Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 102

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105

Sockpuppet

Dear Drmies, Can you help? 'cause I'm a bit confused here! According to Athenean User:Betsyhaas73 is sock of User:Sulmues, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations says otherwise, so I don't know from where Athenean got their info? Thank you, Mona778 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Easy, Athenean is just wrong. I don't see why it matters to you, but you could always point out their error on their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23, First, thanks for the quick response. Second, for edit summary, which I made an error by just following them without proper investigation first! See here [1] and here [2] Mona778 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
How do you do, dear? It's been a long time since we haven't heard from each other, but you and admin Ponyo will always have a special place in my heart forever... Mona778 (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Ponyo is special to me too. Always nice to see you, Mona, and if you get into trouble, may it be exciting trouble. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I actually just recently got into one, but thanks to admin Ponyo... [3] Mona778 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Mona dear, you have an indefatigable tendency for getting into such trouble. But now that I have linked you to it, you can edit on British battleships and their behaviour for a while! Many of them or ships named like this came near places we both care about in the past, and some still do I think.
But, what a strangely spelled word it is, and so many of the meanings are about oil and gas fields. It is a sad world we live in. MPS1992 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fun with Google Translate

Hello dear, I found this output of Google Translate particularly amusing: "Hatred sower in WW II Henk Feldmeijer and Dutch SS on polygon images he runs perky for the SS troops". Perky polygons seem to have been popular in Adriaan's party! Google Translate answered my questions, but a couple of questions from other people have arrived at Talk:Adriaan van Hees. I hope you are as well as can be expected given the recent developments about your home country and the rest of Europe soon being Cut Off by something more substantial than fog. MPS1992 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I see what you mean. Hold on--gotta pull that PDF back up. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm. OK, I removed it--the source is not that clear. He was not discharged from the NSB, and the only "service" (dienst) from which he could have been discharged is the WA, but that's not stated clearly enough. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I changed the link to "Waffen-SS" from "SS". I suspect he had just enough stupidity to volunteer, and just enough intelligence to screw up the interview. "Swiss SS man" by Heinrich Böll's about a bonehead who is lying wounded in a military hospital, surrounded by Germans who think he's an idiot. Böll suggested a memorial to the unknown soldier, with the word "SHIT!" engraved on it, given that's the last thing most dead soldiers said. We've got the maundering, sentimental "First day of the Somme" stuff going on here- the Royal Mail should issue a few stamps with some Henry Tonks paintings in 'em to shut everybody up (warning- very scary). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Siege of Al-Karak (1834)

Would you please weigh in on the reference question on the talk page? However. It is of no great consequence to me, but I would like to finish the job if I can. If not then I'll just move on to greener pastures. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem at Picarones

Hi Drmies. It came to my attention that this IP who was blocked two times (you being the last one to do so) is back in the form of this IP since he/she made the same vandal editing like the previous mentioned IP. And although I don't like jumping to conclusions, the only vandalism that ever happens in this article is the changing of the same content, which leads me to assume that the IP's are the same person. Thus I think it's safe to say the next time someone makes an edit like this it's safe to block them on the spot until they can prove their innocence. (N0n3up (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

Hi. If you can find it, could you please give a link to that major comma discussion Rfc that you closed. I can't locate it in the archives with key words. There is an RM at the main Dr. King page where I'd like to link it. Thanks. Randy Kryn 11:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert Maynard Hutchins

…who apparently said "This is a do-it-yourself test for paranoia: You know you've got it when you can't think of anything that's your fault." Anyway, had to check up who RMH was, and found a somewhat dense article on "great books" and re-organising educational establishments on Borgesian-Nietzschean lines or something. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Vote

While the edit for which I just thanked you is clearly yours, that might not be clear to others ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the ~ is beside the 1 key. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It's okay, we don't expect our Arbcom members to actually know how to type. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
No, as long as they work towards "befreit" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow. Did y'all's fitbits ping you out of the pool or something? I must have thought I was on my desktop computer. Tell you what, y'all take care of everything else to, and OR can sign for me. I'm having a beer. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It's only because we love you, Drmies. <3 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Did someone say beer? Save me one, I'm still at work! Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
He didn't say beer; he said leer.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I did say beer, and it was a Hoegaarden, kindly left by a rock and roller. Now, if y'all can go through my recent contributions and fix the other typos, and post the occasional "per Drmies", I'll see if I have another one for you here. Oh, he left some Sierra Nevada pale ales as well. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a beer on you, and another one, on 10 July, the day a good name was restored, after 300 years, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

M. Chapstick, please remember that Doktoro is not as you and I, and does not use a human keyboard layout. As a Nexiteer who ran away from the Gallifreyan Panopticon, xyr twiddle key is right next to the thing on the TARDIS console that looks like a trimphone. Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to pry, but -- are you on drugs? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well now Boris, come on--my uncle on drugs? No more than I am, I'm sure, with fiber pills being my main line, so to speak. This is not to say that I know what a "trimphone" is--Oh! that's a trimphone! How quaint. The Nexit, Uncle, I don't think will be happening, though you never know: the Dutch fools voters have a habit of making strange decisions. I will have you know that I always fulfilled my duty as a citizen, having voted for a car-free Amsterdam many years ago, in a referendum that I think drew 19% of eligible voters to the polls. !!!! @@@@ ~~~~

Are you into this sort of thing?

