Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 129

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131→Archive 135

When you get a minute

Hi Drmies. When you get a minute could you have a look at Sasdfjhasjkfdhaklsjfh. See also their talk page. This editor is sending up all kinds of red flags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Bishonen blocked (thanks Bish), and you blocked the second--turns out your first one was a sock of User:Ovresight checkʉser, who is probably an LTA, and was blocked by NJA (there's the smell of proxying and shit all over it). I wonder if a real CU should look at this (and note the typography of the sock name), to identify which one of those many losers stray sheep this was. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock making generally good edits?

Fergus MacTroll's contributions to an FA review raised eyebrows amongst some admins....

Recently another user popped up editing Japanese idol related articles. I definitely hear some quacking for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Syun respect for music (many consecutive edits, heavily editing tables and track listings, a text box as a user page); however, the sock is actually making some generally good fixes to some of the articles. In this case, should I still report to SPI, or should I just keep a watchful eye over his edits for promotional material? ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't know--that's up to you. I have no respect for that sockmaster whatsoever. If this editor is making mostly good edits, then it is likely it's not them, right? I couldn't find evidence of socking, but Callanecc knows the technicalities better than me.

    Wait. This is a carbon copy of what they did before, and that was not an acceptable edit, not then and not now. I'm going to roll that back and block: the DUCK is strong here. Callanecc, would you mind confirming? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Passing observer) Ganbaruby, if it's a sock puppet, administrators are required to block them. It's also standard procedure to revert them, unless however, a good faith user takes responsibility for those edits and vouches for their inclusion. Darkknight2149 19:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, maybe. I am not required to do anything, certainly not if I don't have hard evidence. DUCK is a judgment call, though in this case one that's hard to miss. I might have let it slide if it hadn't been for that Miho Watanabe nonsense. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going straight to SPI next time. Once I have time I'll go through the sock's edits to see if anything's worth keeping, and just go through all the articles they edit and try to make sure they have nothing to come back for again. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It's time-consuming, but that is the best thing to do. And it is a good idea, when the next one comes by, to ask for CU if only so the file on that sock can be updated. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I seem to be in a minority view on this, but if somebody is making good edits, and shows no sign of the disruption that we blocked them for, then a block has all the charm and warmth of a Vogon Constructor Fleet. A serious sockfarm will, given enough time and energy, simply get blocked again for the thing that got them into trouble in the first place - and I would personally like to see something like this logged as opposed to just "sockpuppetry" which doesn't tell me anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie, the sock repeated the same unhelpful/promotional/unverified/BLP-violating material as the other socks did. I looked for useful edits, but stuff like this isn't even correct. Nice sockpuppet, by the way. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cleanup assistance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI

here User failed to notify. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

ew warning

I don't no where you got that sugar coated decaf (warning}, but I went with the caffeinated high-test. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم at YPG International

@Drmies: I've seen you ran into Ibn Amr al Kulthoum at YPG International. I'd like to clarify a little his claim of an editor (Konli17) blocked for the dispute at YPG International. The editor was not blocked for the edits at YPG International but for reverting at the Tel Abyad site, where the blocked editor Konli17 has explained the edits he made at the talk page, and Amr Ibn has much less. At the end Amr Ibn only edit warred and reported the editor at the ANI where the active editor at the Tell Abyad talk page was blocked for 48h for reverting 9 times, actually both reverted 8 times (without breaking the 1RR rule) but only Konli17, the active user at the talk page was blocked. Amr Ibn reverted twice more even though he was warned not to revert by the blocking Sysop of the first editor. I adverted the blocking Sysop of it, but to no avail. The Tell Abyad page dispute is currently at the DRN.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, please have a look at the Tel Abyad article and it's talk page to get the full picture of the story. Also, please see Ed Johnston's communication with Konli17 starting here regarding his edit-warring behavior. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Block appeal

One of your blocks is currently being appealed. Could you please stop by and have a look? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Its the same login as for the OTRS Queue for oversight or do you not have an account for that either? The block is about AminCreepCatchers (talk · contribs). It appears the block was only for 2 accounts instead of a sockfarm. I was wondering since (due to the information in the ticket which I can't provide publicly) it seems more innocent than them actually trying to sock, if we could downgrade the block to a normal block for promotion or whatever, give the information on their talk and then they can appeal that issue that way. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hyperbole

Where's your sense of poetic license ?😜 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my report for vandalism

I understand that I did not use a proper report template according to the policy. However, I want to ask you for help to take a look at the already mentioned user Rebelheartous for his vandalism. There is no need to explain to you about my situation but if you value the truth and want to keep Wikipedia clear of deception, please read about this article before reverting my edits. I already exaplained during my previous edits that were constantly reverted without any reason that this club was founded in 1945 according to city's archives and more importantly UEFA: https://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=2603104/profile/index.html  ; https://ludogorets.com/en/history/ . Some "vandals" of rival clubs that have more power than us, the normal people of this small city, constantly try to edit the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFC_Ludogorets_Razgrad as if the club was 10 years old when in fact its 75. The Bulgarian Government and the Bulgarian Football Union prove that. However, since we do not have a lot of fans to help us clean our Wikipedia page of such vandalisms, I try my best to look up for and edit these discrepancies. Even if I did not follow all required policies, I believe that the final result and the truth is more important than some bureaucracy. Not to mention that the one who inserted discripencies within the page at first place did not provide any reference at all and nobody said a thing. I reverted his vandalism by giving a proof and now everybody is against me. Please, if you will, help me in this confusing situation.Seimbru (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't know about "proper", but the note you placed said "His actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account as he has been warned by a few editors on several articles", and that is simply not correct. Their actions didn't self-evidently indicate anything at all. Yes, they were "warned" a few times--the last time in 2018. And they have 1400 edits; it is possible that most of those are vandal edits, but I doubt it and at any rate you didn't prove that. Plus they've been editing since 2007. In other words, you will have to provide some serious evidence if you want a vandalism-only block. As for that article--you two and some others are going at it, and I don't see that a single one of you has sought the talk page to make their case. So, in such a situation, no admin is going to follow the advice of a user with eight edits, all to the same article and all made in what seems to be a long and slow edit war, to indefinitely block an editor of thirteen years with 1400 edits.

    You want resolution? Discuss on the talk page. This has nothing to do with "some bureaucracy", but there is no good reason to accept one side over the other if neither comes with any arguments. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    • Well, as you can see I am not a wikipedia editor with that experience as you stated. I do not have the time nor the intent to become a full-time wikipedia editor. I just want correct information about the concerned article. I editted what was mistaken with my references and I expect it to stay in this way unless someone else proves me wrong. Right now, it is as correct as it should be. In case any discrepencies, anybody can write to me and argue with me. However, I provided solid proof about anything that was required so I do not accept any revert without a reason. Even if some kind of policy was not properly followed, the information provided has the required source to show it is correct. I already wrote at his "talk" page. However, previous times he kept reverting and adding changes without references so you can see here who is not following the Wikipedia's policies.Seimbru (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
      • No, I cannot see that. If you don't want to understand and follow our procedures, that's fine, but do not expect administrators to act on a report where no evidence is provided, and no effort has been made to resolve whatever conflict there is via the normal, collaborative way. No, we are not going to write you if anything changes in that article; if you have an opinion, you can start explaining on the article talk page. On my talk page, you are really wasting your time. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (talk page butt-inski) OP looks mono enthusiastic? singular of focus?. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Certainly, but the bigger problem is lack of communication from both sides--that always makes everything harder. We'll see. I saw your note on the talk page and I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Wwikix

I see that you have done some CU blocking for some of the sockpuppets of Wwikix. I have seen a new sockpuppet, Opclarnem, so I have blocked, reverted, deleted, and protected. There is no doubt whatever that this is another sockpuppet: a brand new account comes from nowhere, and rapidly makes almost 100 edits, 100% of which are repeats of edits by previous Wwikix socks, including recreating deleted pages. Perhaps you would like to consider whether there's any point in a CU in case of further sleepers or other as yet undetected accounts. JBW (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, to be strictly accurate, I have not checked every single edit, so I can't say for certain that 100% of the edits are repeats of edits by previous socks, but I have looked at a large proportion of the edit histories, and every one of them has been a page previously edited by Wwikix socks, and every one of the individual edits that I have checked has been a direct restoration of a reverted edit by earlier socks. JBW (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • JBW, there was a range that all these socks were on but not many of them shared the same IP. I'm sure there's some technical reason for that. I'll have a look; thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OK, so... (oh! queso!) there was one sleeper, User talk:Jurkste. They went to this other range (on a coffee run, maybe) to create these two accounts, which then edited from their usual range. (Strange coincidence--there were only two other accounts on that range, and one of them I blocked last month for their username--small world.) Their usual range is already blocked, by ST47, and there is nothing else/new on there. Thanks JBW, Drmies (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. JBW (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You have mail!

When you have a sec... LadyofShalott 20:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Drmies, there's currently an RfC underway at Talk:Zak Smith concerning this BLP. You may wish to bring a fresh set of eyes to the issue.  JGHowes  talk 03:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Whoa, that is a long, long RfC. Eh, why me? Now I have to learn what alt-porn is (alt-porn?). Give me a day or two to read over it and look at the sources. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Best way to resolve IP problem?

Looking for some advice if you have a minute. There is an IP editor who keeps wanting to add a statement they made on YouTube to the Killing of Vanessa Guillén article (provides no link, no secondary reliable source when requested yesterday; see their talk page). I keep reverting and they just keep restoring. What's the next best step? Protecting the page against IP editors seems drastic but I'd like to put a stop to this silliness. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • AzureCitizen, sorry, but the first thing to do is to stop at 3, UNLESS you are claiming BLP issues or so. And, in a case like this, just report to the vandalism board--the blocking admin can pick the template for "unsourced edits" or whatever. But please don't go around investigating and posting your results: before you know it you're in OUTING territory. As for protecting--I'll have a look, but I have no problem with semi-protecting articles if there's disruption; in my opinion, that is not a drastic step at all. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Roger on the above... in the future I'll just report things like that to the vandalism board at x3. On the link, it came up because I started by checking to see if there was sourcing/justification for the content, then realized this was just misguided personal advocacy. Easy to slide in the wrong direction without intending to. On semi-protection, the same content was added a few days ago from a different IP, so we'll see if other IPs start showing up too. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Sure thing, and thanks again. I did not see enough to warrant semi-protection but I'll be happy to reconsider if you see more shenanigans. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Frederica von Stade

Hello again! It's nice to reconnect with my favourite old sparring partner, although I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't a little disappointed that you've taken quite such a harsh view of my latest tinkerings. Are you sure that you're being altogether fair? To me, "book length" means at least 80,000 words, and I haven't been quite that self-indulgent. My 210,000-ish bytes are in the same ballpark as the length of other Wikipedia biographies of entertainers, e.g. Maria Callas (139, 264), Frank Sinatra (217,801), Paul McCartney (238,395) or Michael Jackson (239,650). The nearest thing that I had to a model was the only FA about an opera singer, Kathleen Ferrier, which goes into a wonderful and very colourful level of detail about her and is only as short as it is because her life and career were both so brief. To me, the most persuasive argument in favour of my approach to Frederica von Stade is that since I first expanded it, the article has attracted at least 30,000 pageviews (I think that 50,000 would be nearer the mark), and that the number of readers who have complained that it is too detailed is, as far as I can remember, 2. Can it really be good that the more than 99.99% of readers who are OK with my work should be denied it by the less than 0.01% who aren't? Doesn't WP:CONSENSUS carry more weight than WP:IDONTLIKEIT?Niggle1892 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • That article is terrible. Anyone can look at the edits I just made, and the sourcing that you apparently thought was reliable secondary sourcing appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I mean--[1]? "The Rossini bicentennial birthday gala, CD booklet and Laserdisc sleeve"? [2]? And all these, still in the article--[3]? [4]? [5]? [6]? What kind of sourcing is that? 30,000 is great, but Chicken fried bacon got almost 30,000 on one day, and it's a lot tastier.

    I'm not your sparring partner, and I don't know how you think that this former singer is of the caliber of the other artists you mention. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Susan Rosenberg - What happened

Memes on the internet, shared by Donald Trump (amongst others) is what happened to that article. Thanks for the big revert, but I think you shortened the protection with your change (Link). Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 00:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks. The article needs protection, not pending changes; all this will blow over before you know it, and likely before protection runs out. I thought it was 4chan, but what's the difference... Drmies (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Crews

On 11 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Crews, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Joseph Crews, who organized a militia to mobilize African-American voters in South Carolina, was assassinated by whites in the run-up to the 1876 gubernatorial election? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Crews. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Joseph Crews), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppet?

