Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 151

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145←Archive 149Archive 150Archive 151

Your deletion and edits on the Sonoma County, California page

Hi. Here are additional sources supporting the subsection that you deleted:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/police-brutality-victim-dies-of-fentanyl-overdose/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sonoma-county-jail-yard-counseling-case-settles-for-1-7-million/ https://kpfa.org/episode/flashpoints-june-8-2020/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/santa-rosa-to-pay-1-9-million-to-people-injured-during-george-floyd-protes/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/santa-rosa-police-fired-unauthorized-rounds-at-black-lives-matter-protester/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/anger-concern-mount-over-santa-rosa-police-use-of-rubber-bullets-other-le/ Isonomia01 (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Please try to be collaborative, assume good faith (this is a collaborative project and assuming good faith is important), and productive. Please don't just randomly delete content without any notes or attempt at discussion. While I appreciate being challenged, the way you're going about it is inefficient, and is making extra work for me. Your challenge is not nearly as productive as fixing the "Cities by population and crime rates" tables in the article for example. Please participate in discussion. Please support your assertions or conclusions with arguments/logic and examples (i.e. your assertion in the edit summary of "non-neutral", and your assertion here: "sourcing wasn't the only problem", both of which are conclusory, controversial, and probably incorrect). Sourcing isn't a problem in the way you're saying it is. Thanks. I am familiar with the situation, and the statements I made were objective. However, I can appreciate you double-checking that the statements I make are clearly and indisputably supported by the sources that I've listed because (although I am being diligent about limiting my edits to those supported by sources that I list) I am writing (in part) based on my knowledge of the situation after years of research, including sources from the lawsuits, and statements made by public officials. I still need to learn how to list those sources correctly per Wikipedia protocols, but your proof-reading is appreciated. If you'd like to provide any specific examples of statements I made that were non-neutral, I'm happy to listen to feedback and take it into consideration. Ultimately, the fact that the victim of the 2015 torture ring victim being shot in the face with a crowd control "stingball" grenade while peacefully protesting on video is notable, and is properly sourced at this point.Isonomia01 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Teaching grandma how to suck eggs comes to mind. Just sayin'... Geoff | Who, me? 18:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Cryptic and irrelevant. Isonomia01 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • To be fair, you should include the edits of Isonomia09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They were condescending and long-winded then, and they haven't changed in the interim.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Bbb23, I understand your removal of the section on my userpage. I'm not sure if the edits I made and re-added are agreeable to you, but please feel welcome to discuss, or make productive and polite suggestions. If you have personal criticism for me, I will take it into consideration if you (1) provide me with specific examples for reference, and (2) are polite about it. For the record, I just don't want my content deleted (1) without prior discussion, (2) in violation of Wikipedia's rules (I'm not saying this happened all the time, not trying to get into an argument, I think that all the past issues have been settled and resolved, and I'm also not saying that anyone acted in bad faith), or (3) remove content without adequate explanation or a note on the talk page. Isonomia01 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I thought you were calling me a talk page stalker, in conjunction with the grandma sucking eggs reference. My bad. Isonomia01 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Isonomia01, lawsuits can be cited with {{cite court}}, but are considered Primary sources and must be used with caution. Statements from public officials can be cited with {{cite news}} or {{cite press release}}, depending on whether the statements were reported by the news media or simply originated from the public office in question. Folly Mox (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Bbb23: Wut? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
If you think the "newbie lecture" is interesting, you should see the redacted versions of their post to this talk page. Just sayin' -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Are you sure you mean me? You didn't indent this properly, so not sure. If you did, I have no idea how to answer. Maybe a little less pithy?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Just pointing out the versions of OP's posts here that they removed. The wut was in reference to the prior account you references. That intrigued me. Thanks! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, I prefer "talk page watcher." It's less alarming. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Good point and thank you. I hadn't looked at the TPS article in a while and missed the use of TPW. Learn something every day, especially around our good friend Drmies' Talk page. It's never a dull moment around here. Geoff | Who, me? 20:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Isonomia01, allow me a few notes. First of all, please use "Preview" before you hit "Publish edit" so that I don't get 25 talk page notifications instead of 6 or 7. Second, you dropped a bunch of URLs here without telling me what specifically you wanted me to do with that--well, I'm not going to do anything with them, because we're not on the article talk page, which is where you probably should have started this, and again, there are no specific statements here about things in the article and sources for it.

