and the IP's follow-up); IP has restored my comment, and their own comment, and has now started trying to engage me on the same thread concerning other articles I've edited (which I consider stalking). The address is in a range allocated to TalkTalk, and is adjacent to one listed in that Long-term_abuse article as a sock of the subject of that article. The IP itself is not so listed. 92.24.107.165 is clearly disruptive - see the recent history of Talk:Coordinated Universal Time. The account given in the Long-term_abuse article says to me that I'm way out of my depth - Vote_(X) seems to be quite troublesome. I'm not sure how to proceed. I don't hang around administrative noticeboards, and I've never tried to report an abusive user before. I think this IP should probably just be summarily blocked, the admin discussion having already been completed. Surely this doesn't require opening a new case? MrDemeanour (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I've taken the liberty of blocking the sock. All one needs to do is say that name within earshot of most admins, such as the helpful Drmies here. Sometimes WP:AIV can be used, if you mention that name. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Thank you so much zzuuzz. MrDemeanour, it can be very hard to always deny trolls; I also get dragged in way too easily. Don't feel bad. Do feel free to exercise your editorial judgment: if you think you're dealing with a troll, one who's been blocked before, apply WP:DENY and simply delete the remark... Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar Well done banning Wikipedia saboteurs like Bosco To. I wonder how much effort it take to maintain Wikipedia from so many random sabotage. Nat.Account (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Nat.Account, thank you, but I'm only one of many. There are indeed many, but we need all kinds: we need writers too. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Rusty? Hi Doc Want to check if I need my joints oiled. Views about this?? Thx Bongomatic 14:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Yeah I have a few (and no, I think you're not rusty at all). One of em was actually stated very well by Black Kite in that conversation. The other is OMG just move along, User:Neo-Jay. I suppose Americans are so used of naming suspects and plastering their photos all over the paper that it's hard for them to see that posting a mugshot is actually A Big Thing. BTW did you see what I just removed from that article? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Next you're going to tell me that People Magazine and Us Weekly are not RS for GNG purposes. Bongomatic 00:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC) By the way, just got this very nice honor. Bongomatic 10:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Nice but y u hatin' on Eminem? (Not that I care, by the way...) Drmies (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Not at all. Just reverting vandalism. I love Eminem's homage to the Beastie Boys. Bongomatic 01:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Bongomatic, care to explain this? You're in Ohio, coming through the crazy Y-O-Y-O? Drmies (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Legit. Bongomatic 01:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Huey Lewis and the News I see you currently active, would you please consider acting this request. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Seriously? What's next, Bryan Adams and Tina Turner? Drmies (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Huh ? - FlightTime (open channel) 01:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC) FlightTime if you don't remember the 1980s you're too young for this talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Hmm OK. Blocked the last two. Houston, we have a problem. I see that Ad Orientem dropped some longer blocks--perhaps that's the way to go here, but I'm about to check out due to a. fire with marshmallows and b. halftime is over. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Enjoy :) thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Played some music while we were outside. "It's Only Love" is still a great song. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC) "Only You" Thanks for protecting Only You (Cheat Codes and Little Mix song) - I left a message on the talk page of one of the editor's previous IP addresses User talk:80.233.39.91 telling them I was going to ask for just that result if they didn't stop their edits. I can't work out if they were trolling, didn't understand how disambiguation pages work on Wikipedia, or genuinely believed that they were the same song. Richard3120 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Ace of Spades No reason to add hard rock because of Lemmy talking about rock and roll. ~SML • TP 01:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Yes reason because that's more verification than any of the other genres. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)== Tamil Language Hey, it wasn't Arabic transliteration but it was actually Tamil written in the Arwi script so please undo the changes that you made to the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AJamal122 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Sodhi Bala Anyone want to try to fix this? I'm being accused of vandalism. I'm bowing out. I normally don't even touch place articles, and I rarely gut them, but this one struck a nerve. BTW, the one reference I removed doesn't seem to support anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Do we have a prize for worst article in the world? Drmies (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC) We have "prizes" for high quality articles (how many featured articles are there?), but none for the obverse. Unfortunately, I think there'd be too many candidates. Maybe we could call them fractured articles. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC) {{pakistan-geo-stub}} Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC) I know I should have stubbed it but that would have required searching for the right stub and I was lazy. Now I'm not touching it; after all, I'm a "total dick".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Huh? I thought I was the total dick. You're not taking my dickness from me, Bbb. And let's see if we have a prize for User:Galobtter. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC) All I hear from this is that Bbb23 stole your dick Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC) OK if we're going to be dicks, I'm going to get all pedantic about punctuation and say that "Galobter is not my dick". OK, we should drop the dick talk. Which reminds me, I haven't seen that lingam vandal in a while. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) Boo hiss, Galobtter, making it into a real article with a picture and everything. Who do you think you are?