Hi DrMies, can you check if user:Blueyeah is a sock puppet of user:Wikix? Blueyeah hit the ground running wild, notably in Dutch categories. Best, gidonb (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • gidonb, that one user isn't blocked and I don't see anything about socking. Either way, their edits are ancient, and there is nothing for me to check. An SPI is the way to go--but you'd need to point at an SPI or something that proved the previous account was disruptive. And even then--it was so long ago... Drmies (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    User:Drmies, thank you for the advice! Wwikix is permanently blocked at nl.wiki and en.wiki and still active at de.wiki. I think he may be evading his block now. gidonb (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Aha, and now I understand why you pinged me--I thought the name sounded familiar. OK. What User:Wwikix, or User:Blueyeah if that's really them, would need to do is request an unblock. But first we need to establish whether these are the same person, and the way to do that is (really) to open an WP:SPI, where you lay out the behavioral evidence. Or you could get someone (not me, not today or tomorrow) to evaluate and see if they're the same. The Wwikix talk page is full of names; maybe one of these folks has some time. But if I were you I'd go for the SPI, if only because that leaves an easier paper trail. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Gidonb, I don't know if you've been involved in this recently, but the other day I thanked and welcomed User talk:Ifdert5verw--to discover a few days later they're a sock. Look in my recent log for more, haha. ST47, I see you ran CU on the same range that I just looked at--I don't know, is it time for a block on the entire range? GB fan, you blocked a bunch of em too--thanks, I appreciate you. Materialscientist, I saw you revert one or two edits from one of the socks--so this is what it was. ST, I tagged the ones I blocked. Is there more paperwork to be done? Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Np, I also thanked one of his socks for an edit. Not all his edits are bad. In general, he doesn't care for community guidelines. At nl.wiki he used to rewrite articles about Judaism in the style of his Messianic religion. Allowing Wwikix to participate anywhere is a slippery slope. gidonb (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Quinn and Jack Hughes

What is with these adamant Christian IPs? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

User:30ChuaPhaiLaTet ⋅ SPI

Hi - I don't know anythng about this user and claims of sockpuppetry, I'm only here because I see that several articles this user created have been summarily deleted. As far as I can tell, they were all valid articles about settlements in Vietnam. Why delete them? Colonies Chris (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Longterm socking; DENY. Their edits are, typically, unverified and unexplained, and this person lost the community's faith eleven years ago. They have not give us any reason to think they have improved. Learning something about this user and their socking is not a difficult thing to do, by the way. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible Socks vandalizing the US v. Mike Flynn page

Two, possibly three IP users are vandalizing the US v. Mike Flynn page. They've made several edits that are just non-sense, not using sources and they are relentless. Here's are two examples: [7] [8] @FactOrOpinion: has asked for help at the TeaHouse (here [9]) and has been trying to revert their edits when they make them. I am telling you this because in the past you have identified & blocked sock's IPs-- so I'm hoping you can look into this situation. Thanks so much BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I appreciate everyone's help. If it matters, the answer to Drmies's question above is that there was no corresponding text in the body, so none of the claims were supported with RS (and it's not clear that it belonged in the lead anyway, but that's a smaller problem). I don't know that they're sockpuppet accounts; in responding to my Teahouse question, Mathglot said that IPv6 addresses can be highly dynamic. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No worries, Betsy--after a few clicks I figured out what was going on; I hope you saw the range blocks. Check that range: it's ... well, it's a Russian range, and it's making anti-Biden edits, and it's all just too perfect. Thankskis, Drmies (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This Russian troll is continuing to post disinformation to the talk page for US v Flynn, using IPv4 addresses outside the blocked range. If you're open to addressing this, I'd appreciate it, and if I should instead post something about it at an Administrators' Noticeboard page, I'd appreciate guidance about which is the correct page to post it to. @El C: You'd semiprotected the main page, and I don't know whether the talk page can be semiprotected as well. Thanking both of you -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

argh

give me a settlement free desert any time... argh - interested - what position are you in relation to every human setllement on the planet having a stub ... ? JarrahTree 01:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Minorax (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

2607:fea8::/32 block too wide, too much collateral damage

Hi Drmies, it seems like you've blocked a substantial portion of the population of Canada all in one fell swoop with this block (on Special:Contribs/2607:fea8::/32). A good portion of all of ACC and #wikipedia-en-unblock is currently dedicated to handling this one rangeblock. Would you have any objection to an unblock? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Well, you do what you think is right--but I just want to note it's not the first time someone blocks that range. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Drmies – just wanted to let you know I've lifted the block. The previous blocks were partial blocks, which I definitely think would be appropriate, but I think full blocks here cover too much; many users which are clearly legitimate seme like they're using this. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Klaberjass, Bruus and other card games

Hi Drmies, thanks for reviewing the Bruus DYK. I must learn Klaberjass myself, but well done for planning to teach your kids. My wife loves games and used to play card games with our kids, but I thought they were boring. Now I've discovered a whole world of European card games, often played with different and fascinating cards, I realise it was only native English games that were boring! Apart from Cribbage, that is... Anyway, enjoy Klaberjass, but I can also thoroughly recommend Bruus having played it 'live' in Germany with veteran players - great family game too once you've got your head around the card ranking! Sweet home Alabama and cheers! Bermicourt (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Real Life (novel)

Hello! Your submission of Real Life (novel) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Setuid looks like it should be an adjective for squid. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

Hello Doctor. Please see this complaint at WP:AN3. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw it, Ed--thanks. I revert twice and I'm on your board, where the user is arguing, I believe, that they reported me to avoid reporting me, or something like that. I think they've called on two other admins already, so if this is the last time you see me, it's been nice knowing you. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
After so many years of faithful service, to go down in flames in a dispute over setuid? This could become a tragic anecdote and taught in literature classes. </irony> Someone thinks this the filer could be an LTA but I don't yet have the authority to block on suspicion only. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston, I saw that comment. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
As an admin, why would you need to worry with setuid anyway? DMacks (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
DMacks, I read the first sentence and understand the grammar but not the words. Very interesting. I still have no idea what the user was trying to do and why--just change sample names? But the names have been there since 2016, and "torvalds", that has kind of a cool ring to it. Maybe LadyofShalott has some fave Unix names? Drmies (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hah, not at all! LadyofShalott 17:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The relevant usernames are "ken" and "thompson" for Ken Thompson and "dmr" for Dennis Ritchie, two people who developed Unix (Ritchie specifically is credited with setuid itseif), and "torvalds" for Linus Torvalds, who developed Linux. According to [11], the first one would have been "ken" in the original system. DMacks (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Rules for thee as well as me

Have at it [12]. Maybe you can bless us with another one of your gifts in the vein of [13]. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oh, so that IP was indeed you, even though you were playing coy with User:Serial Number 54129 on the ANEW board. So, you won't be happy until I get punished for not playing your passive-aggressive, timewasting, and useless games. Good luck! Hey--do not come back here please OK? If you have more to say, don't do it here. Drmies (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Weirdness on Farquharson rifle

Can you take a look at the history of the page and see if I'm right that it's making no sense? Possibly sockpuppeting, or something. I'm not sure. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Typ932

It seems that your warning at WP:AN3 will not stop this user from his foul behaviour and edit warring as this still continues at both Alfa Romeo 156 and Alfa Romeo 166. A block will be more feasible. U1 quattro TALK 10:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Gregory Dickow

You consider a widely respected newspaper like Crain's Chicago Business and public record aggregators like Blockshopper to be "poor sources"? That makes no sense, and I have not had a 'history' of using poor source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fosterliberty (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Please review WP:BLPPRIMARY - primary sources such as public records may not be used in biographies except under certain narrow conditions. Looking up someone's home address is not one of those acceptable uses. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, NorthBySouthBaranof. Fosterliberty, read and edit more carefully. I didn't say that that Chicago thing was a poor source: but something like Blockshopper is obviously not acceptable. Worse, you restored completely improper information to a BLP. And the history of your using poor material for sources is right there on your talk page--with warnings by User:NinjaRobotPirate, User:Ronz, and User:Tacyarg. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You're really citing comments on my Talk page from four years ago? I've made a lot of edits and written an entire article before. The one from Tacyarg was addressed by the addition of an additional source. Some of the other ones I did not know at the time. After I added the Crain's Chicago Business source, you still deleted the information. I don't know what names you are referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fosterliberty (talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Two things--no, three, and the first one is to please have the courtesy of signing your name; it's not hard. Second, yes I am citing comments from years ago: one would have thought you'd have learned what's reliable and what's not, and what's secondary and what's not. Third, if you can't figure out which unverified names I'm talking about AND YET YOU MADE THIS EDIT, not once but twice, then I really don't know what to tell you. LOOK at the edit you made. Look. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

While those names aren't my content, I don't see how they are erroneous. His wife and children are mentioned in other parts of his biography. I didn't know how to sign or that I needed to. It seems like it did it automatically. I'm not a world-famous Wikipedia editor like you apparently are. I just add stuff that I find when I'm reading. If you can't advise me on how I can add the information about the property in South Barrington, I'll ask someone else. I don't quite understand why you are so antagonistic anyway.Fosterliberty (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  • If you don't understand, maybe you should go over your interactions. "Antagonistic", the editor says, while complaining that the other is a "world-famous Wikipedian" and they're not, and they therefore don't need to know the rules. No, if you restore a BLP violation, twice, you own it, and if you don't recognize that, you should educate yourself--especially if you've been warned for it before. Why do I need to help you, when the only thing you've done is edit against rules that have already been explained to you, while insulting me on my talk page? But it's not hard: all you have to do is leave out the unacceptable sources, and not restore those BLP-violating and trivial names (which are not mentioned elsewhere in the article). Not hard. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Goya Foods

You undid my entire section on "Cultural impact" and left the following comment: "I’m very sorry but this can’t stand unless there is independent and in-depth sourcing—not press releases and company links (just one secondary, with a brief mention) it resembles corporate promotion" - I'm having a hard time understanding why you undid the entire section instead of requesting additional sources or better RS? There are sources from The Baltimore Sun and from an independent art gallery - both of which are WP:RS - if your issue are with the source from Goya Foods website - then why do you have no issue with the other four previous sources from the same company website in that article? If those other 4 sources from goya.com are OK - why not mine - especially since it illustrates the sculpture in question? Agree with you on the one press release - have already found a better RS - Nonetheless, I'm super confused by your harsh delete and with all due respect need a reason other than what you left. Thank you in advance. --BoriquaZurdo (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this the same Goya Foods that Ivanka has been promoting, even though I think she is not supposed to? - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
BoriquaZurdo, art galleries are not necessarily "reliable sources" when it comes to art, and they are very likely not independent sources. I shouldn't have to explain that Goya's website is not an acceptable source. That article from the Baltimore Sun, after looking at it again, I see that it mentions Goya three times and it does make a kind of claim that is relevant and has some substance to it, so I have no objection to you reinstating Ric Garcia to the article. But what I don't understand is why you think I'm somehow OK with other links to the company website. That's like saying that I think WP:OVERLINK is wrong because I didn't clean up the first sentence in the article. But, if you like, I will be happy to stop what I'm doing and get right on it.