I believe you cited my edit summaries, so it should be clear that I didn't remove information randomly. This edit has only one possibly acceptable source, from KPFA--but it's an announcement/link for a radio show, so there is no actual information on that website to verify--plus, it's an interview with the person who got shot in the face, so that's hardly the same as a news report. The other two sources are just not acceptable for BLP information on a politically loaded topic. The whole thing looked very much not neutral to me. But again, this is what you should hash out on the talk page, with specific proposals for sections and sentences and their sources, not here.

Oh, I see now what you posted on the talk page, but it's not very clear to me: it's a lot of text and a lot of other...well, stuff, and it's not very organized to me. But what I also see is that both User:Willondon and User:Magnolia677 pointed out problems, and there is no consensus on anything--perhaps if you'd let the other editors know, they might have given their advice: both are very experienced editors. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is six months old (correction: it started a year and six months ago, and ended six months ago). Magnolia removed my section on the talk page where I originally neglected to cite sources. It's my impression that consensus was reached, because discussion ended when I provided sources. There were no disagreements after I provided sources. I will be more careful about proofreading before I hit submit. I will also try to start with sources, and then add proposed wording after I provide the sources, rather than start with proposed edits and wording first. In the future, if someone deletes my content without making any notes on the talk page, I will plan on tagging them on the talk page, rather than on their user talk page. Marqus Martinez (the man who was shot with the grenade) is no longer living. To reiterate what I said above, it is notable that the victim of the 2015 torture ring incident who organized the lawsuit was shot in the face with a crowd control grenade while filming himself peacefully protesting in 2020. The sources I provided above here meet Wikipedia's standards. Isonomia01 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
What I see is a discussion where two editors briefly commented on what you were saying followed by a lengthy section that no one responded to, and I think it's because that was added a lot later, without anyone being pinged. So no, you can't call that consensus: it's likely that neither knew there was something there. As for talk page/article talk page--if you want to call someone an asshole, their talk page is the place for it. If you want to propose text and sourcing, the article talk page is the way to go--but if you want consensus, you have to present things in a easily digestible method, with clear proposals for text and their sourcing, and in manageable chunks, not those long paragraphs. And you gotta let them know! I have no interest in covering up police brutality, and if the sources you linked above are good, go for it--but you gotta go about it somewhat carefully, with solid sources and neutral writing. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Here is the very sad story of Marqus Martinez. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Wow--that's tragic. Thank you Cullen. Perhaps you can help with that article? Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
It is too emotional for me, Drmies. My parents lived in Sonoma County in the years before their deaths and owned a small apartment building there. I have visited there and worked there hundreds of times. I have many friends there. I would have trouble being neutral about this topic. By the way, we had a very well referenced article about Dominic Foppoli for 4-1/2 years until it was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Foppoli. One of the criticisms was "local coverage" although the Los Angeles Times covered Foppoli in detail and LA is 435 miles from Windsor. I did not learn about the AfD until the article was gone. Sad, really. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, that AfD was close, Cullen. I have no doubt about your capability of staying neutral, though. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll note that Administrator Cullen also chimed in on Drmies' talk page, during the consensus discussion that I started there, regarding this edit specifically, and also indicated that he was also unsatisfied with the deletion of content without adequate discussion on this particular subject and stated specifically that he and others had spent a lot of work on content that had been permanently deleted without adequate discussion (other people I know personally are also shocked at the same deletion Cullen was talking about). Cullen328, that is a quote by Isonomia01 from their Talk page. I blocked them for one week on December 16, and they have been ranting about it ever since. I finally revoked TPA today because they refactored the last unblock request decline. They also have a bad habit of distorting what other editors have done and/or said. I don't see any support for the quote in this discussion; am I missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Bbb23, I did comment and explained my reluctance to get involved as well as my disagreement with the deletion of one particular article. But I am not interested in lengthy screeds by editors who want to right great wrongs by devoting undue weight to some admittedly bad incidents in a county of half a million people that was established 175 years ago. The article is not called Bad things that happened in Sonoma County in recent years and I am not interested in such fruitless debates. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Cullen328, I had noticed your comments about the AfD, but I hadn't looked closely at it - you're talking about the deletion of Dominic Foppoli, right? So, apparently Isonomia01 is trying to connect the deletion of an article about a "bad" mayor of a city in Sonoma County with the content they want to add to the Sonoma County article. And they're using you as "support" for that proposition. I suppose it's not a complete distortion of what you said, more an insidious and misleading representation to suit their agenda, which, in a way, is worse. Oh well, we'll see what they do after their block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Bbb23, yes, I was referring to the Foppoli article which I think ought to have been kept. Cullen328 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
What happened was the Magnolia removed my section from the *talk page* with, what I view as, wanton contumacy for Wikipedia's rules, and then arbitrarily threatened me with a block, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, which I view as crazy. I wasn't going to mention it, but now it has come up. I also don't think adding a section on objective and notable section about what I would call government corruption to an article that otherwise reads like a tourist brochure is anywhere near risking turning the entire article page into an attack page, so I really can't take that warning without a grain of salt either. In any case, I disagree that I should be asked to invite Magnolia to participate in a consensus discussion. The discussion was there. I responded to him multiple times, informing him precisely what I was going to do, and in response I got radio silence. Magnolia did not respond for 6 months. You didn't tag me in a discussion and seek consensus before you reverted my edits. I add sections on the talk pages regarding edits I intend to make, to create a forum for discussion. Again, I do that *before* I make the edits. I then allow time for people to discuss the topic. Then I make the edits. I expect people to participate, to the same standard that I am being held to, in consensus discussion. My time should be respected. People should not randomly delete content without participating in consensus discussion. Consensus is more than voting. It is more than whoever has more edits in their history wins the debate. It should be based on (1) Wikipedia's Rules, and (2) logic. Arguments that have neither basis in Wikipedia's Rules, or in Logic, should be discarded. Again, I don't believe that I should be the *only one* burdened with participating in consensus discussion, although I understand your suggestion because I am (relatively) new (even though I've been editing Wikipedia for multiple decades, off and on, but lost access to my old accounts). Likewise, though, if other people are not going to respect Wikipedia's rules, or are going to make arguments that are obviously illogical or false, I do not think I should be burdened with inviting them to participate in consensus discussion, and that they should just be able to randomly delete my edits, make obviously false arguments as to why, and instruct ME to participate in consensus discussion, when I already have topics on the talk page that they are deliberately ignoring. It's nonsensical, and disrespectful of my time. Especially after they removed my topic from the *talk page* with clear contumacy for Wikipedia's Rules, and then threatened me with a block, again with open contumacy for Wikipedia's Rules. Again, I wasn't going to say anything, but Magnolia removed the content, made an obviously nonsensical argument, and told me to participate in consensus, when I have sections on the talk page that they have not participated in. Please have the same standards for all people. This is a new issue, because Magnolia deleted content from the article, and did not participate in discussion on the talk page, and is trying to be deceptive in his edit remarks. With reference to (a) arbitrarily removing content from the talk page, (b) arbitrarily threatening me with a block, and (c) telling me to seek consensus when I already have sections on the talk page that they are simultaneously deliberately ignoring, it is logical to conclude that Magnolia is deliberately instigating conflict without a rational basis.Isonomia01 (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Some old photos