Sometimes I wonder: this sort of thing. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That's so, like 2004. So passé. Hard to believe that this type of "garbagio", as my sons say when they are trying to seem sophisticated, still festers here on Wikipedia. But I am, increasingly, a cranky old man. Maybe other editors think that such stuff is amusing and acceptable. Whatever. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Cullen, it's just some kids having some fun. Although, kids--there is a gallery. Some things can't be unseen. BTW, who wears bathrobes? You, Softlavender? In case you were asking, you have both my permission and my blessing, of course, but you can't wear it here. Drmies (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I recommend keeping it on. The alternatives are hideous. Muffled Pocketed 12:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
^^^joke
Hey now. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Again I'm sorry, and I will suspend all AfD activity.

Hi Drmies,

You are right this time. Not only did I behave in a very rude manner in the Mr Eazi AfD, but I also made an even stupider mistake by telling another admin that I would humble you sooner or later in an AfD after she closed Masha as no consensus. I was unfair to her as well, giving her a hard time on her page. I've been dealing with several personal problems lately, and it wasn't the right time to get into AfDs. To be honest, I really wish you had changed your vote in the Masha AfD after I provided so many sources. I feel very disappointed, but I'll get over it. Now even Rebbing doesn't respect me because I slammed a singer whose article I nominated for deletion. She sent a pathetic messenger to the AfD that pissed me off, so I totally unloaded on her. So don't take it too personally. But of course I'm very sorry and I apologize to you for being an a-hole. Ivana is someone I won't apologize to, not in a thousand years, but I must emphasize that I deeply regret the way I behaved towards you. It's all sad and ironic because four girls who are sisters in a band refuse to forgive me for something I said a year ago, even though I apologized again recently. I thought they had seen that my intentions were good, but no, they were hurt and they are afraid of getting hurt by me again. I learned that on Saturday. I did not give Rebbing a hard time, and at least I sort of helped the other admin from the UK in an AfD of an Armenian guy (the admin that closed the Masha AfD as no consensus). So I hope she appreciates that, but I was an idiot with her too, as I said. Plus I don't know why I wanted some sort of revenge against you. I guess I forgot my medication.

What I will do is quit the AfDs immediately. I will take a break from Wikipedia, and at the most I will be a WikiGome just once in a while, but maybe not even that. I don't want to cause any more problems. I will not return to AfDs. I hope to create an article at some point for a singer that I'm fond of, but just like I was bad to you I could be bad to others if I come back to AfDs, or article talk pages, etc. I will permanently stay away from all those situations. That nominator called SwisterTwister or something like that is totally out of control but there's nothing I can do. However, I alienated Davey too, who's a great guy. It's all a pity. I should go to a monastery or something. Anyway, for all practical purposes I'm gone and I won't cause any more trouble in the community. I will not touch any of the AfDs I've been involved in, and I won't go back to that in the future. Once again, I'm terribly sorry. Dontreader (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Dontreader, I'm kind of on the run and can only skim, but let me just say that Wikipedia needs those who defend articles at AfD, and if it's about winning and losing, terms I don't really like, I don't mind losing if I voted delete since we typically end up with a better article, which is why we're here. Sorry I have to run; I'll respond in more detail later if you like me to. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for saying that. I will definitely improve Masha's article even further. For the record, I'm not a fan of hers at all because she uses foul language (at least on Facebook), but I really should use the AfD sources to make her article better (at least the more solid ones). Your message is very interesting to me. Since you appreciate editors who defend articles, I will continue to do so, at least sporadically, but I have to solve some personal problems first since I don't want to make the same mistakes again. Above all, I must always assume good faith. Many thanks for your message. Dontreader (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Hey, Dontreader, I read what you wrote above but deliberately and consciously didn't look further into your edit history. I have commented on thousands of AfD debates and have learned that it is a bad idea to get too emotionally involved in the debate itself. If you advocate keeping an article, then go right ahead and work on improving the content and referencing. If done competently, that will almost always result in the article being kept. If you support deleting, make your argument calmly, in a policy based fashion, and then step away from the debate. I have occasionally failed to follow my own advice, but when I do follow my own advice, the results are generally satisfactory, and no one's feelings get hurt more than is absolutely necessary. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Hi Cullen328, I appreciate your wise advice. I guess I got too emotionally involved in the recent Masha (singer) AfD because I spent so much time trying to defend the article. You will notice that I did improve that article but not enough (I have to get back to it) because I spent so many hours looking for sources. I said I spent over 10 hours on that project, but in reality it was more like 20 hours, even though I had never heard of that singer. I knew the vodka commercial music very well, but not Masha at all. It's very hard not to get emotionally involved after making such an effort. That AfD broke all records in that sense (well, perhaps comparable to The Wakes long ago). The situation with Ivana's article was unique in the sense that it's an article that I created, and then recently I found information that made me decide that I had bent the rules, so I decided to nominate it for deletion. I thought it was bad for my reputation to have that article on my list of created articles (ironically the nomination further damaged my reputation). I was a big fan of hers until a few months ago. I regret the attitude of a guy she sent to defend the article, trying to make me feel guilty. It brought back memories from the incident that made me decide to quit supporting her, so it really got out of control. But I was irresponsible because I shouldn't be in AfDs when I'm very upset about personal things. I should be in a calm state beforehand. I can do much better than that, and I'm grateful for your advice. I always choose easy cases for my Delete votes, so I've never had problems with those AfDs. But for my Keep votes, is it okay to keep on adding comments with new sources? I can't find them all at the same time, of course. But then I don't want to look like I "dominated" the Keep camp by posting so much. If I just move on after I find my initial sources then the article could get deleted. I sometimes find great sources days later by using different search tricks. Many thanks for your kindness! Dontreader (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dontreader: If you are referring to @Davey2010: above, then I can reassure you that I have found him very patient and forgiving on occasions where disputes have become heated. So I am sure you could have good hopes that he would be happy to let bygones be bygones, especially because you have mentioned in detail here that you felt bad about how the situation developed. MPS1992 (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
MPS1992, it's very kind of you to say that. I really appreciate your consideration. Yes, I was referring to Davey2010. My reputation on Wikipedia isn't stellar, but it had improved a lot since my newbie days, despite some more incidents, but I never did anything nearly this bad. I think part of the problem is that although I have a good voting record in AfDs, I have participated in very few of them in my career. I was convinced that people would change their votes after I provided the sources that I spent a long time to find for the Masha AfD, but that assumption was rooted in lack of experience. In similar previous situations, I feel that people had changed their votes when I had provided that amount of coverage. So this time I got very upset because it didn't happen, and I felt disrespected, or at least that my research had not been appreciated. But it was all because of lack of experience in AfDs. However, it's not an excuse for what I did. Thanks so much for caring and for trying to make me feel better. I certainly do feel much better now than two or three days ago. All the best... Dontreader (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Soap boxing