Sitush, yes--and of course Goya Foods is in something of a PR pickle right now. For the record, their Sazon seasoning is a staple in the Drmies household. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Not being in the US, I hadn't heard of Goya until I saw a photo of Ivanka posing with a bottle of something they make. I've recently discovered Henderson's Relish here. Given its age, and indeed my own, I'm surprised I've never heard of that before. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
User:BoriquaZurdo, please see this edit. Now, that I made that edit does not mean I endorse every single statement in the article, and I am fully aware that there are other articles on Wikipedia that have overlinked terms and unacceptable references to primary websites. If you like, I'll write up a disclaimer saying that, and post it every single time I make an edit. You may also want to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, Thank you for your quick and extensive replies - I appreciate the feedback and your time. Some thoughts: (1) I agree that art galleries are "not necessarily" good sources - However, they are for "some" aspects and they should not be subject of a blanket dismissal as an RS. As we know, their job is to promote the artist, thus commercial art galleries would not be a good RS for an opinion or critical discussion of the artist. However, I submit that art galleries are a good RS when it comes to "cold data" about an artist - such as place of birth, education, etc., as they are often the only online source for such information. In my "Cultural impact" section of Goya Foods, the art gallery reference was not an opinion about the artist, but a fact (the artist uses Goya for his imagery) - that's not WP:OPINION, especially when accompanied by an image. (2) If I may explain further, I did not mean to imply that you're "OK with other links to the company's website", I was simply pointing out that you isolated my links to the company's website, while (at the time) allowing the other four links to remain - I suspect that you would have asked the same question if you were in my shoes. At the time it didn't make sense to me that my link was not allowed, but the other four were, especially since mine was used to show what the sculpture looked like. It a moot point now, since you've nixed the other 4 links as well - my apologies, as from your writing, it seems to have upset you... and please be 100% assured that I do not expect you to write any disclaimer about anything that you edit - I did not, and do not mean for this exchange to come across as anything other than me seeking clarification, and not to cause you additional work. (3) Since the Drmies household is a fan of Goya's fantastic Sazon, may I recommend their Cuban Black Bean Soup (different from their ordinary canned black beans), as it is almost as good as any Cuban black bean soup that you'd get in Little Havana! Just heat and serve with white rice - it's the Cuban national dish - of note the black beans are ALWAYS served separate from the white rice, and only the eater can "mix" them... if you ever order this dish from a "Cuban" restaurant and they bring both together on the same plate... RUN! (4) Unless you order "Moros y Cristianos (dish)", in which case the black beans and the rice are cooked together! Thank you again...--BoriquaZurdo (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
BoriquaZurdo, I don't often say "I'm sorry" in an edit summary, but I did here because in principle I'm all about that kind of edit, and I am hoping that there is (better) sourcing available. But yeah, sourcing to Goya itself--I used to edit a lot of guitar and guitar amp pages, and sourcing to the company was quite rampant there, like with "signature models" and things like that. Oh, yes, the galleries: the function of secondary sourcing is also to establish that something doesn't just exist but that it matters. The gallery itself cannot establish that...

I appreciate the advice on rice and beans. I'm a big fan, but unfortunately my kids are not. Moors and Christians is fascinating--I never edited that article but I have the feeling I did: I'm wondering if I used that article in class or something. Anyway, thanks again, and next time I'm out shopping I'll pick some up. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

BoriquaZurdo, guess what I had with dinner last night--they sell it at Publix these days. Very tasty: thanks for the advice. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Drmies - Now gotta getcha to try some Puerto Rican foods! I suggest "Arroz con Gandules"--BoriquaZurdo (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Haha, years ago I taught a freshman comp class and had students write about family foods. So I had a PR student, and she told me about these pigeon peas, and yeah I like em. I think Publix sold them frozen, which I like better than canned. My family, unfortunately, did not care for them...but keep the tips coming. Oh, I made a type of ropa vieja last night, with the Goya Sazon--very, very tasty. You find some better sourcing for your artists? Good luck, Drmies (talk)

Persistent vandalism(?) in the S-400 missile system article.

Hi. Could you look at the recent edits there? The IP-editor is either unaware of how Wikipedia works or is straight-up vandalizing the article. He's also not willing to explain himself on the talk page, so there's a potential for a long edit war. The rationale behind my reversions is presented in the edit summary. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I've semi-protected; I see in the history that this is not the first time. If they come back we can block, and we can probably consider a rangeblock as well. The best way to stave off such disruption is to improve the article so that some kind of standard is reached, and hash out any possible conflicts on the talk page with a consensus among editors--but I know that is a lot to ask. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Good faith and statistics

Drmies, given that anything related to race and crime is a really sensitive subject I try to avoid the topic in general. I wouldn't have mentioned it at all had other editors not tried to show edits/talk page positions that I still support in a way as to suggest I might be motivated by racism. Sadly I think our political climate sometimes has trouble seeing the difference between an honest intellectual exploration of ideas/facts and a those looking for justification to support racism. There of course is also the issue that sometimes biases are not always obvious (I might not see something as racist) or we start to see them lurking around every corner (we become hammers that try to classify everything as some sort of almost nail). On articles like Andy Ngo, Tucker Carlson etc my motivation is to avoid filling up the articles with as many negative "sound bites" as possible. I don't find it useful to say "X said this thing that Salon said was crazy." Instead a summary that "X's comments about [topic] focus on this issue and have been criticized for being..." seems more encyclopedic to me. This is why I often oppose additions, not because I want to support or normalize any sort of racism. I also have a strong background in the sciences and engineering. I deeply empathize with this joke [[14]]. In general I try to totally stay away from things like BLM articles since I feel the emotional aspects are just too high and in general I'm not that knowledgeable about the subject. In this case I stepped in because I had interacted with the new editor in the past and certainly didn't want to see them get topic banded. I agree the black crime stats were something that is just too political to touch.

Still, I'm going to dive just a bit into hypothetical stats and why I think there may be a legitimate concern here. It appeared that the question at hand was if it was reasonable to compare the rate of something bad vs populations in general or if we should try to come up with a better base population for comparison. Take lung cancer (and I'm totally inventing these numbers). Lets assume men get lung cancer at a rate 2x women. With no other facts we might assume women are inherently less likely to get lung cancer. However, what if we add smoking as a variable to our populations. Now we find that men smoke at twice the rate as women. We also find that the rate of lung cancer for non-smoking men and women is about the same and the same when comparing smoking men and women. Well now we can see there isn't a genetic gender difference rather a behavior difference. The same question gets asked with respect to police interactions. For example, about 20 years ago NJ was accused of targeting black motorists on the NJ turnpike. The evidence was NJ had good information on the use rate of the road. However, the police said they couldn't identify race prior to making the stop. Thus the question was, "is the rate of speeding drivers the same across populations" [[15]]. The study found that the behaviors were not. The problem is this becomes a very touchy issue since, you are right, suggesting the base behaviors are different can easily be changed into the absolutely incorrect "well they deserve it". As a final aside to kid of illustrate this point, a while back I read a book about the US increasing involvement in the Vietnam war. The book presented 3 camps, 2 anti-war, 1 for. The for group was largely the group who for patriotic/national security reasons etc said we need to go it. One of the anti-war groups was the "coward, commie, druggie, hippies" (I'm deliberately adding the negative spin). The third group was the "studied it carefully and this isn't a good idea" group. That third group contained many who had fought in WW2 and/or Korea. They foresaw what came to be true in the end. They were the ones we should have listened to. However, group 1 (for war) was able to paint group 3 as just a version of group 2 in the public's eye. Net result, the public associated not wanting to go to war with coward, commie, druggie, hippies instead of "cold rational assessment". In this case I hope we don't ignore group 3 just because group 2 is ugly.

Sorry to dump this much on you. I recall you holding out a lance of good faith and I don't want you to take it back just because I may have sent the wrong message. Springee (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Don't apologize, it's fine. But I'm not particularly willing to change my mind when it comes to that talk page. From what I understand there's like one guy who disputes the numbers--and by "guy" I mean "person with a degree and a job and published research"--about the disproportionate rates at which Black people are the victim of police violence. What I see on that talk page is, and it comes in waves, people arguing "well what BLM claims ain't true", and then they start arguing statistics. But it's not "BLM" that's claiming that--it's every single social, anthropological, political, and statistical scientist except that one guy (you'll allow me a bit of generalization). And Wikipedia talk pages should not be places where we re-run the numbers to decide which sources/papers/books/stats are acceptable, because the result is predictable. There are a lot of things we can discuss, and I am hoping that the Andrew Wakefield talk page will show that--we can discuss how reliable this or that publication is, how solid this or that person's credentials are, whether the blog of some journal is as trustworthy as the journal itself. But re-litigating what the experts say based on our own expertise, that's like those a-holes on Instagram and Facebook going "NO MASKS ONLY STOP DROPLETS NOT MICROSCOPIC BLAH BLAH BLAH" when every single health expert is telling us to put on a fucking mask. And people die when we don't listen to the experts.

    I'm a big fan of discussion and of taking issue with what people say, including the experts; I'm a deconstructionist by trade--but not on Wikipedia. And when some editor is going to do that on an article talk page, I wanna go, oh yeah MF, how many White people got shot in the back while running away from the po-po. How many White people had to lie there for eight minutes and die while someone put a knee on their back or their throat. And we have an answer for that: it's a factor three, roughly. So I don't want to give even the slightest leeway to the forum editors who just want to express opinions, or whatever they think they're doing, because this is not some hypothetical issue. In my city a man got shot and the excuse was "well he pointed a painter's stick at me". In my city a man got shot and the cop covered it up. These were Black men, of course. And I don't need nobody to explain that White people get shot by trigger-happy cops too--we all know that's true, but the numbers aren't the same. But what I'm kind of proud of is that my (White) friend wrote the book that documented the death and cover-up of Bernard Whitehurst (I met the man's family...), and that Aaron Smith was sentenced for manslaughter.

    Anyway, I feel like I strayed from the topic a little bit, and it's also time to walk the dogs. We have nice dogs. No one is ever going to mess with me in my mostly segregated neighborhood for walking the dogs, but I know that I have neighbors who will get in their cars and follow Black people through the neighborhood, "just to make sure". Anyway. Springee, thanks again for dropping by; I appreciate you. I think you already knew sort of where I stand, but what has become more clear over the past few years to me, a pretty old, conservative, and thickheaded White person, is that there is urgency here. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Impostor!

Hello, I don't know if you have already been notified of this, but someone pretended to be you in the past couple of days. See [16] and [17]. This person made comments and signed your name, for example: [18], but fortunately all have been caught and reverted, and the user has been blocked for abuse. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Kosovo colonisation article

Hi Drmies,

Sorry to bother you with this, but there is a situation in the Balkan topic area where it might get out of hand. Recently there has been some pagemoves on the Kosovo colonisation article of what looks like pagemove edit warring. Its had a whole host of pagemoves within a short period of time (page history: [19]), showing that the pagemove is contested. Is it possible to restore the pre move pagename using the British English spelling i.e Yugoslav colonisation of Kosovo which it was originally and stating to editors that if they want to advocate for a pagemove/new name, they need to open a proper request. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Have you seen the recent history of Dua Lipa? Who wants to dive in there? Anyway, I do not have much time today, and in fact I gotta run right now. I think I'm not the best one to ask if you need something done today. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bama

  • No one, no one should be allowed to impugn the character of the second-most divine coach in the history of college football. I presume Bear Bryant would be your pick for #1-most divine coach, naturally. ;) --WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Haha, that goes without saying! (I'm kind of bluffing--it's well before my time, and from what I understand he wasn't a stellar example of a human being, but yeah.) Still can't figure out what I'll be doing this fall. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Elsewhere, there's a fine tradition where everyone celebrates when the (usually) disgraced former coach sells their house. Kiffin, Dooley, and now Butch. I wonder what Butch's pad looks like in Tuscaloosa. There used to be other, better traditions, especially on Saturdays, but they don't come around much anymore. Maybe next (next?) year. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
        • WHAT Butch Jones to Alabama??? Sheeit that sort of ruins my day. He's much too unattractive to work for us. Have you ever seen Saban's lakehouse? It's...well it's big. The thing with these coaches, their tastes, or their wives' tastes, are just awful. These homes couldn't scream "nouveau riche" any louder if the whole of Neyland Stadium shouted it. "The heart of West Knoxville"--haha, there is no heart in that part of town. I didn't live very far from that awful place, just on the other side of the golf course, of the Cherokee Country Club--which tore down the historic Smith/Coughlin House to build, you guessed it, a parking lot. Yeah, maybe next year. No one seems to be able to make up their minds, but school starts before college, so the corona outburst resulting from the schools' opening might make the college administrator make wiser choices. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Drmies, re: this, you made that removal after I applied a DS to the article preventing removing others comments (see here) I get your comments were removed, but I really don’t want people to keep fighting over what can and can’t stay in the article based on well an admin ignored the DS so I can too. Anyway, just wanted to point out the sanction on the AfD. Hope all is well with you. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Sure, Tony. So I assume Rusf10's innuendo got to stand, but my accusation that they were really just here to push something, not to write articles, is gone? There will come a time where I'll make that case in a different forum. BTW their comment showed their lack of awareness of a bunch of things, including the idea that AfD is a vote count. I hope that AfD closes soon, and I hope the right decision is reached. Someone in there said "no reliable sources actually talk about Joe Biden's racial views", or words to that effect, and that should be the norm. And such an article, if it stands, will demonstrate that he was besties with the country's first Black president, that he was a man who learned things as he got older and got wiser, and, more recently, that he spoke to a Muslim group, whereas his opponent sees Islam only as a punching bags and "Arabs" only as business partners or ..., well, you know. In other words, if it stands, those who wanted it to stand will have to be ready for that article to become a tale of redemption. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I get your frustration (and since Rusf10's removal of your comment before the DS happened still stands, I think they should either remove their own comment that you object to or should restore your comment to them.) There were a ton of people going back and forth on that page removing perceived slights and attacks that we'd ordinarily let stand on the grounds of "its the internet, this gets heated, and touching other people's comments makes it worse", which is why I went ahead and placed the DS. If people keep acting in a way that's negative like you're suggesting, another forum would probably be better than arguing at the AfD. Anyway, thanks for the reply. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oh, no worries, and I'm not that frustrated about this. I did notice that the article creator also felt the need to keep an eye on my edits in that AfD, haha. So thanks for keeping it clean, and don't worry about me! Drmies (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) This is a user whose questionable conduct has now popped up on my watchlist so often that I'm beginning to feel seriously concerned...Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Am I unreasonably harsh here?