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Who's got the penis now? Drmies (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC) I don't know how you found it, but that article is a fascinating read.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC) All this chatter reminded me of that article, which I read years ago. We have an article on the topic: Koro (medicine), and there's this article. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC) The Atlantic article is also an interesting read. It'd be fun to discuss the theories with some of my friends, but, given they have some of these "syndromes", I have a feeling I'd get tossed out on my ear.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Improvement! Not on my Wikipedia Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC) That's interesting. Now I know my friend's a suspected "penis thief"; can't wait to tell her. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Cut-and-paste translations I have difficulties with some cut-and-paste translation of our friend Jzsj: Jérôme Nadal and Juan de Castillo (Jesuit). In both cases I have the nasty idea that he just copied the text and translated it verbatim, without even bothering to check (and fully translate) the sources. (The second one has a clearly wrong title) Are the tiny templates on the talk page enough to satisfy the licenses? The Banner talk 19:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Well, that's not a nasty idea, and the process is correct--yes, that template will do. As for the sources--well, sources don't have to be translated because sources don't have to be in English. One of our Portuguese editors typically translates the titles of newspaper articles, which is a nice courtesy (and there's a parameter for it in the citation templates), but not required. As for source checking, yeah, well, I don't know. We're supposed to do it, of course. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Copyright revdel Hey Drmies, I'm not sure if you're watching Bob the IPs page but they stumbled upon a huuuugggeee copyright mess at Louise Hulland that needs to be revdel [23]. Diannaa seems to be very busy and you were the first active admin I stumbled upon. Mind lending a hand? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC) No, I don't watch his page (I don't want to egg him on), just his edits. The man should be painting, not editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Alright, it's done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks a lot . HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Confused Drmies as always I welcome your thoughts and input. I am not sure I follow the behavior comment. As to the statement above your post (Does someone need a hug?) I was openly trying to extend an olive branch and lighten the mood. In my mind there was no ill intention. It was also almost ten days ago so again confused as to why someone would now try and get me sanctioned for trying to expel the hostility. Surely there is some misunderstanding and not in need of (please consider this a warning). I believe edits like this to be a behavioral issue in the same article [24] and this [25] in reference of me by editor Simonm223. How is calling someone (a literally illiterate) ok and not a personal attack and my attempt to lighten the mood a behavioral issue? If I missed something please enlighten me. My intentions are as always just trying to improve article content with the best sources and experts that can be found by putting in the time doing research. Doing this I believe not only enriches Wiki but myself as well. I will though from mow make more of a effort to not address any one editor and only speak of specific content. As always your friend -72bikers (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Here too your friend, 72. That comment seemed more like a sneer to me than an olive branch. If I misread it, and I suppose I did, please consider that especially on the internet it is not always easy to convey humor, sarcasm, irony--believe me, I get misread here ALL the time, but of course I blame the others, haha. As for the other diffs--I haven't looked at them or seen them, I think, and it doesn't alter the matter; it just happened that I saw yours. But I will have a look. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Simonm223, this is really not cool. I know you're talking about content, but I also know that you're really not. Please refrain. Y'all please try to get along--and all of y'all, please be more careful in copyediting, both in article posts and in talk page comments. (I mean just about everyone on those talk pages.) Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Why are we dredging up three-week old drama here? Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Because I am an administrator and was asked to look into something? Drmies (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC) HOW DARE YOU! PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC) PackMecEng, we've managed to co-exist in complete enmity for quite a while now. Can't we keep it that way? BTW I really don't understand what these editors at the Ford article don't get about listing articles, and I appreciate your good sense there. I'm not keeping an eye on it, I'm just hoping it ends in a reasonable way. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC) What is the fun in that?! Because I must destroy you and etc... Yeah I stumbled onto that article and was not so much surprised, but rather disappointed. I made my run on talking and cleaning what I could but past that I think I am about ready to walk away from there. If/when it pops up on AFD after whatever happens in the senate I will see how it is and vote then. Other than that they can piss in their sandbox as much as they want. I come here for fun gosh darn it and they cannot ruin that for me! As to the listing on the article, I think that is a case of well I found it online so it must be notable. PackMecEng (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC) We'll see what happens, as a famous man once said. I'd love to stay and chat but I'm doing online training to do online teaching, so I can be worse than I already am. At least I'll put our multi-virtual learning environment content education generator device to good use. Wouldn't want to waste all that money. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Oh gzz they still use that!? A few years back (well five years ago I think?) I took some classes at the local community college on supply chain and blackboard was where we had to turn in all our homework. I hope it has gotten better since then. PackMecEng (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Drmies, thank you for your comments. I to understand that in text things can be easily misread. I can see how it might look like sarcasm and admittedly humor is not my forte, but it was not a attempt to belittle someone as shown by the contrast. As I am sure you can see it is a very controversial subject. It was meant more to lighten thing up in a attempt to make it seem not so serious all the time. This was done in a effort to bring some kind of compromise to what should have been just a minor issue. Regards -72bikers (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page watcher) (edit conflict) I recall having had a conversation about this comment already, which is the edit summary to this edit, but at the moment I can't find that conversation. I recall remarking that a better word for it was "incomprehensible" or something like that, but it was indeed a mess, and 72bikers was later blocked for their activity on that page. At any rate, it does seem very off the mark to drop this comment out of context on an admin's page almost a full month after the fact, it kind of seems like score-settling. It would be best if all of our next edits were a substantial contribution to an article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Tamil Language Hey, it wasn't Arabic transliteration but it was actually Tamil written in the Arwi script so please undo the changes that you made to the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AJamal122 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Sodhi Bala Anyone want to try to fix this? I'm being accused of vandalism. I'm bowing out. I normally don't even touch place articles, and I rarely gut them, but this one struck a nerve. BTW, the one reference I removed doesn't seem to support anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Do we have a prize for worst article in the world? Drmies (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC) We have "prizes" for high quality articles (how many featured articles are there?), but none for the obverse. Unfortunately, I think there'd be too many candidates. Maybe we could call them fractured articles. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC) {{pakistan-geo-stub}} Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC) I know I should have stubbed it but that would have required searching for the right stub and I was lazy. Now I'm not touching it; after all, I'm a "total dick".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Huh? I thought I was the total dick. You're not taking my dickness from me, Bbb. And let's see if we have a prize for User:Galobtter. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC) All I hear from this is that Bbb23 stole your dick Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC) OK if we're going to be dicks, I'm going to get all pedantic about punctuation and say that "Galobter is not my dick". OK, we should drop the dick talk. Which reminds me, I haven't seen that lingam vandal in a while. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) Boo hiss, Galobtter, making it into a real article with a picture and everything. Who do you think you are?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Who's got the penis now? Drmies (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC) I don't know how you found it, but that article is a fascinating read.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC) All this chatter reminded me of that article, which I read years ago. We have an article on the topic: Koro (medicine), and there's this article. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC) The Atlantic article is also an interesting read. It'd be fun to discuss the theories with some of my friends, but, given they have some of these "syndromes", I have a feeling I'd get tossed out on my ear.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Improvement! Not on my Wikipedia Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC) That's interesting. Now I know my friend's a suspected "penis thief"; can't wait to tell her. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Cut-and-paste translations I have difficulties with some cut-and-paste translation of our friend Jzsj: Jérôme Nadal and Juan de Castillo (Jesuit). In both cases I have the nasty idea that he just copied the text and translated it verbatim, without even bothering to check (and fully translate) the sources. (The second one has a clearly wrong title) Are the tiny templates on the talk page enough to satisfy the licenses? The Banner talk 19:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Well, that's not a nasty idea, and the process is correct--yes, that template will do. As for the sources--well, sources don't have to be translated because sources don't have to be in English. One of our Portuguese editors typically translates the titles of newspaper articles, which is a nice courtesy (and there's a parameter for it in the citation templates), but not required. As for source checking, yeah, well, I don't know. We're supposed to do it, of course. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Copyright revdel Hey Drmies, I'm not sure if you're watching Bob the IPs page but they stumbled upon a huuuugggeee copyright mess at Louise Hulland that needs to be revdel [26]. Diannaa seems to be very busy and you were the first active admin I stumbled upon. Mind lending a hand? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC) No, I don't watch his page (I don't want to egg him on), just his edits. The man should be painting, not editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Alright, it's done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks a lot . HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Confused Drmies as always I welcome your thoughts and input. I am not sure I follow the behavior comment. As to the statement above your post (Does someone need a hug?) I was openly trying to extend an olive branch and lighten the mood. In my mind there was no ill intention. It was also almost ten days ago so again confused as to why someone would now try and get me sanctioned for trying to expel the hostility. Surely there is some misunderstanding and not in need of (please consider this a warning). I believe edits like this to be a behavioral issue in the same article [27] and this [28] in reference of me by editor Simonm223. How is calling someone (a literally illiterate) ok and not a personal attack and my attempt to lighten the mood a behavioral issue? If I missed something please enlighten me. My intentions are as always just trying to improve article content with the best sources and experts that can be found by putting in the time doing research. Doing this I believe not only enriches Wiki but myself as well. I will though from mow make more of a effort to not address any one editor and only speak of specific content. As always your friend -72bikers (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Here too your friend, 72. That comment seemed more like a sneer to me than an olive branch. If I misread it, and I suppose I did, please consider that especially on the internet it is not always easy to convey humor, sarcasm, irony--believe me, I get misread here ALL the time, but of course I blame the others, haha. As for the other diffs--I haven't looked at them or seen them, I think, and it doesn't alter the matter; it just happened that I saw yours. But I will have a look. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Simonm223, this is really not cool. I know you're talking about content, but I also know that you're really not. Please refrain. Y'all please try to get along--and all of y'all, please be more careful in copyediting, both in article posts and in talk page comments. (I mean just about everyone on those talk pages.) Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Why are we dredging up three-week old drama here? Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Because I am an administrator and was asked to look into something? Drmies (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC) HOW DARE YOU! PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC) PackMecEng, we've managed to co-exist in complete enmity for quite a while now. Can't we keep it that way? BTW I really don't understand what these editors at the Ford article don't get about listing articles, and I appreciate your good sense there. I'm not keeping an eye on it, I'm just hoping it ends in a reasonable way. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC) What is the fun in that?! Because I must destroy you and etc... Yeah I stumbled onto that article and was not so much surprised, but rather disappointed. I made my run on talking and cleaning what I could but past that I think I am about ready to walk away from there. If/when it pops up on AFD after whatever happens in the senate I will see how it is and vote then. Other than that they can piss in their sandbox as much as they want. I come here for fun gosh darn it and they cannot ruin that for me! As to the listing on the article, I think that is a case of well I found it online so it must be notable. PackMecEng (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC) We'll see what happens, as a famous man once said. I'd love to stay and chat but I'm doing online training to do online teaching, so I can be worse than I already am. At least I'll put our multi-virtual learning environment content education generator device to good use. Wouldn't want to waste all that money. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Oh gzz they still use that!? A few years back (well five years ago I think?) I took some classes at the local community college on supply chain and blackboard was where we had to turn in all our homework. I hope it has gotten better since then. PackMecEng (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Drmies, thank you for your comments. I to understand that in text things can be easily misread. I can see how it might look like sarcasm and admittedly humor is not my forte, but it was not a attempt to belittle someone as shown by the contrast. As I am sure you can see it is a very controversial subject. It was meant more to lighten thing up in a attempt to make it seem not so serious all the time. This was done in a effort to bring some kind of compromise to what should have been just a minor issue. Regards -72bikers (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page watcher) (edit conflict) I recall having had a conversation about this comment already, which is the edit summary to this edit, but at the moment I can't find that conversation. I recall remarking that a better word for it was "incomprehensible" or something like that, but it was indeed a mess, and 72bikers was later blocked for their activity on that page. At any rate, it does seem very off the mark to drop this comment out of context on an admin's page almost a full month after the fact, it kind of seems like score-settling. It would be best if all of our next edits were a substantial contribution to an article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Question Was this edit made in error? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Shit, I conflicted with you and copied the wrong paragraph... Drmies (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC) That's what I suspected. Pobody's nerfect. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC) AE Sandstein closed it, which I think is actually a good thing, given that it was turning into a free-for-all. But he also says explicitly that you are free to act on your own. Given a 1-1 admin view, I think you should examine the AE section and decide for yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC) I was going to ask the same before I saw the above note. Just to be clear, I don't think anyone including myself should be re-arguing the case on Drmies talk page at this point as everyone should have already made their case at AE. I do have one request I would like to make though if you do make a statement either way. In my statement, I linked to a few previous AE cases on GMO aspersions either directly or to one where I had previously mentioned a lot of the main cases we've had so far with degrees from similar to this case to directly calling someone a shill. That's located where I was basically showing how the GMO aspersions principle has been handled at AE, what's considered unacceptable behavior, and where we've sanctioned more or less the same behavior before. If you decide to impose sanctions or say no sanctions, would you be willing to have a sentence or two in your justification that addresses how it fits with the making associations between editors and companies to cast doubt portion of the GMO aspersions principle and what has generally been considered inappropriate at AE previously? That's not going to affect what you ultimately decide, but it would help give more clarity to the community for this case decision (not necessarily a proclamation for all cases more suitable for WP:ARCA) between those like me who helped write the principle that was intended to get the behavior I presented to stop and those who consider it ok. If something is unclear just let me know. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Tryptofish, I am way too much of a drive-by admin to act as the 1 over the other 1, that one being Sandstein. Here's the thing I don't like about this: one admin can close. If I don't agree and still act, I am as much a powerplayer as that other admin. I think these AE sanctions/decisions should be collective/collaborative decisions, and the only reason I'm not going back to it is that no other admin saw fit to jump in: that's the part that Sandstein surely got right. Kingofaces, I am sure you want more, and I am sorry I have no more to offer at this time. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Obviously I'm frustrated an editor can be formally warned by an admin for violating DS only to have repeat behavior result in even less action, but that's more with the situation than any issue with you. I totally understand your perspective on how you want to admin though (similar to how I didn't want to fill up AE with multiple cases dealing with all the periphery stuff). That being said, it would be nice to have a mixture of admins with some a little more proactive occasionally patrolling the topic for more basic stuff or nipping in the bud and others like you dealing with more complex AE issues needing additional consensus, but if wishes were horses. . . Continuing on from the case then, there is the question of how to get admins to take a bit more notice of these types of cases or realize that it's actually a serious thing ArbCom had to rule on for future cases. I floated a few questions to Seraphimblade on their talk page, so if anything there piques your interest on how to improve the GMO aspersion stuff when reporting it, I'm all ears. No obligation to dive in this stuff even more obviously, but I thought I'd see if you had any thoughts since you've thrown your hat into this stuff a little as an admin. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Drmies, my two cents: AE is not a collaborative or consensus-based endeavor. All decisions to sanction are unilateral, just like decisions to block. Consensus only comes into play if there is an appeal. If you take action where I declined to, therefore, that is not a problem at all insofar as I am concerned. Sandstein 06:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Drmies, I certainly understand that it would be awkward for you to act under these circumstances, and I want to say thank you to you for what you have done. (It seems to me that all admins are drive-by admins, except for the ones that burn out.) I think also that what Drmies said here: [29], is spot-on (except maybe for the grammar part: it's "me"). In my opinion, Sandstein was right to put an end to something that was turning into a shout-fest, but also, as a result, enacted a supervote: sort of like "I disagree with Drmies, and there's a good reason to stop discussion, so I'm going to close this in favor of what I think, and append a perfunctory invitation to other admins to act uninlaterally". It would have been more appropriate either to not close it, or to close it purely on the basis of stopping the shouting, but without taking a side. I could also make a case that Drmies should have just gone ahead a day after his initial comment, without waiting so long to hear from other admins. But that's all water under the bridge now. Looking at my watchlist, there are already a whole bunch of needless arguments breaking out across the GMO topic area. And it looks to me like ArbCom is going to pass the buck at a WP:ARCA request for clarification that I filed. So I predict the problem will get worse in the GMO area until it gets so bad that action will have to be taken. Well, it's only a website. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Thank you Tryptofish, and I also think that was a supervote, and I disagree with the idea that all these decisions be unilateral, requiring no consensus. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Hmm I am amused to find so many prescriptive grammarians coming out of the closed (or the woodwork). If only they could point to a rule, which as prescriptive grammarians they must have access to. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC) According to Professor Tryptofish, (whom you shouldn't believe about grammar, being a neuroscientist and not an English prof), the rule is that when the personal word is the (what do you call it?) thing at the end of a prepositional phrase, then "me" rather than "I" is used. So, "unlike me" (rather than "unlike I") is like "according to me" (rather than "according to I"). And I already had to use up my one 1RR revert just now. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC) “This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.” ― Winston Churchill O3000 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "With which me will not put." — Tryptofish. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC) But that's where it gets complicated. Are "like" and "unlike" prepositions? Note our Wiktionary entry--why is "unlike" in "The brothers are quite unlike each other" an adjective but a preposition in "He walked unlike other men she knew"? And there's more to it, but I have to run and pick up the kids. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Going out on a verbal limb here, try deleting "each other" from the first example. It still means the same thing. But if you delete "other men she knew" from the second, the sentence becomes meaningless. I take that as evidence that the second sentence uses "unlike" as part of a prepositional phrase, but the first is just an adjective. (And I have to add: Like.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC) That's not bad, Tryptofish, but IMO the "take something out" test is overrated. Students try it all too often. In this case that begs the question "unlike what?" "They're quite unlike butter". The thing here is rather that in some constructions we do something similar, but rather than take it out we pretend something was actually taken out: "He's bigger than I [am]". So, since you can add "am" the pronoun should be in the subjective case--they say (I don't buy it.) But apply that to Sandstein's sentence: "This does not prevent you from taking action if, unlike me, you believe it is warranted" --> "This does not prevent you from taking action if, unlike I believe, you believe it is warranted." That's pretty awkward, but not much more awkward than "he's bigger than I am" because no one talks like that--unless they're a foreigner like Sandstein, haha! No, what we have here is something not easily explained by a modern rule of grammar, and if I had my Sweet on me I'd try to confirm a suspicion--that in the Old English (and Germanic in general) this ("ungelic") was simply a word that took a dative--see the "refrain" of "Wulf and Eadwacer". Drmies (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Just to be a pain, I would think unlike is an adverb in "He walked unlike other men she knew". O3000 (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC) But do adverbs take nouns or clauses as dependents? Hmmm. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Well, if you add in the missing words, “He walked in a manner unlike other men that she knew", I don’t think it’s taking a dependent clause. Worse, you could argue that it’s a conjunction. See [30]. I emailed a grammar-Nazi friend and he goes with adverb. But, I don’t even have a high school diploma, so…. O3000 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC) I emailed a grammar-Nazi friend and... Damnit, Objective. WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS is a thing now. Which, if it applies to grammar nazis, means we all have to leave... Okay, nix that, I'm off to write WP:GRAMMARNAZISAREOKAYBUTJUSTBARELYANDDONTPUSHITKAY?. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Yeah, but there are no missing words..."that" is either a relative pronoun or (if you're with Huddleston and Pullum, see English_relative_clauses#That_as_relativizer_instead_of_relative_pronoun) a subordinator; either way it can be omitted. "Dependent" as I used it is not the same thing as in "dependent clause"; the term comes from Dependency grammar. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Yep, and I just realized I could easily argue it's an adjective in the above reconstruction. But, one should be able to take any position in a debate. Now, I just have to find another word for N**I to avoid the N**I essay. O3000 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC) As the guy who made that essay and linked to it at the barest hint of the word "Nazi", I guess that makes me the Nazi-Nazi. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Well, the Nazi’s were more into Ariosophy. Your username more suggests Norse mythology. O3000 (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Good point. Though, I do have a nazi symbol in my signature. Best to indef me, just in case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Perhaps, but who will bell the cat. Besides, you make a lousy Nazi. O3000 (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC) To be fair, I make a lousy anything. <scratch, scratch> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Meanwhile, back at AE (this grammar stuff is obviously above my level of competence), I do want to make an observation. As a matter of policy, it actually is the case that admins are free to act unilaterally, without the need for consensus first. And in one fish's opinion, for all the time that passed between Drmies' comment and the close, there were no registered objections from other admins, which could have justified unilateral action. I think AE is suffering from death-by-committee. I don't mean this as a criticism or as second-guessing, but more like an observation as well as me venting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Yes. And if I had more time and energy I probably would have studied the whole case carefully enough to do something. That's what I meant with "drive-by"--I think I know enough to have a reasonable opinion, but not enough to have such a well-founded opinion that I can unilaterally enact that which I think is right, a decision with longterm effects. But here again you catch me in between things, after dinner, and etc. Volunteer problems. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Quite reasonable. Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC) And I note now that the AE has been, sort of, reopened. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC) I am rather disappointed about your side comment about me. Do I need to refute it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC) I'm sure you are, Tryptofish, but you want me to call them as I see them, I'm sure. Note that I think that the one remark isn't sufficient to warrant any more attention than I already gave it--but I do think it makes a quite general statement in an area where making general statements has often turned into casting aspersions. Whether you want to refute it is up to you; for me it will go no further. And maybe AGK disagrees with me completely, which is fine with me. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Point taken. It just wasn't clear to me whether in fact you were saying that you were going to give it "any more attention", because it sounded that way to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Well I have to sound and appear tyrannical or I'd be a bad admin. Think of how the real admins sound, like Sandstein and Future Perfect. They're badasses and you don't want to have your dog poop on their lawn when they're watching. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC) That's OK, thanks. I've regained my composure. And I do take the point that you made. Tell that ostrich to stay away from my dog. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC) FYI: [31]. Your mileage may differ from mine of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC) A funny little reference in WP:TTR Hi Dr hope all's well! Now, I know you've been around a while on here, so maybe you can remember what this referring to. I stuck up a template on my user page saying I don't mind being templated. Reading the essay WP:TTR I noticed a couple of enigmatic references to an 'admin coach.' It must be an old essay. Did there used to be admin training? Sounds like a good idea. Regards Simon Adler (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Hi Drmies I understand you have been busy and have had a lot to deal with regarding R/L and WP. I think I have figured out the above. It appears to have been a relic from the wild west days of WP, when a possible admin candidate would be tipped off as to what boards to be seen at, and what stats to improve. Obviously that would not be cool today. If you do not wish to interact with me, or if I have pissed you off in some way, please say, and I will not post here again. Regards Simon Adler (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Oh, sorry--I missed this. Admin training? I just looked at that, and what's funny is that the term pops up in something I'm looking into right now. Anyway, the wild old days were indeed different; you see it sometimes in discussions about those who got their bits before 2006 or so. Back in those days apparently you emailed some dude and became an admin... Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Yeah, it looks crazy. Re: the last couple of sentences. Disregard Dr. A case of feeling unloved. A 2.24 lack of beer. Well awww poor Simon ha! Regards Simon Adler (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC) You've got mail! Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 04:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Cane River Hello, since you seemed interested in Cane River (film) (participating in the AfD discussion), I thought you'd be interested in this news. Cheers, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Dude. Thanks. I wish I could go--it's only five hours from here, but it's also five hours back. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC) RS Doc I've been gone for a while. Can you remind me if it is necessary (and if so, the the way) to gently suggest to this user that only reliable sources should be cited? in articles? Thanks Bongomatic 14:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Also, what do you think about this, this, and this? Bongomatic 15:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Yes ma'am. I think something. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GHcool @Drmies: @Black Kite: @Sandstein: For the 7th violation after 6 blocks all for reverts concerning topics related to the Palestine Israel conflict, a warning that amounted to less than a slap on the wrist was entirely inappropriate. Is there a remedy available to me to dispute this decision? Two Admins recused excused themselves from giving a decision. The diffs show the violation clearly. I am the seventh editor now who has lost personal time going through this rigmarole of taking GHcool to task. Enough is enough. I would much rather volunteer my time contributing to Wikipedia as I’m sure the preceding other complainants would have as well. What's the exact problem here? How was this light warning, "don't do it again", justified when taking into account the long history and numerous blocks? Shouldn't the Results section, at the minimum, show if this was a violation? I am gobsmacked. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC) If you consider that these blocks happened over a period of ten years, it already looks a bit different. And while of course a sin is a sin is a sin, the edit we're talking about is the addition of a picture. Not even a picture of a bleeding person or an abused dog, but of a building. And your argument for reverting was to point at this, which is not a solid RfC or anything else pointing to consensus, but just a version of "cause I said so". Now, some of our colleagues (not Sandstein, obviously) pointed out that sure, indeed this is a violation--but others pointed out that maybe this wasn't a good-faith report. Do you know why we have DS? Not to hit people over the head anytime we can, but to attempt and foster an atmosphere in which editors can work. This was a minor infraction, and if you felt that you wasted your time (BTW I understand: the paperwork is cumbersome), consider that half a dozen editors and admins also participated in what they may have considered a waste of time. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Ten years of flagrantly breaking the rules makes his behaviour all the worse; the word that comes to mind is repeat-offender. It certainly doesn't make him less guilty. So is the 1RVT open to interpretation by each and every editor whether they subjectively think they have or haven't broken it? My argument never pointed to any RfC but was solely based on his 3-hour later revert. Check your facts. I ask again - Is there a remedy available to me to dispute this decision or file a formal complaint? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC) I know you never pointed to any RfC. If you had, you'd be in a stronger position. And that two admins recused isn't true, unless I missed something: Sandstein bowed out Black Kite clearly said he wouldn't apply a sanction even though formally this was a violation, a sentiment I agree with. I do not believe there is an appeal to a decision not to take any action, but maybe Sandstein knows more. I think the bottomline is that the set of circumstance here, in the opinion of two admins and an editor or two, simply do not warrant a sanction. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC) We apparently hold very different opinions here. My eight years of experience walking through the minefield of Arab–Israeli conflict articles, and editing them, has seen me do it without a single block or warning. That takes great self-control in the face of some of the rudest people I have ever come into contact with. Throughout all, I continued to stay on the right side of active arbitration remedies. When an editor with 6 blocks to his name feels that he does not need to play by the same rules as the rest of us walks away from his 7th violation scot-free, something is absolutely wrong. This is not a small thing. What message does this send, both to him and to us? Remember it was “a straw” that broke the camel's back; in this case a violation concerning restoring an image of a building in Canada. It wasn’t the first straw. If this is how Wikipedia works, then it means I should walk away and stop editing. I'm not ready to accept that because I believe there was a failure here with this decision. This is why there is the need to escalate this. It's the principle, not just a building in Ontario. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC) And Seneca said: "We do not suddenly fall on death, but advance towards it by slight degrees; we die every day." Patience will out. If you were right this time, you will be “more right” the next time. And if you were right this time, there will be a next time; and you will be better able to frame your argument. Pardon my interruption. O3000 (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Drmies, could I ask you to move this discussion to my user talk page? It represents but one of your many daily decisions, but to me, perhaps a little more. If you are agreeable, I would appreciate it. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're asking, Veritycheck. I'm not going to disappear it, and "move" as in moving an article? You can copy it, I suppose. And I can't say I like this whole idea that we're going over the cliff inch by inch--and should therefore punish minor infractions severely. You keep saying "but they've been doing it for years"--well, maybe, but I am not aware of them being some major disruptive force for over a decade, or impeding some major restructure of an article, or imposing some POV slant that makes us all look bad. So I don't know about "if this is how Wikipedia works", but I do know that I did not consider this some capital offense. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page watcher) With my "admin and former Arb" hat on, I'll also add that the longer you (Veritycheck) try to keep this going, the more people will look into your history to see just why you're being so apparently vindictive over this trivial matter. On a superficial glance over your recent history it appears that My eight years of experience walking through the minefield of Arab–Israeli conflict articles, and editing them, has seen me do it without a single block or warning isn't actually true, and that what's actually the case is that you apparently feel that every warning you receive is invalid (there's an example of this on your talkpage as I speak) and remove warnings without archiving, which is perfectly 'legal' is terms of The Rules (blanking a warning constitutes proof that you're read it) but doesn't help, particularly when you're basing a case on someone else's history over 10 years but appear to be intentionally obscuring your own history. ‑ Iridescent 07:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC) @Iridescent. It's seems you're trying to make this about me which is underhanded and in bad form. I have nothing to hide. The link you gave also makes it quite clear that I was not in violation. Indeed, it was the poster who had just come back from a block and was topic banned hours later who left that message. It was disingenuous of you attempting to use it to reflect badly on me. As you must be well aware, notices include, "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.". Discouraging me from filing a complaint by implying that I am some how at fault here is just adding insult to injury and an utter distraction from everything I have said concerning the real culprit here. I don't have any blocks on my record and that is simple enough to determine using the ubiquitous tool, block log. @Drmies Thank-you, I will copy this discussion to my talk page per your permission. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:08, September 22, 2018‎ (UTC) Well, Veritycheck, this section clearly isn't long enough. It started with nothing but actually ended with something we can call a learning moment: you're chastising Iridescent, but with no leg to stand on. First of all, there's nothing underhanded about it: start arbitration and expect to get looked at yourself. Second, it's not in bad form on my talk page, which is a happy place, and is thus dedicated to the combat of unhappiness. Judging from that linked conversation, you may well have caused some. And as for this insult and injury of yours, I think it's time you gave that a rest. The only one who thinks you were somehow injured is you, though I will give you this: by now we all agree, I think, that this whole thing was a complete waste of time, and I appreciate Sandstein not wanting to waste any more time on it. So, the upshot is that you've wasted the time of, by now, at least four admins, and guess what, it's admins who make the calls on arbitration boards, meaning that next time you report something it better be good. And one more thing: of those four admins, I'm the lightweight, and even if you don't want to listen to me, you should probably listen to the others. Now can I get back to that football game? Drmies (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Yes, I have now added Veritycheck to my watchlist. This type of thing has unintended consequences. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC) A gem for you Doc, since you and your page watchers are connoisseurs of such literature, here is a real gem for you. Can't expect anyone to read through the whole piece but don't miss out the sourcing in this section, the writing in this one, and the business and marriage lessons implicit here. And of course the article is a BLP. Enjoy! Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Don't tempt me, please. Seriously, put it on the BLPN noticeboard. Listen, Alabama is up a couple dozen points but we just went three and out so I'm busy. Now, whoever put that "whip cream" section in should probably get a warning, at the very least, for making us suck. Thank you Mz7 for removing that. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Alice Dixson Alice Dixson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hate to bother, but could you look into the BLP-violating attacks being made by an IP at this article? Been waiting quite a long time for AIV and my RFPP to kick in. Thanks. General Ization Talk 22:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC) WTF??? Re: suppressing these edits, please also see the edits of 107.1.210.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Perhaps only the last one needs suppression. Thanks for blocking the previous IP. General Ization Talk 23:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Dude. Or Dudette. Dear editor. I'm sorry. I was busy and really haven't clicked Recent changes all day--you know I'd have noticed. What a disgusting woman hater that was. I revdeleted, Berean Hunter semi-protected. If they come back, please SHOUT IN ALL CAPS IN YOUR EDIT SUMMARIES, and maybe someone will listen. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC) I could be wrong, and I don't want to generalize, but I think it may be a particularly severe insult in Filipino culture to point out or allege infertility on the part of a woman (perhaps a man also). So there may be a cultural aspect. General Ization Talk 23:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Berean Hunter, no doubt those two IPs are the same person, but there's nothing I could find in the ranges that was disruptive and warranted more than the individual block--but you're on payroll cause you're a geek, so please have a look and see if there's something I missed. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC) It looks like the four IPs (76.79.100.67, 107.1.210.86, 72.203.98.63, 2600:8802:6500:3E0:D4A:7A61:19DB:D2C0 ) are likely the same editor by UA match but I don't know who. No matching accounts detected in four ranges and no discernible disruption outside of this...sorry.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Ugh, I think you have to go all the way back to this edit of August 29 by 2600:8802:6500:3E0:D4A:7A61:19DB:D2C0 (talk · contribs) to get all the BLP stuff. I might have missed something else but I hope not. Thanks for the cleanup D. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC) MarnetteD please see if I missed something. Thanks for the help. OMG I am so sick of men right now. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC) You are welcome D. I think you got it all. MarnetteD|Talk 23:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Thank you all. General Ization Talk 23:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC) No thank you--and Marnette, and BH. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Arbitration You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# Admin Drmies conduct and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Thanks, Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC) You're welcome. But do you seriously want me to show up there as long as we have this gaping hole before the secondary and they keep hitting us underneath, getting first downs? Drmies (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Veritycheck, you have started an Arb case on Drmies' conduct. What misconduct are you alleging? I've read the case but not rendering a decision the way that you want it handled doesn't mean misconduct. Arb cases aren't for second guessing admin decisions. As it is written, it won't fly.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Veritycheck, look at this shit and try to figure out how much sooner I could have stopped these disgusting edits if I hadn't been busy with your little arbitration case--apparently I'm the only fucking admin on call, besides Berean Hunter. I noticed you didn't revert any of those sexist, disgusting BLP violations. That's the price of your timewasting: everyone knows that if I'm not responding to futile arbitration requests I'm watching Recent changes and blocking vandals. Yeah I'm pissed, and there is no need for you to respond, cause there is nothing you can say. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page watcher) Damn, I missed all the fun. I wanted to pile-on and say how meritless the filing was, but a spoilsport Arb had already said it would be a waste of time. That's what I get for wanting to enjoy a weekend afternoon. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Arbitration case request declined An arbitration case request concerning you has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)