Hi Drmies. I'm wondering if you could offer some advice as to how to best proceed in regards to Talk:Baby, It's Cold Outside#Evidence of tobacco influences guarding this Wikipedia page. This particular editor has been previously using the Teahouse, Tobacco references in music and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobacco references in music as a bit of a soapbox for her OR, but now it looks as if she might be expanding her range to other articles. I'm pretty sure the YouTube links she's added to the talk page post and tried to add to the article with this edit are/were copyvios, but not sure if it's appropriate to hat/remove the entire talk page post. Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I enjoy a good soap boxing-match. Almost as much as I enjoy pig wrestling, but that's a great deal messier, as one might imagine. Softlavender (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • YouTube videos are not copyright violations if they are from the artist's or studio's official YouTube channel, which at least one of the ones I have looked at there clearly is (I haven't checked the other articles). Also, there is no reason to hat a talk page discussion or post simply because it contains a link to a YouTube video, copyrighted or not. Softlavender (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Thank you for taking a look. First off, your post about pig wrestling was quite funny and a nice response to my "soap boxing". Also, I was aware of the distinction made about YouTube linking. I saw one on the talk page that looked like a copyvio in addition to some which were removed as such from the article, but missed that the other talk page one was to a singer's official account. My bad. FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that the entire post be hatted for only that reason, but after re-reading my post I can see that's how it came off. I thought the post might need to be hatted because it seemed more like a forum post and claim of being censored by Wikipedia (at least it did to me), than an attempt at discsussion on how to make improvements to the article. Anyway, others have responded to it since I posted here, so I'm glad I decided to ask about it first before jumping off the deep end. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Het Beest

On 14 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Het Beest, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1982 Dutch film Het Beest, featuring Willem Ruis in his first and last cinema role, was a "legendary flop"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Het Beest. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Het Beest), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Syriac and Semitic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

More poetic prose

I would improve the page of selfies such as selfies not only proof of narcissism but to be great omnipotent exhibitionism in human beings clear manifestation of human nell'genere autism not only moral absolute truth the... GABgab 00:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Curious re: AfD

Just curious. You participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saarah Hameed Ahmed (2nd nomination) with a keep !vote. That was also the position adopted by many of the early commentators. Later, a load of delete !votes appeared following various bits of research etc. The outcome was no consensus but I'm wondering how many of the early participants revisited the discussion as further information emerged. I can see why they might prima facie have said keep but the subsequent investigations may have swayed their initial opinion. Do you revisit AfD discussions? - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Not often enough, Sitush, I'm afraid. This was a "first woman pilot" from some category claim, which was argued against, but what drew me was the creator, a paid sock. I think this was the one article they created I saw merit in. But you have a point: when admins close AfDs, their job is also to see if arguments are refuted. Ideally speaking, we should all be there for a roundtable at the end, before the close. Drmies (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia Pro-Aislinn Paul fans, and disliking Miriam McDonald?