To avoid conflicts, I like to know if I am unreasonably harsh here with my announcement to remove subjects without own articles and that to keep them the articles should be written: Talk:List of molecular graphics systems#Request: Write the Article!. The Banner talk 18:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Real Life (novel)

On 22 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Real Life (novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Real Life, Brandon Taylor's debut novel, is an American campus novel about a gay, black doctoral student in a mostly white PhD program? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Real Life (novel). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Real Life (novel)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"What's funny is that in my mind BMK and Lugnuts are very similar in their editing styles."

Which probably explains quite a bit. Hope you and yours are well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  • So far so good, BMK. Hope the same for you. It's tough, with kids at home and school about to start--when we all know it's going to be shut down in a couple of weeks. And it's a thousand degrees here in the south. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Cuban American National Foundation

It's been a surprising while since I last remember posting here...thanks for cleaning up Cuban American National Foundation. I've been working my way through some articles about Cuban exiles, and they're almost always a terrible mess when I get to them; and it's not for lack of good material, either. I don't suppose I could interest you in collaborating on rewriting the page? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Hmm well, [User:BoriquaZurdo]] probably knows more about it anyway, since they live a lot closer to Miami and to Cuba than I do. (Jacksonville has the best beach I've ever seen in the US--there were tidal pools with all kinds of animals. Wonderful.) I will be glad to help, but as I told someone else on this page, I don't have a lot of time right now to stick into a new topic. I might have more in a few weeks. But yes, that's another article that needs a lot of help. Now, if it's cutting and copyediting, that's low investment... Drmies (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I may not get to it for a while, either; dumping promotional material is great, but many of these also need rewriting, and that's hard. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde, I wrote a bit of text, and removed a bit of unverified text. There's two really good sources in there now, from which we can pull a lot more material (if you can access them though Google Books). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. My computer's on the fritz, so my activity will be limited for a few days, but I'll take a look at it then, and I will reply to your email at that point, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Antonyo Awards

On 26 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Antonyo Awards, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Antonyo Awards—a riff on the Tony Awards—were instituted in 2020 to celebrate excellence in Black theater? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Antonyo Awards. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Antonyo Awards), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Drhusseinnet

Hi Drmies, may I ask you to block Drhusseinnet (talk · contribs · count) globally as their spamming pattern extends to multiple wikis[20]? Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 07:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Proofread/approval of draft

Hi Drmies, As you suggested, I have made a draft of the edits I would like to make to an article which I have edited before, which is now named "Draft:COMATCH". Please could you proof-read the draft. How do I go about moving the article from a draft back to the main public space once you have approved it? Many thanks, (Ingelange22 (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC))

157.40.46.210

Please block user:157.40.46.210 ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Brockhold socks

Hi!

Both 166.181.84.192 and User:Luftwaffle1939 are socks of User:Brockhold. I filed an SPI here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The 1619 Project

Hello Drmies, Hope you are well! I know I shouldn't be doing this but since you're the only regular who's ever even edited the article... I tried doing something about the reception section. I was hoping if you might be able to take a look (assuming I don't get reverted before you have the chance). I put the trivia into a "reaction" section. It was needed then to meet the character count of DYK but I think it's just NOTNEWS and maybe should go. What do you think? (Why can't I still find any liberals other than Harris?) And about the rest too? I'm not familiar enough to know if it's closer to NPOV or FALSEBALANCE. (Then, there's google search bias too) If you have any pointers, I would be happy to try (what can realistically be achieved, I fear, may depend more on how much hindrance AGF and BRD are likely to be in articles like this though). Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Yeah I'm not quite sure what to say. There are an awful lot of edits today, and in general. Ha, I was reminded of this idiocy while looking at the history. I wonder who stuck all that World Socialist stuff in there--it's funny if indeed the "World Socialists" are in agreement with Libertarians and the Washington Examiner and people like Newt Gingrich. As for balance--I think this is one of those cases where, at least for now, the nay-sayers just scream louder and in more outlets.We'll know in a few years if, for instance, the educational material has borne fruit and was well-received; it's just too early for that, and JSTOR won't have those materials for a while anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    Going through the sources, to me, it seems it is taken as a given that it's universally acclaimed, and so they don't seem to bother saying that in so many words. Other than the vox website that says it was very well received (last updated two days after the launch), theatlantic, which seems to be trying to be a dispassionate participant (it characterises vox, among others, as politically tinted, and guilty of dismissing legitimate criticisms by bundling them all up with the far right), for example, says, The reaction to the project was not universally enthusiastic, clearly implying but not bothering saying that detractors are the exception.
    I had asked at the talk page about the socialists back in January but only had the opportunity to look into it myself in my editing session that preceded this conversation (Curiously, it seems the day I chose was special (double the regular daily viewership, in the month which has gotten double the regular monthly viewership). WSWS got first into the critical reception, 6 or 7 urls for as many interviews, then it got to the lead because lead should summarise the prominent parts of the body, and then the website itself got into the body because "it is a prominent participant in the debate". There is one discussion on the talk page, still ongoing, about summarising the reception as "generally negative reviews from historians" based on that website. All that suggests to me that it would be next to impossible to completely rid of it. That's why I removed everything and added back the secondary source that says the website was ideologically motivated to promote these academics because it matched their "only class conflict is legit" stance. We'll see.
    I think this meet the threshold for revdel (in case you haven't see it; as you say, awful lot of edits). Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Holy shit thanks for pointing that out. Yes, we'll see--thanks for looking at that WS material, I appreciate that. You ever get any response on the Witchcraft in Nepal article? Drmies (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Elizabeth_Musks#WP:MOS

If you'd told me I'd be blocking over MOS violations, I'd've laughed in your face and told you to get lost. SMDH. Damn! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't think it would be the first time--but of course it's not the violation but the associated behavior. BTW I appreciate your double contraction. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated removal of AFD notice

Hi there. I’m not sure where the appropriate place to report this would be, but an editor is repeatedly removing the AFD notice from Yuta (musician) (three times). Would you mind taking a look or advising where I can go about this? TIA, Alex (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • You came to the right place. I gave them a final warning. Strange edits for a new user. I am more and more convinced that there's a template with instructions being circulated; there is no way new users can do this kind of syntax. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry to bother again, but Neocitylife first created the Yuta article after their draft was declined (which I took to AFD, mentioned above). Their draft article for Binnie (singer) was also declined a few days ago and they have moved it to mainspace with no improvements and no notability shown. (I came across this after seeing the user add links to an article on my watchlist) I moved it back to draft twice, but I think should probably step back at this point. They haven't responded to any of the messages or notices on their talk page or said anything in their edit summaries to suggest they are willing to communicate. Alex (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, and if they remove the AfD notice again I will block them for disruption. I saw the history and your comments; there isn't much I can do since you started the AfD; I could have restored the redirect, maybe, but given the AfD we should let this be a community decision. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thame Players Theatre

Hello and thank you for your suggestions regarding the above page. I am curious to know what language you consider to be "promotional" since the 'company' is an am-dram theatre company. Having been editing Wiki pages for over 15 years, this is the first such accusations, so, as I say, I'm curious.

--MovingScenes (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I think you know very well what I mean--some of the language that you included, about the convenient location, about the humble blessings of patronage, that sort of things. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Well...

In regards to Middle Ages - I was insane. And I got started on it for the Core Contest and it just kept niggling at me. I also had more time to edit then... but I suspect that the first answer is probably the most likely. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Ha, well, I appreciate it still. I keep mentioning this because whether you were insane or not, I am still in awe of it. PS did you see Alarichall's resume? He's for real--in fact, I might just try and make it to Leeds next year, just to say hi. I've never been. Maybe User:Serial Number 54129 will make an appearance also. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary removal of Carnegie Classification context

How is it disruptive for me to reverse your arbitrary deletion of the context I provided for Georgia State University’s Carnegie Classification? Your initial rationale was “it’s too many words,” but we’re talking about 17 words that provide useful context for people who are unfamiliar with the Carnegie Classification system, which is almost certainly most people who visit the Georgia State University page. Furthermore, the length of that section of the GSU page is very much in keeping with other university pages. TBPJMRamirez (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  • And you're an SPA who needs to discuss this matter on the article talk page, not mine. Besides, I believe it was ElKevbo who asked you to fulfill the requirements in WP:DECLARE, and they were right. As for that classification system, there's plenty of room in the article to explain; it needn't be explained in the lead. BTW it's already verbose and unattractive, and your edit just made that worse. 02:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • What exactly are you alleging? That this is an alt account? That I’m not a professional Wikipedia editor and that I only edit topics I’m interested in? And how is there a better place to introduce context for the Carnegie Classification system tham the sentence where the system is first introduced? It’s neither verbose nor unattractive, either - it’s concise and easy to read.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • OK, on the talk page, not here. No, I'm alleging that you have a conflict of interest (doesn't matter whether you're paid or an employee or not), that you are not a very experienced Wikipedia editor, that you are not really in a position to say "other articles have it too", and that I don't think you should be giving lessons on how to write a lead. But, again, please explain on the talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I am indeed not a very experienced Wikipedia editor - so what? And I most certainly am in a position to compare the GSU page to other pages - I have eyes. One needn’t dedicate his or her life to editing Wikipedia articles in order to be able to compare one page to another. And I would be happy to give you lessons on writing clearly - context is essential for casual readers, and the reader certainly shouldn’t have to wade through paragraphs of text to find some brief context for a jargon-y classification system that’s introduced paragraphs above.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Miguel Silva (footballer, born April 1995)

Hi there,

can you please "up" the page protection here? Maybe this time the person (warned several times) will stop, just "maybe"...

Kind regards, have a nice week and thanks in advance! --Quite A Character (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Sure but next time, don't revert a whole bunch of times. There's no point in it, and the only thing that can come out of it is you getting blocked. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate it (the protection AND the advice; oops, only noticed now as i wrote this that you did not protect page, you blocked the IP. Not what i was aiming for, but i guess you chose for the best), i guess i really could have been blocked for breaking 3RR (and would not budge one bit in the light of WP's guidelines).

Cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenny Durkan Page

Hi thank you for the support earlier on Jenny Durkan's page. I'm a little new to Wiki. Unfortunately user 71.212.13.9 is still causing problems. They have made 7 reversals and received formal warnings from two editors (one being you), but still they haven't been blocked yet. I can't understand whats going on (I thought after 3 you were done?). It is abundantly clear this person has it out for Durkan. I have never read an article that is so dripping with bias, and it seems they have been making quite a few edits to the page. It's clear this person shouldn't have access to this page. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks. Rwnix404 (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher): User(s) blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Rwnix404, I appreciate your note, and I just left one on the article talk page, where I am also suggesting you tone it down a bit. The editor is now correctly blocked, as they should have been earlier--they reverted seven times, and I reported them, but sometimes it takes a little while. User:Deepfriedokra, thank you for the block. User:Sjö, thank you also. Materialscientist, I'm not quite sure where you saw the good faith--they had stopped, indeed, after revert number seven, but only for three minutes at the time you left your comment.

Deepfriedokra, the partial block is appreciated, but please also have a look at Talk:Jenny Durkan: the user wasn't just edit warring, they also have a likely COI against Durkan and her family. I started writing up some diffs here, but I'll put them on the article talk page. Finally, consider their deceitful edit summaries--I provided some diffs on the article talk page as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for the assistance. It was just frustrating dealing with someone not acting in good faith, engaging in subversive behavior.Rwnix404 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies: certainly welcome. Welp, I did not want to go overboard, as I take EW blocks quite seriously. User:Rwnix404My advice would be to report at WP:COIN, or if they are editing libelously, WP:ANI for a more thorough discussion than a Judge Dredd-esque fly-in and blasting. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra The issue here isn't much with outright libelous editing, as with whoever has been editing her page seems to have undertaken a very subtle campaign to make her page look as negative as possible (without being outright libelous). I don't think I've ever read a page where the controversies section is longer than the total of every other section on the page combined, and even the most minor infraction gets a detailed paragraph. Heck, not even Jeffrey Epstein's page is as unbalanced as that! You advocate for more discussion, but it is clear that no amount of discussion with this person with ever get anywhere. They are likely a political extremist. I would like to attempt to work on this page in the near future to make it more balanced, but I fear a non-stop edit war with this individual once their block is over.Rwnix404 (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rwnix404: I've commented on the talk, and find user's arguments arduous. Might want to report at WP:COIN if the problems persist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Deepfriedokra saw comments on talk page, much appreciated Rwnix404 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

My IP range is banned

I don't get it.