As a gesture toward good coverage of policing in Sonoma County somewhere on Wikipedia, whether it's the county's article or somewhere else, may I proffer some photos of the sheriff's department and Santa Rosa Police Department staging to intercept protestors during the George Floyd protests? Not exact World Press Photo of the Year material, but they're what I've got. Wish I had some photos of when they started firing teargas, but I was too busy, well, being teargassed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
@Tamzin: The photos look like they were taken from several floors up a building. Did they shoot the teargas up there? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Third floor. We weren't their direct target, I don't think, just caught in the cloud. I think we received a relatively low concentration. Hit the deck, slammed the window shut, and rinsed our eyes out, and that worked. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 23:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh Tamzin I'm glad you're OK. I'm trying to focus on all the good that happened after the murder of George Floyd, thanks to so many active citizens. All these awful statues and memorabilia that have come down. How does one thank a dead person? There's no thanking, I guess, but there's honoring. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Powerful scenes of the rioting in The Fall of Minneapolis. --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

user:Bi fedakariya Gerillayên HPG'ê, êzdî ji nû ve ji dayik bón ŞENGAL

That's Piermark JayCubby 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You've indeffed, so no further action may be necessary. JayCubby 02:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, yes I saw that after I blocked, and I blocked because there was another IP making the same bullshit edits. User:JayCubby, sorry, but please make your signature MOS:COLOR compliant? I can't see your name, that blue on black, or black on blue, I can't read it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. I initially couldn't figure out how to get the link color to change, but thanks to another user I've figured out what went wrong. JayCubby 02:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
ChatGPT couldn't figure it out, so I had to think for myself. Trying times in which we live! JayCubby 02:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see now there's a whole bunch of such socks. How irritating, and sad. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)I love high res signatures. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_151&oldid=1267991183"