Drmiles,

I'm disappointed and SMH at you reverting my edits. Is there a theory that Wikipedia are pro-Aislinn Paul fans, and disliking Miriam McDonald (my favorite Degrassi actress)? I've been harshly criticized recently by Imperious Wikipedians like Yamaguchi先生 and Cyphoidbomb. The latter accused me of so-called SOAPBOXING. I had to complain to Wikipedia, then they replied and they refused to help my problems. So I had to do my YouTube video about my Wikipedia Displeasures and showing how I feel and criticized Wikipedia's changes in recent years. Go to YouTube and search Spencer Karter (my name) and watch the video to express how I feel.

Sir, I've been a Wikipedian since late 2004 before those absurd changes took place on Wikipedia. I have to express my disapproval of your edits. Thank you very much, have a great day! Spencer H. Karter (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Shkarter1985, I hope Drmies will not mind if I offer my opinion here. I have not been a Wikipedian for such a long time, but I do feel that if you have been a Wikipedian since 2004 then you would be well aware that Wikipedia does not have a view one way or the other about the relative merits of Paul and McDonald. Individual editors might have opinions, but that should not be reflected in their editing, because we aim to adhere to neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Sorry, I have not watched your YouTube video. May I ask what absurd changes to Wikipedia have taken place since 2004? MPS1992 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question MPS1992 I'll give the list of absurd changes that Wikipedia made over the years.

1.)Wiki Bots (I can't stand those Wiki Bots) 2.)Having Moderators 3.)Protected Articles and denying Wikipedians to edit. This is THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA not the UN-FREE!

That's all I can say! But put the words 'stalker reply' on your response. I'm a good person, I'm not a stalker, I do have autism and I'm caring person and very sympathetic guy. I don't like it when someone damages my reputation. I do get upset when somebody saids bad about me. On when days when something bad happens to me and my family, I do get panic anxiety attacks and I can't help it. People have feelings too. Just they saying "God don't like ugly" and I don't like people who do bad to me. But we have to love our enemies unfortunately as the bible say. I don't like it when someone makes false statements about me, I would have sue that random person for slander. In conclusion, that's all I can say once again! Thank you! Spencer H. Karter (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you meant my edit summary "talk page stalker reply". That meant me, not you -- it is explained at this slightly humorous essay WP:TPS. Probably I should avoid using that as an edit summary to avoid confusion. MPS1992 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

MPS1992, I'm sorry I've misunderstood! :( Spencer H. Karter (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I like the word 'imperious' in the context of admins classic! Muffled Pocketed 18:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Spencer H. Karter, I'm just going to say that I have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, I know what you're talking about, but it makes no sense at all, not a bit. And I don't know these people that you care so much about, or the television show they're in. What I do know is that one article had sources, the other not so much. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Re Removal of content from a sockpuppeting user

@Drmies: Re User:Beetstraw, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, what is this about exactly? What policy is being applied? The articles were good on an overview, the contribution was good, and prolific. The goal is to do more good than harm to the WP. I seriously doubt the removal of legitimate content does actually do that, for a start it considerably undermines the contest going on. What is the point? I need a good explanation, thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is a topic in which you were involved being discussed at WP:ANI. The topic is concern over Adam9007's removal of speedy deletion templates. You are welcome to join the discussion here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Some requests

Drmies:

I'm asking a small number of admins whom I especially respect and admire to do a few things for me, so these could well have been already accomplished by the time you see them.

Finally, I want to thank you for extending a helping hand to a stranger whenever and wherever it was possible to do so. You are a good person, Drmies, and I wish you, your family and your career nothing but the best.

Yours, EF

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hey BMK, I saw your post on Bbb's talk before I came here. I'll repeat what I said, that I will miss you. You have left your mark all over article space, and we are the better for it. Take care of yourself. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter Nguyen Van Hung

I am Vietnamese, please put "User:TeresaBrasier0513/Peter Nguyen Van Hung" content posted to that entry, thanks! --42.72.44.169 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

See ru:Нгуен Ван Хунг, Питер
--42.72.44.169 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I Loves Peter Nguyen Van Hung, He is a Vietnamese Freedom Fighter! --42.72.44.169 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't think "love" is the right word for that particular...feeling you seem to have in regards to this person. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds of low-quality esports articles. Please advise.

Hello, Drmies. There's a growing issue with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/eSports, in that there are now hundreds of low-quality articles, with more being created on a daily basis, that feature non-notable content, poor citing that generally includes The Daily Dot and Liquipedia, as well as navboxes that are borrowed from gaming wikis, but should not be considered up to par for Wikipedia standards. You could probably click a random article from this list and you would find one of many examples. Is there a way one could give the taskforce proper attention, as these hundreds of articles are showing a lack of standards and a single person creating AfDs could not keep up with the people creating these articles? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh dear. I guess I could have seen this coming a year ago. As if we didn't have enough testosterone-fueled content. I nominated one for CSD and another for a PROD; let's see how this goes. For the record, I do not believe that being mentioned on The Daily Dot adds much in the way of notability. I think this may be an uphill struggle. If that Dot is accepted as a reliable and, more importantly, a weighty source, you'll have every gamer argue that these things are Really Important in the Real World. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, Prisencolin just objected to the PROD. BTW, there's a history of socking in that area--see the contributions of Wlo1234 and Wikipedia masterr. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Hello, as you might know I'm behind most of these articles and I happened to notice this discussion. If you've got to delete some things, then delete some things, no offense taken.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone emailed me, so I should probably mention that I may have a conflict of interest with this topic, as someone who was involved with esports organizations for half a decade, until 2014, so I may have a prior COI that will prevent me from giving any further input. I only want to keep quality articles and improve ones that can be improved, but I may not be at liberty to do much else other than talk page input. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I think I'd better apologize for what I just did. As I found with that female videogamer a while back, news sites are crawling with coverage of this stuff. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