Whenever I wanna post, I stumble upon 

blocked for a long slew of leading edits, edit warring, POV editing, and esp. trolling on talk pages

clamp.

I don't remember doing POV edits in articles (point of views?), and talk pages trolling. Sure, I tried to re-arrange the order of empirical proofs in 'Spherical Earth' article, trying to make it chronologically lined up ("available to ancient people ---> available to naval people of Medieval era ----> available now thanks to modern technology" order)... but I did it "wuth my visor open", e.g. under Uchyotka name

Also, I always sign Uchyotka (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Uchyotka, sorry, but I don't understand the problem. If you sign in, you are not blocked. You didn't tell me which IP range you're talking about, and for the sake of privacy you probably shouldn't, so I can't tell if that block was aimed at you or not; it is likely that it was not, or I would have blocked you as well. It is most likely that it has nothing whatsoever to do with you, but that someone on that range was trolling a whole bunch from various IP addresses. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • OK. Anyway, my IP range I was talking about is:
large (whole MTS mobile network in Moscow)
Russian (I wonder who the *eck would troll using Moscow IP, real Russians normally are too busy arbat-ing, e.g. working)(OK, it could be a proxy)
Gets blocked for 10 days, but gets blocked again, and again, and again with same reason. Please tell me more on the troll so I could literally talk back my replies (probably a Lurkmore.to troll copypasta poster). Uchyotka (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I hope the trolling was not directly aimed at you. Uchyotka (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

      • Uchyotka, I'm sorry, but I can't do what you ask. The IP range isn't "yours", and in order to find out which one it is I'd have to run CheckUser on you but I need a good reason--that you edit using your account from a blocked range isn't really a good enough reason, and I don't see any evidence at all that someone is messing with the edits made from your account. If the range is so large, why would anyone think you have anything to do with edits that were made from the range? Drmies (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

False information in the Copperhead article

Right before the article was fully protected, someone working with the CEO removed valid, sourced content and restored their marketing to the article. Check out this bit of the article:

> Android Headlines reported in December 2019 that "Not only has CopperheadOS not gone under, but the company has also continued to be profitable.."

This is what Android Headlines says:

> Not only has CopperheadOS not gone under, but the company has also continued to be profitable, according to the executive.

This is a clearly manipulated quote, and is just pushing a quote from the CEO (the blog post simply communicates what the CEO says with basic paraphrasing) as if it was stated by Android Headlines when it was not.

The following sentence is a similar form of trickery:

> CopperheadOS updates are now publicly listed on Copperhead's website [6] as opposed to Github.

Sources were published on GitHub. Sources are no longer published - it's not source available. They only publish bullet point release notes on the site. These release notes were never published on GitHub, so this claim is simply false - nothing was moved from GitHub to the site. This is an attempt at hiding the truth. Aside from the claim that this information was moved being false, there is no source to back it up. They simply link to the release notes as a source for this claim. It hardly makes sense for the article to talk about where exactly release notes are posted aside from them trying to weasel word their way out of the lack of source availability. Please take a look at what was removed in the last edit. The editor who corrected the company name also provided the official government source. There is no company called Copperhead Limited.

The person who restored this content also removed the history of the changes to source availability and added back the false that there is source availability. You can see for yourself that things are not as they claim. strcat (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm less interested in these minutia than you might think. You're making accusations that come pretty close to outing; I encourage you to look at WP:OUTING before you take that any further. The best thing to do, I think, is for you to take this to WP:COIN. I am really not interested in finding out whether something is open source or almost open source or whatever; to me, the entire article is on a subject that barely scratches notability and has become a viper pit. What you need, at least what you need on Wikipedia, is an editor or two who care about notability and verifiability, who have an interest in the topic, and who have some subject knowledge. I'm 1 for 3 in that regard. Seriously: COIN. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I’ve been dealing with that IP for months. Didn’t really want my Saturday night to be dealing with him at ANI. Appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Oregon

I have a feeling you didnt mean to make that edit? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 04:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've been detectoring, I see some mopping. I'll just fix it, and perhaps you'll another look at the mopping for me? I agree the use of language in edsums isn't nice, but ... -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 04:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Roxy the dog: That edit summary was pretty distracting. Collateral rvv damage. Why the named account is not blocked-- ah that's a mystery. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
ah. check user block. NVM. thanks -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Roxy the dog, I'm trying to retrace my steps. I think I saw that edit summary in Recent changes, but not the edit; their only edit I clicked on before moving on was their first one, which has those Nazi parentheses. And then I started figuring out who it was, ran CU, went through a whole bunch of screens and accounts (including the one below that Mongo remarked on, which made me think that Winkelvi was part of that racist sock farm), blocked a bunch of socks--and by the time I was done with that, I kinda forgot about the original edit, or I would have rev-deleted the edit summary. Thanks for noticing. Drmies (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ach, so --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

When you deleted this is that your edit summary?--MONGO (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Drmies are old friends. They have an ongoing dialogue. Don't take it too seriously. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Forgot the "Yo!", so @MONGO: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Music Pages

Hi, I appreciate any and all feedback! I am curious as to what was unreliable about the sources because I was adding a link to an interview with the music artist themselves. The website I was linking as an external link was to a podcast website that interviews musical artists and deep dives into their creative minds. Is there a better place to link an interview or a different way I should have done this? I am new to editing so I do appreciate any help. Should I link an iTunes podcast link instead? Should I put it in the references section? I do believe the information that can be found in these interviews are relevant to someone that is researching these artists, because they do such a deep dive into their creative process, music theory, and their stories behind their songs. SummasWife (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi SummasWife--I need to look at the article you're talking about, but podcasts etc. really shouldn't be used in the first place. Plus, in an encyclopedia it is not so interesting what a person (in this case an artist?) has to say about their own work; what matters, and that is what makes it an encyclopedia (a tertiary source), is what secondary sources say about the topics. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, right, these links. Please look at the requirements in WP:EL. As I suggested, whether that is a notable or reliable secondary source is up for question (you could inquire at WP:RSN); whether it's really a secondary source in the first place is not clear. Interviews aren't often used here because they aren't always fact-checked by the publication, and thus they aren't automatically reliable. Plus, as I indicated above, they are the artist's own words--that's primary. Finally, you were adding so many of the same links that the question comes up whether you have a conflict of interest or not, and I've left a relevant note on your talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Username

Unfortunately, I often stick "88" in my usernames because I was born in 1988. Didn't realize it is used as a hate symbol. Definitely going to have to re-think my usernames! :( TelosCricket (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC) P.S. I saw your comment at AN/I [21]. Then I went to look up what "88" means. TelosCricket (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page

I understand my mistake here. I was merely trying to show the harassment that I was receiving, but I understand that such screenshots from another site are unacceptable and potentially violated HelpHelper's privacy. I won't make the same mistake again.

You mentioned that you were going to come back to this after your coffee (may I suggest dark roast, with a tinge of Vanilla in there? Weird combo, I know, just trust me,), just wondering if you could provide an update on this fiasco. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience I may have posed to you in regards to this incident. Sincerely, TheEpicGhosty (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I don't know about an update; without actual direct evidence of 4chan-promoted editing, there's little to do. I mean, if there's disruption in the article we can protect. But the bigger point, as Rhododendrites pointed out, is what to do with that lead. I'm not going to over there cause I got other things to do, but (and Rhododendrites may be reading along), I think that the section that was inserted was not neutral enough, not by a long shot, and while I think that some mention in the lead is warranted, that proposed text will not cut it from the point of view of neutrality. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Would this cut it?
"The state has attracted criticism for its policy regarding territories occupied by it[1], its apparent nuclear weapons arsenal[2], and its targeted killings program[3] among other reasons."
I made this change because, after reviewing my original lede edit, I can see how it can be misconstrued as hostile, biased, and/or inflammatory. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "1. Background: The Israeli Occupation". www.amnesty.org. Retrieved 2020-08-05.
  2. ^ "Fact Sheet: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal". Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-08-05.
  3. ^ Kendall, J. Nicholas (2001–2002). "Israeli Counter-Terrorism: Targeted Killings under International Law". North Carolina Law Review. 80: 1069.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

process question

As a point of order, is it kosher (both in policy and culture) for the ANI filing party to provide a ruthlessly neutral clerkish list of commenters with their key not-vote phrase or sentence, with diffs and username template (to activate notification)? Or is doing that more jerk than clerk? Two benefits would be that commenters would have a chance to take back or correct those things. And after some time passes a closer would have some cliff notes to maybe speed things up (after verification of course) Advice please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Hard to say. I've seen those lists before, but not often, and as an admin I've used them once or twice. Ha, I think Beyond My Ken made such lists once or twice. In this case, with such long comments, it might not be a bad idea. The thing is that for a community ban you don't (in my opinion) have the votes yet, and that's in part because the report is so long (I'm not faulting you for that). All I can say is good luck... Drmies (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Drmies about the length of the report being a problem. I'm pretty busy in RL, so I don't have the time to engage in the kind of deep exploration which evaluating your report would require, in all fairness to everyone. I think one has to find the balance between a report that's too skimpy, and doesn't provide enough weight of material, and one which overwhelms with the amount of detail. Prosecutors, I believe, will often drop lesser charges so that they won't be required to present evidence regarding them, and choose instead to focus on the most important and -- and this is applicable here as well -- the easiest for the jury to understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Well I'll consider it... would you object if I attempted to soften any blowback by referencing my inquiry and your reply here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Heh... accidental all caps in the edit sum there. I was NOT trying to beg, honest! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Spam on nl.wiki

Hey. Could you take a look at nl:WikiRank and decide whether it should be nominated for deletion however things are done over there? Navigating WP: space is hard enough in English ;) It's part of this humungous cross-wiki COI/reference spamming effort. Dank je wel! On a happier note, have I ever told you how impressed I am with Dutch beer? When my brother moved to Amsterdam I was worried we'd be stuck with Heineken but I was gladly proven wrong! SmartSE (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I have no power on and knowledge of the Dutch Wiki. The article, at first glance, seems much better verified than most other articles there. Plus, I don't know if they actually ever delete anything there in the first place: I think they work by way of accretion, attracting trivial factoids. So no, I'm sorry, I can't help you there, and the only Dutch editor I've worked with, MoiraMoira, has left after a campaign of harassment and a sad attempt to desysop her (started by a longterm admin who was then banned over a privacy violation? Sad). Anyway, that desysop there started over MM's deletion of three shitty articles (see here), and plenty of editors there thought that there was no reason to delete tripe. So, to cut this long story off, I don't give you much hope. You know who might know better than me? The person with the funniest username on the Dutch wiki: Trijnstel. Thanks, and cheers, Drmies (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh dear :( Well maybe Trijnstel can help, but if not, at least I tried. Care to enlighten us all as to why that's a funny name? Google has no idea. SmartSE (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Well, "Trijn" is a fairly old-fashioned Dutch name, a commoner's name, and it has this wonderful old ring to me. It's probably derived from the last part of "Catherine". The Dutch Donald Duck's GF is called "Katrijn"--"Trijn" is a further clipping (I'm about to look this up--I find this interesting). But "trein", as you know, is "train" (as in the old Iron Horse), and a "treinstel" is a railroad carriage. So "Trijnstel" is a lovely little play of words. What I cannot figure, since I don't know Trijnstel, is where the "stel" comes from: it means a bunch of things, including "couple" (as in "romantic couple"). So who knows, something from Trijnstel's romantic past, some inside joke on a name, something that reminds us that we're human beings. Ha, that we were young once and lived back home in the world. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia

Is the discussion at an impasse? I think you may have got the wrong impression: I am not trying to argue the story is true! GPinkerton (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I think I've said all I have to say. I am not even saying you're saying it's true--I'm saying that the way you present it is undue and tendentious, and the arguments for its presentation in the first place are weak. I've suggested a way forward, but it would be fair to get all previous editors involved. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • OK. I still think "tendentious" is unfair and I certainly hope you'll strike your earlier allegation of sexism and/or racism which I think is wholly uncalled-for and uncivil. I'm disappointed you're not willing to contribute further. GPinkerton (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ekkehard Hübschmann

User:PeterBraun74 has asked for a deletion review of Ekkehard Hübschmann. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 16:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

CU results

I missed seeing your ping until now. I am sorry to know this outcome about Mevlut et al., but not entirely shocked. Still though, unless the multiple accounts are staring me in the face (like that PoliticianTexas dude a number of years back), I don't tend to go looking for it. Oh well. Thanks for letting me know; I will be wary if any new accounts start wanting me to "accept topics" along the same lines. LadyofShalott 20:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Yeah I'm sorry too, especially since I know how much energy and patience you put into these conversations. And this was a very prolific one. (Not one I was really familiar with, but then there's so many...) Drmies (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Fritz Haarmann

Haarmann-Fries by Alfred Hrdlicka

Please take a few moments to look at reference number 21 on the above article, Drmies, as it stands now you have reverted my edit. That is what I was trying to avoid. I'll say no more. Do you want to fix it, or shall I? --Kieronoldham (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Kieronoldham, why does the article have so many references like "Monsters of Weimar ISBN 1-897743-10-6 p. 65"? Why does that ISBN keep getting repeated? More useful, and MOS-compliant, is to italicize the title, for instance. But I have serious doubts about the validity of that book source in the first place--it is a contemporary account, and hardly neutral, as this source indicates; you seem to be using that source as if its neutrality and factuality is a done deal, which I doubt. I can find no reviews of it, few recent mentions outside of some sensationalist and popular books--all that is not a good sign. And, as you know, I have serious problems with the style in this article... Drmies (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the tone of my prv. mention, Drmies. Was a little blunt. It is the only exhaustive account of this case I have ever been able to find. Not only that, but from other articles on Haarmann I have read, I can tell others have copied their information from this book. Other printed sources don't have discrepancies with this book. The preface of Monsters of Weimar states the author was a Hannover native, present at the trial, and there is also a kudos introduction by Colin Wilson.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
      • No apologies necessary--I didn't think you were too blunt at all. You mean this Colin Wilson? See, that man, while a prolific author, doesn't seem to have much of a reputation as a scholar, and the publisher, Parragon, seems to have printed entertainment stuff, not academic or quality material. It may well be that Lessing is the source for most (if not all) of the later publications, but that doesn't mean that it's of high quality. The book I just cited suggests, at least, that his is not a disinterested book. Our article, Theodor Lessing, is unfortunately poorly developed, but the (unverified) note on the Monsters book suggests that he had a political interest in the matter, possibly a well-justified one, but still. In other words, his cannot be the gospel truth. I don't have any suggestions for what a better source might be, though I'm about to have a look in JSTOR (where I found no mention of Lessing's book). As for the article, I kind of wish you'd look at those footnotes again, for instance, being mindful of WP:OR, and if you would consider culling/pruning the article a bit more. I know you spent a lot of time and energy on it, and that's great, but from my very disinterested point of view it's just a bit too wordy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah that is the Colin Wilson in question. This is a little grey area for me, but the book was also translated from German. Maybe the author cannot be taken as gospel truth, but there is just so little material available on Haarmann compared to other cases. It is one of the first articles I ever devoted my attention to, and editors such as BrownHairedGirl have tweaked sections over the years. I will look into the areas of concern for you. Obviously you are a more eminent editor than me.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Peacocks Not Going Away

Hey, could you nuke the pages created by Special:Contributions/Peacocks_Not_Going_Away per G5? The account is a sock as per [22], possibly of the cbanned LTA Evlekis. JavaHurricane 15:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Douga

On 11 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Douga, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Mandinka douga, the "dance of the vulture" described in 20th-century African literature, may go back to Sundiata, and reach across to American Gullah culture, buck dance, and the minstrel show? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Douga. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Douga), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Yes I know I screwed up and went to the wrong board, about a nanosecond after I hit the save button. And my attempt to remove it was "edit conflicted" before being closed. I would go down the pub but that's closed as well. WCMemail 17:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

17u9e and 0m9ep

A while back (51 days ago), you checkuser-blocked 17u9e. Unfortunately, I can't figure out who it's a sockpuppet of, and I think we have another from the same editor: 0m9ep. Aside from the similarities in names, I note the similarity in interests, and startling wikicompetence of an editor with 200 edits in eight months: Sulla

Note the overlap in interest with Talk:Sulla.

My attention was brought by the requested clarification. It's unlikely we know for sure what means Sulla used to persuade, so flagging the word with a "needs clarification" struck me as not conducive to building a better encyclopedia - either he "knows" an answer, or doesn't, but neither case leads to this change being productive. I'd take this to SPI, but I don't know how to find the sock master to reference. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 23:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfair

Just airing on the side of "you need a very good reason to edit war", a tad too much maybe, but better safe then sorry. As I said at talk, I think the article needs to be reset to before the user showed up, its last stable version.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • We can't have BLP violations, and these were. Credo123 is welcome to take their issues to WP:BLPN when their block runs out, but in the meantime, any minute that material is up in mainspace is a minute too long. I'm about to have a look at the organization's article. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Offensive and disparaging comments

Drmies, I'd like to make a comment regarding your closing statement where you stated "And please don't come here with canards about worldwide prosecution of this or that group that's somehow being suppressed by "the media" or whatever". This is nothing more than a bias and statement. You think that this is just a "canard"? Well, let me bring to your attention, this article form the BBC about Christian persecution in various part of the world, which states "political correctness had played a part in the issue not being confronted." [23]. Also, the U.S. Helsinki Commission held a briefing titled The State-Sanctioned Marginalization of Christians in Western Europe [24]. Are you going to stick to your words that this is some kind of a "canard"? If you are, I can just as well say that you are pushing Cultural Marxist talking points labeling editors who cite conservative sources as a fringe minority — (Bolsheviks, who called themselves the "majority", everyone else was the "minority"). --E-960 (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • You just added another canard: "Cultural Marxism". What's funny is that you totally misread what I wrote. The canard is the supposed media suppression. Linking a BBC story about that very issue proves your point was invalid. But, and this is pretty relevant for someone who wants to be writing an encyclopedic, you presented someone's opinion (that of Philip Mounstephen) as if it were a fact. You can't do that. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) And you did the same thing with the BBC story, as they were quoting Jeremy Hunt's personal opinion. His views on political correctness are hardly surprising as he is a Conservative politician (and the person who ordered the report on Christian persecution in the first place).-- P-K3 (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • So, based on the above comments there are no quality "mainstream media" sources on this issue, because apparently the rare BBC story which I linked related to Christian persecution, is only a personal opinion, and is questionable because "conservatives" are talking. --E-960 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but that's idiotic. First of all, please indent properly. Look at what it says on the top of this very talk page. Second, HOLY MOTHER OF GOD read properly. No, the story is not "personal opinion", the personal opinion CITED IN IT is personal opinion. (I'm still looking for that eye roll emoji.) Drmies (talk) 15:00, 11 August, 2020 (UTC)
For your hangups.DFO

Drmies, yes you are hung up on proper etiquette and indentation. But write obnoxious and demeaning comments like this "And please don't come here with canards about worldwide persecution of this or that group that's somehow being suppressed by "the media" or whatever". Stay classy, you must have gone to one of them college things. --E-960 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • E-960, well, but thanks for using the proper bullets. You may not care for it, but you obviously didn't read RexxS's essay, and you don't know why we do this: for visually impaired readers. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • First lesson, E-960, since you asked for one: When you're reading an article and come across the sentence Mr Hunt said he felt that "political correctness" had played a part in the issue not being confronted, don't ignore (or selectively leave out from a quote) the Mr Hunt said he felt that... part. It's important, and changes the context and meaning of the sentence, especially in a discussion of what the BBC itself, as a generally reliable news organization, is asserting authoritatively as true. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Writ Keeper, thx. I'd like to point out that this is not the reference source I cited in the article, but a quick blurb to show that even BBC reports on the issue through an interview, and the ultimate point I was trying to make is that at least some people believe that the issue is under reported, people credible enough to be interviewed by BBC. So, you can see why there might be a problem finding "mainstream sources" for use as reference, to issues which face Christians. --E-960 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Deepfriedokra, thank you for the merit based response, and what am I to do with this constructive feedback? I assume this is the image to be used on a Christian article page, concerning issues the group faces? Maybe this one Persecution of Christians? What are your toughs, please do elaborate. --E-960 (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Er, sure. I have no toughs of which I am aware. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    BBC reports on the issue through an interview... It doesn't, though, or at least not in the sense that I think you mean it. The BBC is reporting on a person's opinion; significant people's opinions can be worth reporting on regardless of how true they are. The fact that the BBC is reporting on Mr. Hunt's opinion does not imply that the BBC considers that opinion in any way valid; notable people can be wrong, and their wrongness itself can be noteworthy. And yes, before you point it out, it also doesn't imply that the BBC considers his opinion invalid either; that's certainly just as true, but in this case, the burden of proof is on you, and without an editorial judgement to make in either direction, the BBC article doesn't help you.
    More importantly, though, you appear to be deliberately deceptive in your presentation (and selective misquotation) of the article, and that's bad, even in a discussion outside of mainspace. Don't do that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Writ Keeper, exactly so this brings back the issue to the original problem which kicked off this whole mess, there is a lack of sources for use as reference to cover this issue, but as you can see Christian leaders, and Christian organizations do see this as a problem. Also, the text I proposed for the Religion in the EU article, did not talk about some large scale persecution, but marginalization and vandalism, and I think that is a reasonable point to address in that type of an article, and used a NGO report as reference [25]. --E-960 (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @E-960: there is a lack of sources for use as reference to cover this issue should be the end of this discussion, then. Wikipedia only concerns itself with information that is verfiable to an independent, reliable source. If there are no sources, then Wikipedia doesn't talk about it. An organization being non-governmental does not automatically make it a reliable source by any means--far from it--and any organization that has the URL "intoleranceagainstchristians.eu" is certainly not an independent source on the subject of whether there is large scale persecution of Christians. If you had other sources that are actually reliable, independent, and neutral that described the issue, the NGO's position *might* be worth discussing, but it is certainly not, in itself, enough sourcing to justify the kind of content you want to add to Wikipedia articles. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • E-960, what Writ Keeper says here, the nicely colored quote, that's exactly where it's at. I understand sourcing problems, and a paucity of sources--writing up Douga took me forever--but that doesn't mean that you can then resort to primary or otherwise lousy sources to make for it thinking that "even though no one writes about it I KNOW it's important". Drmies (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, in my hurry, ...

I did not see the humor in your post at Talk:KH. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

PS I'm supposed to be on vacation, besides. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Still looking for that eye roll emoji?

I'll put it down here so you don't miss it: File:Himla med ögonen.gif. Bishonen | tålk 03:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC).

DYK for Violet Dias Lannoy

On 13 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Violet Dias Lannoy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mozambique-born Violet Dias Lannoy, called "the lost Goan/Indian/African novelist" by Peter Nazareth, came from a Goan family, worked with Mahatma Gandhi, and hung out with Richard Wright? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Violet Dias Lannoy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Violet Dias Lannoy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 00:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 00:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:AN#Disruptive user U1Quattro

Hi Drmies, in WP:AN#Disruptive user U1Quattro, you wrote "Considering Fram and Phil Bridger's comments above[...]". I have not commented in that thread nor AFAIR ever interacted with that editor, so if you meant "Fram's comments", then you must have mistaken someone else's comments for mine I guess. If you meant "considering what happened to Fram", then the reference is not really clear. I didn't have unfriendly messages on my user or talk page, I didn't have interaction bans, ... I guess you just made a mistake and intended to put another name there, but if not, could you please clarify what you meant and why you dragged me in that discussion? Fram (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Fram, I am having a very weird moment here--I was so sure I had seen a comment from you in that thread to the effect of "an indef block is justified". It's early here, and I haven't had coffee yet, and I cannot see the comment I thought I was agreeing with. Yet I'm still sure I read it! Maybe I was reading Sandstein and thinking Fram? (No, that can't be, cause I had already responded to Sandstein.) I don't know, and I am sorry for the confusion. What I do know is that I remember purposely not pinging you because I didn't want to, well, upset you. That's also why I left my comment to Lugnuts on Lugnuts's talk page, BTW. I must have been having a senior moment when I wrote that in the Quattro discussion--my apologies. Drmies (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I gave my support for a topic ban of E-960, perhaps that's what you saw? Anyway, feel free to ping me, I don't bear you (or most other editors) any ill will and don't have the impression that you are trying to cause me any trouble either. Fram (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I thought about that and looked over it, yes, and maybe that was it. I wish I was joking about senior moments, haha. As for Lugnuts, I did read that report, since that editor has been here for a long, long time and produces lots of content--and gets in trouble for having a short fuse. A few weeks ago it was the note on their talk page, and now this. I wasn't being facetious in my dismay over the RfA comment. I think many of us like to say "it's not a big deal" but it is a big deal, and that was hurtful. About pinging--I've had some disagreements with The Rambling Man, and once I pinged his name from some ANI page (to express my agreement with something he said, I believe), and he took it in a different way from I intended, so I try to be careful. Anyway, thanks for your note, Fram. A lot of water has gone under the bridge. Perhaps one of these days I'll email you, if that's OK with you. Drmies (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, just saw your comment at User talk:Lugnuts, so this makes it even more unlikely that you were trying to take a cheap potshot at me. My apologies for even having that suspicion in the first place, but, well, we didn't always agree in the past. If I didn't already, I would like to apologise now for some of the things I said in your RfArb (or wherever it was), dragging you down way past the unfortunate unbanning into some nasty personal attacks. I shouldn't have said those things, and being bitterly disappointed about the whole unban and ArbCom's handling and responses at the time was not an excuse to do this. Fram (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you take personal CU requests?