... and I followed up with this in my user space and just realized the ping in it won't work 'cos no sig. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

"Flagporn" is my new favorite word. LadyofShalott 01:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "E-sports" is my least favorite new word. What is wrong with "video games"? LadyofShalott 01:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Competence stuff

Hey there, I suspect based on some off-site info that Shkarter1985 may have some behavioral/developmental issues that I've been trying to be sensitive to, but I'm also convinced he's not competent to edit here. He keeps coming by to leave silly diatribes and I (obviously) haven't been able to communicate with him. So, I'm kinda throwing up my hands here... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016

... on a centenary of a performance! - Any translations, other than German? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Olaniyan Olushola

Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't wheel-warring; I didn't realize they were making the rounds (I got an email addressed to Mike V :-)), or that they were a different editor from this one. I'm still not convinced that either (or both) aren't connected to the blocked editor, but current consensus seems to indicate that they may not be. All the best, Miniapolis 14:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh, I saw none of the kind. They also emailed a bunch of other people and I saw it pop up on the functionaries list. Callanecc said they unblocked. I find this entire business rather confusing; sharing an IP with an indef-blocked and banned editor, well now. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
      • That autoblock had done the rounds (up to number 7/8/9/......), I've removed it on Wikicology's block you (Miniapolis) made since there are a bunch of widely used dynamic IPs involved. @Miniapolis: Olaniyan Olushola doesn's need IPBE, and I see Mike has removed it (it's almost always best to ask a CheckUser first, especially when they already have account creator). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Callanecc; I moved quicker than I otherwise would've because OO said they wanted to participate in an editathon. All the best, Miniapolis 02:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hello Drmies and I hope this finds you well. Could you possibly take a look at this? I may well be a twit but I prefer not to be referred to as such. I also don't appreciate the derogatory reference to my residence. As it happens I am on holiday in the South of France at the moment, so it isn't even accurate. Anything you can do? --John (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

{{interfering}} Well, I wouldn't have cared if it was me, nor would I have posted this if I saw it on someone else's page. I mean, it was inspired by the "Twitter" thing, you know. Like a play on words. No big deal. (And my residence probably gets more derogatory references than yours.) Bishonen | talk 11:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC).
  • Jokes don't always come across on the Internet... Take care John. The South of France. A lovely place. I remember the Boulevard des Anglais very well. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
{{busybody}} Regardless of whether "John" (is that even his real name) is a "twit" or "Scottish-based", these "Reactions to the [tragedy du jour]" have got to stop. They've spawned dozens of coatracky articles mentioning every tweet and breath from every leader or celebrity in every country in the known universe. And every time someone tries to stop the madness they get called a twit, or Scottish, or worse. Softlavender (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I am so sick of that nonsense. And the sucky part is, there ARE notable responses, which we can do without flag porn and Twitter. For instance here. Is that in any of our articles? Or are we just doing the whole which country was the sorriest for what happened elsewhere? Hollande gets to say stuff, being the boss man (BTW, did you read about his hair bill?), but this doesn't need to come from Twitter. I'm afraid of even looking at the article cause I am scared of what I might find--have we written up new guidelines yet? BTW, I really don't understand Mathsci's comment--there is no need for that at all. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm a little late to this party.
John has claimed that Twitter comments of Heads of State are inadmissible on wikipedia. He removed those of the President of France. Instead of using the article talk page, he decided he would trot out his strongly held personal views on my talk page. At present a number of sentences and images in the disaster article are due to me, particularly on the French domestic reaction. (I am familiar with Nice and am almost bilingual, since I worked in the South of France for a long time.) As on the French wikipedia, the international reactions were separated into a spin-off article. In the English wikipedia article, there are several Twitter comments which John has not removed (Brazil, Canada, European Union). He had no reservation about removing President Hollande's comments. On the disaster article talk page, another editor has intimated that a similar Downing Street statement from a spokesman was without value. That person said the spokesman could be a janitor. Not so different, really. My own take is that, in the aftermath of Brexit, Theresa May is not yet fully installed in Downing Street.
I remember John's "idee fixe" some years back concerning flags for twin cities. At the time he was unable to convince anybody then of his viewpoint, but was equally insistent on various noticeboards snd targeted me. Years later the flags are still there in Marseille and Aix-en-Provence. And Chicago. I did raise an eyebrow to see the Scottish flag for Glasgow in Marseille, historically one of the most disputed images in the article (a city where I have family ties).
Perhaps John came here thinking I am under some particular stringent editing restriction which he can use to his advantage? John's comments on my talk page are again just his personal views on wikipedia policy. I have a long history of editing articles on the South of France. Sometimes I have created them when they don't exist in French. Chateau of Vauvenargues and La Couronne, Bouches-du-Rhône. I half thought of writing an article on fr:Palais de la Méditerranée, ... I know people who have stayed at the Negresco, . I've stayed round the corner towards the station, possibly when I was en route to Michel's South. Mathsci (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Look! Somebody else did it 30 minutes ago: Palais de la Méditerranée. Mathsci (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not very constructive. I already commented there. I would prefer it if you wrote some content in the article summarising the aftermath amongst the international community. Currently there is nothing. You are also not helping the article very much by discussing an image for the infobox which does not show any parts of Nice where the attack took place. Look for the landmarks. Drmies has been to Nice. He would know. Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

14. Muddy Road

Tanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling. Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection. 'Come on, girl,' said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.

Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. 'We monks don't go near females,' he told Tanzan, 'especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?'

'I left the girl there,' said Tanzan. 'Are you still carrying her?'

— Paul Reps, Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
— Preceding unsigned comment added by John (talk • contribs) 20:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Recited by the Firesign Theatre in their Dear Friends broadcast series, 13 December 1970. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Just so. Muffled Pocketed 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Actually, and I'm indebted to Mathsci for flagging it up, I note that this user is restricted from commenting on race and intelligence, broadly construed. Perhaps, given the insult to my intelligence tied to my nationality, followed up by a combative and grudge-holding response, a teensy Arbcom enforcement block might be worth considering? I trust your judgement on this one though. --John (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
              • Hmm, sorry John--I don't think that's in the spirit of the topic ban, but you can ask for one at AE. Since I was on the committee that kept that ban in place it would not be proper for me to act on it. I do not understand why you, Mathsci, don't address that rather odd little insult here; your knowledge in many areas is appreciated, but neither Brexit nor flags have much bearing on this matter. It is more becoming to attempt to undo past errors than to bring up old cows from the canal. (John, Dutch proverbial wisdom is much less poetic than your Zenisms.) Drmies (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
                • What can I say about John? The Scots are not a race. Whether he likes it or not, John has the same nationality as me. I cannot comment on his intelligence; some of his comments here and elsewhere have been extraordinarily silly, like the ones he's just written. The word "twit" or "twerp" comes from Just William as far as I remember. It is a measure of silliness. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
                  • It is a good idea not to say anything about John; I asked you to address the comment, which I think you are now portraying as a little inside joke. It didn't sound very funny to me. Mathsci, I'm not sitting here waiting to block you or anything like that, nor do I wish to spend my Saturday repeating myself. If you have anything substantive to say about the comment that John took offense to, please do so, and this will make you and our project look better. If not, there is no need to say anything at all. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies for your sage advice and your trouble. I am on holiday in Manosque and it is beautiful. I feel far too mellow to be vindictive about another user's misjudgement of me. Mathsci, if you think that was funny or appreciated or proved your point in any way, or was a smart move for someone coming back from a site ban then I feel mildly sorry for you. Here's another quote from my holiday reading that may help you if you have the intelligence and self-knowledge to understand it. Drmies, what's your opinion of Kriek? I've become a bit of an aficionado. I hope you're having as nice a summer as I am having.

9. The Moon cannot be Stolen

Ryokan, a Zen master, lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening a thief visited the hut only to discover there was nothing in it to steal. Ryokan returned and caught him. 'You may have come a long way to visit me,' he told the prowler, 'and you should not return empty-handed. Please take my clothes as a gift.’ The thief was bewildered. He took the clothes and slunk away.

Ryokan sat naked, watching the moon. 'Poor fellow,' he mused, 'I wish I could give him this beautiful moon.'

— Paul Reps, Zen Flesh, Zen Bones

--John (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Also recited by the Firesign Theatre in their Dear Friends broadcast series, 13 December 1970. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"A person who is..."

Hello.

Will you please be so kind to help me? I am not native speaker of English language so I maybe don't understand it always. I have two simple questions:

  1. Is statement about another wikipedia editor being "a person who is quite incapable of..." violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy (precisely, its first two sentences saying "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.")?
  2. If it is, are wikipedia administrators allowed to make such statements?