I'm too lazy to format a report. And if it isn't ripe for CU, I'd rather a friendly "no" than a public SPI clerk slap. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I miss you on Facebook, boss. As for photos, I drove through Berkeley today, and took photos of the childhood home of Kamala Harris, and the primary school she was famously bused to. Yesterday, I was working in a remote rural area. I learned yesterday morning that John Glenn's widow Annie had died of COVID-19 a while back, and by coincidence, I drove through the tiny hamlet of Glenn, California and took a photo. All uploaded to Commons. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Glen, that's it, that's the whole cabal, and we don't even talk about Wikipedia very much... But Cullen, for instance, takes pictures everywhere he and his wife go, and posts them on FB, and adds some of them to WP. It's all California landscape and architecture and culture, and I enjoy looking at it for some California dreaming. The funny thing is that I met Mr. and Mrs. Cullen in real life, and I have worked in the real world with the Lady. I haven't met K-stick in the flesh, but we've been working together for so long I feel like I know him. Ha, I let him do fancy technical stuff on my PC via remote control, and he taught me how to grill. (Essentially, drink beer and don't do too many other things.) So it's really not a cabal at all... Plus, Floq and Bishonen and Doug Weller aren't in it, so there's not a lot of weight, haha. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What does one do to get banned on Facebook? Or would telling me get you banned on WP? Hopefully it was "good trouble". --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • First of all, BLOCKED not BANNED, for FUCK's sake, Floquenbeam. Sheesh. Well, one of them was because I called someone a liar for telling lies about vaccines and Bill Gates and the WHO and all that conspiracy shit. The last one, I was talking to a person from Suriname (judging from his last name--these names are interesting living evidence of the Transatlantic slave trade) on some Dutch post, and some nice white lady thought I was being too friendly with PoC, so she asked if I shouldn't ask the guy if I'd be allowed to kneel down and wipe his little poophole clean. I'm paraphrasing. I asked if she was drunk. BOOM another month. Once you're on the shitlist, there's no getting off. But as it turns out Instagram is just as bad, though not as bad as some other things, so User:Muboshgu tells me. (I'm about to hit him up on Grindr. Or was it Tumblr?) So I got on Instagram cause I was bored. It's weird. You watch a video of some Persian band on Instagram, once, and next thing you know you get a constant stream of self-portraits by Kurdish women, pictures of Turkish guys chopping and roasting meat, and, best of all, never-ending videos from something called Pejman Music out of Iran. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Here. I don't know if you need to log in for it. Watch one of the videos with the three guys. They never even get out of their chairs and they ROCK THE FUCKING HOUSE. One of them is smoking a water pipe during the show. The other is on his phone. There's one where the dude is looking up the lyrics before belting them out, very emotionally. The best one is two guys, one with a mustache the size of a tea towel, singing some tune while standing next to a guy who's either his son or his much younger lover. Priceless. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted

Hello! I reverted your additions to Killing of George Floyd. I’m not sure why that was necessary to the article and I didn’t see how your edit summary explained anything. I was just letting you know and wondering if you had any clarification. Thank you and happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Some reason I can’t see the recent edits that other editors made. I did read the source but it didn’t anything to that paragraph. Just saying that it obviously belongs doesn’t mean it does Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the pages the coptic orthodox church in the united states

I am one of few people who are actively trying to seek accountability regarding the sexual assault scandals within the coptic church. The information I have been putting on wikipedia regarding the scandal has frequently been deleted.

I appreciate your continued help in reverting this vandalism and helping us change the culture of denial within the community.

--Titus Obelisk (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The old enemy - seeking revenge

It's on. Bring your own cucumber sandwiches. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you think? Strong warning or block?

You gave this guy a DS notice[26] - I'm not sure why. He clearly violated 1RR with his 2nd revert yesterday[27], first was [28] where he reverted a deletion. This and his userpage show he seems to really think he can ignore 1RR restrictions. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

AmSam13

Thank you, I was half way through an SPI report when I checked the block logs. FDW777 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Me too! It was pretty blatent -----Snowded TALK 15:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I think they were getting desperate. But it's a huge amount of edits to go through, and I'm about to throw in the towel. If you two could have a look at all the "terrorism" and "accident" stuff...I'm looking at BLP violations in their obsession with the sexual status of soccer players. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I may be paranoid but we have a brand new editor - creating the day after the socks were blocked - who after a series of military edits returned to two of the athetes to reinstate the edits. link here just seems of a coincidence. -----Snowded TALK 15:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

AE question

Drmies, with respect to your ping at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pro-Palestinian_editors_editing_in_consort_to_push_POV, I think that the request at issue there does not violate the restriction you linked to because it was not made at WP:AE. Sandstein 14:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Right--but Sandstein, my question was really whether this was like a runaround--vexatious and possibly vacuous, and as disruptive as an AE arbitration report would have been. Or, to put it differently, whether he violated the spirit of the ruling, if arbitration rulings have any spirit. Thanks, and thanks for your quick response, Drmies (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    Drmies, it is quite possible that the report was vexatious and disruptive - I haven't looked at it. If that is the case, you as an administrator can directly impose another appropriate discretionary sanction for making vexatious and disruptive reports. It is in my view, not really relevant in this respect whether the report was also an attempt to circumvent an earlier sanction. Sandstein 17:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Whazza socks

I just stumbled across Special:CentralAuth/Whazza7 here and Special:CentralAuth/Wh A zza 7 is b a c k on mw:. I know you've dealt with some Whazza socks before (which are now posting ridiculous unblock requests), but I can't find an SPI that tells me which one's the master. Do you know who the master is, or should I just arbitrarily pick one to file with? Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Jackmcbarn, I don’t remember seeing an SPI. I think I followed someone’s lead in identifying them. Isn’t it just a bunch of childish stuff? One wonders what a CU-prompted range block might accomplish. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I ran CU real quick and dropped some blocks, but I’m on my phone and can’t do anything fancy. Also, I’m reading this great book, ‘’Efuru’’, and I reached a critical stage, so...later! Drmies (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Likely sock

Hi Drmies, I've just blocked I'mgonnagetyou (talk · contribs) as a sock given they were a new account continuing PlasmaBolt's edits. I'd be grateful if you could run a checkuser on the account and tag accordingly if they're a confirmed sock. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you ask something on nl.wiki

Hi, m:Special:CentralAuth/Abigor wants to vanish for privacy reasons but is blocked on nl.wiki. Would you mind asking on their admin noticeboard if they mind him being renamed? As you’re aware, despite being a well-known sock of yours, my Dutch is lacking! TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • TonyBallioni, I don't mind, but I'm not quite sure what to ask. I checked all the recent admins in that user's block log (which is pretty impressive), but none of them are very active. I think it's probably best if you left a note here, trusting that most Dutchies will understand your English (which, after all, is pretty decent for a Canadian, haha). Srsly, I think that's the best thing to do: you're better at those technical formalities, and all those editors are proficient enough in English. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Posted. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I also pinged Trijnstel so she can fix anything I messed up :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

C Christine Fair

That’s not disruptive editing, that’s something that she pretty clearly wants to be public knowledge. In fact, she noted as much on Facebook (see attached quotation) and explicitly made a mention of it in a public fora with that intent in mind:

“It's here! Will someone PLEASE edit my wikipedia page to note, with this source. that I am "also an accomplished pole dancer who is known for crocheting her unusual performance costumes." I'll buy a beer for the first one who does it...wherever you are.”

So yeah... you’re the one doing the vandalism by ‘not’ including it. Abattoir666 (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

User:AmSam13

You blocked them earlier; I think they are back and canvassing for meat puppets.--Jorm (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This user did not seem receptive to my suggestion that they should consider WP:CANVASSING. [29] But it looks like you already know what is going on. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I see that the user has now been blocked by User:GeneralNotability Sweet6970 (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, to both. I had a feeling already they weren't being very truthful as AmSam, and I blocked Comelistentothetruth the other day. Jorm, GeneralNotability, please see the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmSam13. And they edit as an IP also, sometimes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Haha, they tried to make an account to make fun of me. ST47, did you see it? It's so sweet... Drmies (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The history of List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows a couple of active sockpuppets, I have a request for page protection pending. FDW777 (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Blocked, and semi-protected the article. They are just going to go on to the next. Maybe ST47 or someone else will figure out if there's a range block we can place. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

User talk:AranyaPathak

A whole comma. You were lucky! --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Cake day!

Hi Drmies. I thought you might like a little cake and wine today. I hope all's going well with you and your family. Have a happy cake day! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Hahaha I'm reading this JUST AS Rosie walks in asking for cake! Yes, we have a delicious cake with fruit and cream waiting for us, and I really appreciate your note. Liam and I have both been playing with our gifts; he got some exercise game for the Nintendo Switch and he will be ripped like an American Warrior in weeks, no doubt. Yes we are well, though we're all pooped for various reason--naw, just one: online and hybrid teaching. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Miguel Silva (footballer, born April 1995)

Your block and/or my polite messages fell on deaf ears, this time the nuisance took it up a notch and REMOVED the ref used to source the personal data in the infobox!! Kind regards --Quite A Character (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

book recommendations

I've been on an Octavia Butler kick. Parable of the Sower and Parable of the Talents were awesome, and definitely have a place up there with 1984, A Handmaid's Tale, and the likes. I also read a graphic novel adaptation of Kindred that I think is excellent. = paul2520 💬 20:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I am going to keep that in mind; I haven't read that kind of fiction since Ursula LeGuin, back in the 80s. For now, my stack is still high enough. I just finished She: A History of Adventure, which was weird enough, and I'm about to start on Purple Hibiscus. And then Stamped from the Beginning. But the semester is about to start, so I'll be delving into the golden oldies as well--Gilgamesh, Inferno, Sir Gawain, etc. Ha, are you interested in the syllabus for my African Lit class? Thanks for the tip, Drmies (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I would be very interested in the syllabus! = paul2520 💬 03:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism (Recently active administrators)

Hello Drmies, I hope this is the correct way, I found you on the recently active admin list. I found an IP address repeatedly adding weird website links to article references - so that the link is obscured. I reverted 4 of their edits and gave them a twinkle warning. My question is more general: Can I report the IP to the vandalism board (even though not 4 warnings have given)? Or do I first have to undo another 3 more recent edits and warn them with a 2nd level warning, or 3 increasing warnings? I suppose, I don't quite understand the system :) Here's the [[30]] link to the IP --Mvbaron (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks beforehand --Mvbaron (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Hey Mvbaron--that website was some sort of online poker thing, and you were right to revert it; I rolled back the rest. When you are giving warnings, you don't have to start with level 1 (I never do--and neither does Mandarax, whom some of us worship), and in this case I wouldn't have. In fact, in this case I would have blocked immediately, and that's what I did. Now, when you report these things, and you can even without a final warning, you can say "user is adding spam links", and an admin might consider that enough, though not all of them do. Does that help? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    Alright, thank you! (I thought as much about the online poker site) Just to be clear, if I stumble across a similar case, I can just report to the vandalism board without giving them a warning - or having to manually revert their edits - I suppose admins have better tools than going through each edit by hand. Thanks for the quick action and reply. Mvbaron (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • When you report, just explain. Or say something like "the edits are all pure spam, and we're wasting our time with warnings". That doesn't work for every type of vandal, of course, but spammers are different. Yes, there are tools, but they're not admin-only: WP:ROLLBACK is the one I use, in combination with Twinkle, I think. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I for one block spammers on sight-- with or w/o prior warnings. If they mean to contribute constructively, that can get sorted in the in unblock request. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

I do the same thing. When I see an obvious spammer, I indefinitely block them immediately with the proper notice on their talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all! That helps a lot. Best Mvbaron (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Het Nieuwe Instituut

Aieeeeee Lelystad
Dappled sunlight glints on the most beautiful city in the world

Hola thanks for the thanks on the DYK on Het Nieuwe Instituut, I just noticed the mainpaged version was "that the archive at the Het Nieuwe Instituut (pictured) contains more than 18 km (11 mi) of architectural resources?" instead of the approved version of "that Het Nieuwe Instituut (pictured) has over 18 kilometres of architectural archives?". This means it ended up being "the the" which is frustrating but hey, it was not of my doing. Cheers, the het Mujinga (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • BlueMoonset, where did this happen? Most unfortunate. Mujinga, you are just churning out quality content like there's no tomorrow, I see. Thank you for that. I'm hoping you're also writing on stuff pertaining to the most beautiful city in the world, not just Rotjeknor. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • LELYSTAD? Jeetje kreetje... Ben ik trouwens nog nooit geweest--een keer langs gefietst, voor het obligatoire rondje IJsselmeer... All the best, Drmies (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Man, every once in a while, when I purse through the comments you left behind in the block logs or the messages you've left for vandals, I get a good laugh. You have a real sense of humor. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe the 13k blocks came from the checkuser embed. Naleksuh (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No, most of them are regular vandalism blocks, Naleksuh. Please do let me know if you run into what you ran into at Katyn--we gotta get to that as early as we can. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I was joking, as checkuser tool allows for hundreds of blocks with a single click, as A D Monroe III had "jokingly" said that there were 13k blocks in only one hour. Sorry if that was misinterpreted.
By "what I ran into at Katyn" I assume you are referring to Projects. Yes, I follow revert block ignore (or rather, revert, SRG, ignore). Did you want me to tell specifically you for some reason (i.e. via email)? Naleksuh (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hmm if there is a tool that allows me to block hundreds in one click, I don't know about! Plus, it's not really that easy. Only rarely does one run CU and just get to place multiple blocks; that usually only happens with LTAs who create a ton of accounts at one time. I have placed a lot of CU blocks, that's true, and I actually dropped one while you and I were talking about it. No, you don't need to email me, and I'm not special, but sometimes AIV takes a while, and you are always welcome to post here to see if I'm on, or any of the talk page watchers. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
You've got quite the stats there. :P Personally, I do get a kick out of bringing down vandals (unless they decide to make it personal or issue threats against me). And yeah, a sudden jump from 5,000 to 18,000 blocks would really be something. Though something like that would probably draw the attention of other admins. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Not if the 13,000 blocks included all active users, including admins! Hail the Drmiespedia! --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
and me write all this glorious content? No way. I don't think I've ever blocked an admin. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism in the 2020 Belarusian protests article.

Hello. There's series of disruptive, politicized edits taking place there by the user named Shemakesmynosebleed. The user's editing history suggest a pro-Russian agenda push. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Support. The user was warned by an admin not to change sensible content without discussing it on the talk page first, but he paid no heed to the warning and even removed it from his page. He looks like a typical provocateur to me. Shemakesmynosebleed (talk · contribs) Taurus Littrow (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand how I am a contact point for this--when did I become a stakeholder? I've never edited in that area, as far as I can tell, and I don't think I know any of you. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
So, as I understand, you only moderate the weapons-related articles? Going to contact someone else then. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand exactly how this whole moderation thing works. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, Nicholas Velasquez, I do know you, but it's been a while. You two have a problem: you are being outgunned by someone who is clearly not a new editor, and who, in some of the few examples that I've been able to look at, has policy on their side. Like, this--this is not worth fighting over, because you will lose in any forum: it's a relatively trivial note that smacks of SYNTH, and the sourcing seems inappropriate as well. Don't die on that hill (of course your opponent does the same thing). There's more fighting over some symbol in this edit, but the content that they want in, about those Molotov cocktails, they are not on very solid ground there--the report is not properly attributed, and the source is, well, at least problematic, but that is the kind of thing that needs to be discussed on the talk page or on WP:RSN. I left them a warning for one of their edits, a problematic one, but you two will get the farthest if you take up individual issues and try to get consensus for them on the talk page. I can't just go around dropping blocks for this. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
It is really quite impossible to figure out how many reverts were made by who in that article. I can see that your opponent is edit warring, to some extent, but it's not easy to count. If this continues tomorrow, you might consider taking this to ANI. Or, if you can collect a set of diffs for just one bit of content (the "some outlets", or the Molotov cocktail, or whatever), you can take that to WP:AN3. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
To make it clear, the main thing that made me contact you was this edit and it's further back and forth reversions. There are two problems here: firstly, the title that was proposed by that editor did not correspond to the actual content of the section, because the section does not describe the clashes themselves, it describes what happened after them, i.e. after the protesters were detained by the police (not to mention there were no attempts at reaching consensus for this title on the talk page), and secondly, the paragraph about the "Molotov cocktails" the editor tried to add to the section simply did not belong to it, because, once again, the section is entirely dedicated to what happened after the active stage of the protests. The editor was told this, but continued to revert back to his version. So, that was the main problem. And thank you for that detailed explanation, I didn't expect it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, I can't even see what title you are talking about. Let's stick to that: what are the diffs for those particular edits? Wait--is this the "crimes against humanity/torture/etc." debate, called "Crimes against humanity single source and npov"? I think, right now, y'all are way too close to the news, and aren't waiting long enough for things to develop, to be better sourced, for facts to come out. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
All right. So, this edit is when I brought the section to its "initial state", i.e. to a consensual title (it has been voted for and discussed in various placed on the talk page, which is kind of messy right now) and without the misplaced paragraph. This edit is when the named user reverted my previous edit for the first time (along with edits from the Taurus Littrow). And this edit is when it was reverted by the named user for the second time, despite the warnings and the initial edit summary by me ("Reverting to a consensual title (as per the talk page), removing misplaced paragraph"). This is, so to speak, the heart of the conflict. As I see it now, maybe I was wrong to immediately seek an admin's help, but at that time I was under a strong impression the user was starting an edit war and actively pushing agenda, based on what I saw in his/her previous edits, since they are kind of one-sided and primarily aimed at undermining the Belarusian opposition using likely pro-Russian sources. Maybe I am entirely wrong, though. UPD: I forgot to add that, in the aftermath, we had a discussion on the talk page and, as it seems, the person behind these reversions thinks some sort of "CIA plot" is taking place or something like that. At least he/she thinks of some of the sources in the article as "connected to CIA" and justifies his/her choice of sources by this fact. I don't know what to think about it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 2:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Nicholas_Velasquez, you may not appreciate what I'm going to say. First of all, I don't think you were wrong to seek help, and I also think that the user doesn't come to the table with purely encyclopedic interests. But if I were asked to look at the title, I would say you can't warrant "Crimes against humanity" yet. First of all that's a huge charge, and requires a whole bunch of knowledge about intent and goals, not to mention the matter of scale. But second, if that is to be said in Wikipedia's voice, it better be impeccably sourced. Right now you have a bunch of sources that report on violence and such, but "crimes against humanity" only comes from one source, and that's not a press agency or publication or whatever. It's an NGO, and we rarely cite those, certainly not in ongoing newsy events. (BTW the article World Organisation Against Torture is pretty bad.) That your opponent sees the need to report, in an encyclopedia, that protesters yelled "fascists", that's kind of silly. So no, I don't think you will get your way with the title... Drmies (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
No they're just accusing you of being partial. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The classification of these events as "crimes against humanity" is actually supported by two sources: the one you've named and a Human Rights Foundation report, which is cited in the beginning of the section. And I do understand the weight the imperative nature of the expression "Crimes against humanity" carries with it. Maybe it's better to rename the section to "Accusations of crimes against humanity", since the current, plain, form of the title provokes so much debate. But the classification of these events as "crimes against humanity" is quite clear at this point: there is plenty of evidence, including first-hand victims' reports, which also confirm the large scale (thousands of people) and systematicness of the suppression (specific targeting of the opposition, wide employment of similar torture methods etc.). So, the ground for the title is certainly there. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 2:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you are going to find consensus for that. Starting with "Accusations of..." is kind of mandatory at this moment, I think, but even then. So don't ping me if you propose that, haha, because I would oppose! Drmies (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, when we've discussed this on the talk page, there were propositions for the title, like "Human rights issues" or "Human rights violations". If something of that nature is on your mind, don't you think it would look like a downplay of the significance of these events on the Wikipedia's part? I would argue that the events described there are not some "issues", but rather a concentration camp level stuff. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 2:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Islam in the Arctic

I have completed a review at Template:Did you know nominations/History of Islam in the Arctic and Subarctic regions. The nominator appears frustrated and angry and threatended to quit. I hope you are willing to help. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I interpret the question as just needing to locate three cites. I've asked for clarification Fiddle Faddle 18:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I found three references (listed onthe DYK discussion thing) for the acceptable hook - ALT1. I'm away on holiday for a week from tomorrow onwards so cant be much use. Fiddle Faddle 20:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

Hi, recently you (or a bot of yours) left me a message on my Talk page relating to my editing of 2020 Belarusian protests talk page. You refer to something I did as "disruptive editing", leave me a link to a page that says Wikipedia is not a forum and seem kind of provocative towards me or my edits on Wikipedia. I must kindly inquire as to what seems to be the problem? Thanks, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would suspect this edit triggered that warning. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Whydoesitfeelsogood, if you start with "seem kind of provocative towards me", it's not a very kind inquiry. I don't know if my comment was "provocative" or not--I was simply telling you that Wikipedia is not a forum, not a social media thing, not a place for you to drop your opinions on who needs to be removed from which office. If you do that again you might find yourself blocked. I don't know about the rest of your edits--I sure hope they follow our policies and guidelines. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Tarl_N., that is correct, and I actually blanked part of that comment on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, well, I simply find the following statement hostile: "If you do that again you might find yourself blocked." To me it reads like I am not welcome on Wikipedia anymore. Sorry if it's only me, though. Thanks for your clarification, I will from now on avoid editing similar pages and hope that we will never have to speak to each other again under same circumstances. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Oh, and you can delete this section as well.
OK, that wasn't provocative. It was a warning. Drmies (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Protect Uddhav Thackeray wiki page

It has been vandalised non stop please stop it Scainder (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

IP's Website Hacking Threats

An IP made threats to hack/deface a school's website in this and a few other edits on the same page: (diff) Is this just a simple block, or should this reported further than AIV? Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Advice requested

I might have been here a while but I can't think where to raise this. I am aware of a case concerning suspected child abuse where the family court in the UK has issued an order of protection. This bans reporting on this case in the UK. It has however been reported on overseas. I've seen a UK editor, who I genuinely believe is unaware of the case, repeating some of the reporting. Strictly speaking as I understand it, that breaks the order of protection and exposes them to legal action in the UK. I'm really not sure what to do next, as I am sure if I try and explain this to the guy, well they simply won't listen as they have a bit of a bee in their bonnet. Do you have any suggestions? WCMemail 14:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Shoot, that's not easy, and I appreciate your concern for them. I think maybe the best thing to do is email Legal, legal@wikimedia.org, since there should be someone there who knows what to do. Feel free to email me a diff or whatever; perhaps suppression is warranted, and I could ask the functionaries list. Better safe than sorry. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WCMemail 15:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You got mail too!!! Drmies (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Replied. WCMemail 18:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
You missed one, but I changed it myself. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Master/slave

Hello. Recently, you brought a suggestion for Master/slave (BDSM) lead image on the talk page. There were counterpoints to your suggestion, did you read them? So I suggested three other alternatives to illustrate a master/slave relationship in a BDSM context (File:Bdsm slave.jpg, File:Bdsm old guard couple.jpg, File:Pet slave.jpg). I would like to hear your opinion (negative, positive or neutral) about these three images in the talk page. No one has yet responded to my comment with these three suggestions [31]. As you have already given an opinion on the current lead image, I think you would like to give an opinion on other suggestions. I came here because it seems that you have not yet read the counterpoints to your suggestion. Your opinion will be important to enrich the conversation, thank you very much for your attention. gabibb2 ✉ 12:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_129&oldid=1142977710"