All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not everyone with access to a computer is competent enough to edit Wikipedia. The standards are actually quite lower than most websites that take themselves seriously when deciding who is allowed to contribute or not, but still. Competence is required to edit here, and it's not a personal attack to point it out. Doc talk 10:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) So, to summarise for the OP: a) No, b) Yes. Muffled Pocketed 10:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Anyone (including admins) can state their opinion of another editor's capabilities. This comes up particularly on noticeboards, Requests for Adminship, article talk-page discussions which have derailed, WP:AE, ArbCom, and so forth. Such comments are not violations of WP:NPA. If they are made in your presence, about you, it's best just to completely ignore them (and to continue to discuss content rather than editors) or to offer calm reasoned evidence (with diffs) to the contrary. Softlavender (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I would make two points here. First, a slightly pedantic one. A statement beginning "a person who is quite incapable of..." could end with the words malice or dishonesty and it then becomes, in English, a rather strong compliment, a positive statement. Although I guess that is not the case in whatever example is being discussed.
Second, while I agree with Softlavender that editors can express their opinions of other editors, most usually the burden is on the editor expressing the original opinion to support it with diffs -- I think this is mentioned in WP:ASPERSIONS. The burden should not be on the person insulted to provide diffs to prove that the insulting description is incorrect. Because it is impractical, for example if someone says "MPS1992 is incapable of writing intelligible English", what diff can I provide that proves otherwise? It's all a matter of opinion. But conversely, if someone provides a diff of me writing incoherently, and uses that as evidence for their opinion that I am incapable, at least they have provided evidence.
Related to the second point, Competence is required is an essay not a guideline, and even then it says very clearly at the top "Be very cautious when referencing this page, as it can be very insulting to other editors", as well as similar guidance elsewhere on the page. So it is no justification for making disparaging comments about other editors without evidence.
Perhaps "is incapable of" could be better written. If I say that unfortunately an editor will find it impossible to contribute constructively to English Wikipedia because of language problems, then that sounds rather less insulting than using the word "incapable", which contains overtones of other things. Context is important -- it comes down to what is being discussed (honesty, coherency, ability to research?) and whether evidence is provided. MPS1992 (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • AD, one can quibble over when a comment on an edit becomes a comment on an editor, and while the policy seems straightforward enough, much depends on context. It is true that admins should typically hold themselves to higher standards, yes. But I can hardly claim for myself that I meet any higher standard, for instance. I'll go see how your AN discussion is going; I hope it looks better today than it did two days ago. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thanks everybody for your replies. Although I really appreciate your effort, I would like to Drmies' reply to my questions.
MPS1992, thanks for pointing that "Competence is required is an essay", but I would like to pay your attention that WP:ASPERSIONS is also an essay. Can you support your opinion that "editors can express their opinions of other editors" with some policy or guideline which actually allows editors to comment on the contributors, contrary to what WP:NPA says?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies for your answer. If comment says that another editor is "a person who is..." (whatever the context can be), then it looked to me that it is no doubt a comment about another editor, but since I am not native speaker of English language, I believe you know better. Thank you very much.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Context matters greatly. "An editor who is quite incapable of good faith" will require some serious evidence. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Serious evidence

Serious evidence.... Of course....Thanks to above posted link to Casting aspersions, I see the Arbitration Committee have passed several principles on the subject of casting aspersions. One of them says: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." It clearly says:
  1. on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or
  2. in the appropriate forums
Will you please help me to better understand this. Suppose (theoretically) that a small group of editors involved in numerous disputes with me created huge walls of texts on article talkpages with numerous (I am talking about hundreds) of accusations of my misbehavior on article talkpages. Not on my talkpage or appropriate forum, but on article talkpages. Would such behavior of such (imaginary) small group of editors violate the above principle passed by Arbitration Committee?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It is entirely possible that this violates that principle. I know you want me to speak out categorically, and I am unwilling to do that (I am certainly not going to take administrative action in this hypothetical case, unless for extreme disruption). And there is a kind of a catch: if in some community-wide forum or other a certain editor was judged to be guilty of this or that kind of disruption, then stating that this was the case is no longer really an accusation but merely a statement of what has been judged to be factual. None of this, my dear Antidiskriminator, will get you closer to getting your topic ban lifted. What will get it lifted is either changing the mind of one or more of these hypothetical opponents, or convincing a broader, different audience not of your hypothetical opponents' guilt, but of your own willingness to work within certain guidelines, be a team player, having something to contribute, etc. But these are just my musings. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • How many diffs with accusations of my misbehavior presented on article talkpages would you expect me to bring to prove "extreme disruption" which would allow you to take administrative action? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Levenslied

Hey Doc, long time no hear. I just noticed that this link in Zangeres Zonder Naam changed to a redlink. It was deleted after a PROD for lacking references. Do you perhaps have a good reference handy? Or a good redirect target? Although I think this is quite a typical Dutch genre. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'll get on it. Not my favorite genre, haha (listening to the UDS right now), but it's important. I've done quite a bit of work on some Jordanezen, so sure. Thanks! Hope you're doing well. It was a nice day in the Tour, but what happened on the Riviera is hard to deal with, intellectually and emotionally. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, great job! Not my favorite genre either, but I do have some fond memories. When I was a little kid, my mom would sing while she would bathe my brother and me and some of the songs were "Hallo Bandoeng" or "Mijn fiere schooiershart". I once started crying because of the last one, so sad I thought it was. So I have deviated a bit from my normal paths and created "Hallo Bandoeng". First time I seriously edit and article on a song, hope I got all OK. I'll look into writing a short bio of Willy Derby in the coming days. --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request

The identity of User:Marioorosa has been verified via ticket:2016071910023102. Please unblock. Thanks. — Music1201 talk 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Tarkan (singer)

yes names are relevant. why don't you mention names? Matintarkan (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Because I am not convinced they are relevant, because Wikipedia is not a gossip tabloid, because the references you provide (in bare URLs) do not look serious enough to consider that these names are of any encyclopedic value. If you don't respect the material you submit, please don't expect me to respect it. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Clippers18

I see you have blocked Clippers18. Thanks for that. Given that Clippers18 is obviously 68.187.108.155, who is blocked for 6 months, and who has previously evaded his/her block using 2600:1008:B116:A43D:6825:1E94:978E:CE05, isn't a 2 week block a bit short? That said, I fully expect another account to pop up now anyway. After 68.187.108.155 was blocked, the editor switched to using 2600:1008:B116etc, and then created Clippers18 shortly after I posted this. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Look who else resurrected in the past few days as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/A_portah29 EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I did notice that. These articles are the subject of some dubious editing by editors with a lot of similarities. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What does "a-holish" mean in English?

In Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Chopin's nationality: Added Solution F, G, and H with Support also for B, you accused me of "a-holish sneers ("Are you familiar with formal logic and do you understand English")". Since neither "a-holish" nor "holish" is a proper English word and thus not included in the Webster's Dictionary nor defined on the Web, then "a-holish sneers" refers to something that does not exist, as per formal logic. So - in other words - you accused me of something that does not exist. I am puzzled and do not know what to think. Should I worry or feel scared? I think, I should worry that you have power to block a user, as you have just done to ZinedineZidane98 (see there). I believe that knowing formal logic is essential to understanding user's offences, only which the users can be blocked for. So, it is also really scary that you have such a power. I hope, you will not abuse it. Does, what I wrote here, sound like "a-holish sneer" too, just a regular sneer, or - maybe - a mockery or a ridicule by an educated person, which do not qualify as WP:NPA, though close? Enjoy guessing.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Instead of guessing, let's play the SPI game. Much more fun, and with the pontential for real a-holery... Muffled Pocketed 06:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Scary powers! Don't be an a$%hole, now! Doc talk 06:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me guess, based on 64 years of experience speaking English. It is a euphemism for acting like an asshole. Time for you to look in the mirror, I expect. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
A couple of (semi) quotes- "They have dunged the neighbourhood with their opinions" & "Here comes someone who with a great effort is going to say something stupid". I've no idea who wrote these (I think the first is Dr Johnson) and haven't found them on the web. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
…oh, and I spent five minutes once listening to a Polish libertarian, before I got up and walked away to deny myself the pleasure of punching him. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, after all the subject matter at hand tops the list of Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, so I doubt it's ever going to permanently go away even if the OP is put to rest. Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Well why didn't you say so? We aren't mind-readers here on the good doctor's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That does not seem to be mentioned in the article, which is surprising. Are there any sources which discuss it? I think it would make a valuable addition to the article if so. MPS1992 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Doc9871, you may not have been clear enough for this editor (whose syntax and punctuation, BTW, could do with some tweaking-but I'm a liberal reader who accepts lots of Englishes). Xanty, you must live an interesting life, that you get to run into Polish libertarians. I don't believe I ever had the pleasure. All this, BTW, proves two things: given Cassianto's lashing out at me on the same article talk page, I must be doing something right to get it from both sides; and this nationality discussion is quite interesting, given that it provokes such angry behavior. Did they have passports in Chopin's time in the way in which we have them? Did they mark "nationality" in the way in which we do? Have many Wikipedia editors read books like Patrick J. Geary's The Myth of Nations, and are they aware of the fact that our borders and, indeed, our ideas about borders and nationality (and their fetishization) are to a great extent nineteenth-century inventions? "Nationalism, ethnocentricism, racism--specters long thought exorcised from the European soul--have returned with their powers enhanced by a half-century of dormancy" (Geary 3).

    Some time ago I worked on Danilo Kiš, who is one of the most important and gifted writers most people have never heard of. I see that someone has edited that article to reintroduce a whole bunch of terminology that seems factual, but is actually far from simple. He was born in a place that is now Serbia but was then part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. He was Jewish. The family's last name had been changed as a result of Magyarization. His father was a Hungarian speaking Jew, his mother Christian Orthodox; both his parents came from what is now Montenegro and was then also Montenegro (if I'm guessing dates properly), but not the same Montenegro. He was baptized Christian-Orthodox, but that was in part, it seems, to not be Jewish--in 1938. His career took off in what was then Yugoslavia. The most stable location in terms of nationhood in his life is that of his death: Paris, France. He wrote in Serbo-Croatian, but some of his writing was done in France, and he called himself one of the "Yugoslavian intellectuals" who moved to France--in the same interview he also calls himself a "Jewish intellectual". I submit that "nationality", in such a case, is pretty much meaningless, a needless categorization which says next to nothing about the writer and his life and work. This may apply to Chopin also: discuss (on the article talk page). Drmies (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Or for the Fourth International. Forward! Muffled Pocketed 17:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this a reasonable EL?

Words Without Borders. I came across it via this edit and found it being spammed across multiple articles. It's not a spammy link but at the same time I'm not sure if that site is something that should be linked everywhere. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Good morning Drmies

Hi Drmies If you get a moment this am please take time to read over his mornings disparaging statements about me at the in block me so thin of Dontreader talk page. You r to.e will not be wasted sir since the writer has some more news a out you that you may eNd to beD. I was outraged after reading g what I saw there, it I expect you admin buys will be fine g at the blatant outrageous ness of the statements by the user editor there. Sorry no linKS I am on my mobile Sir.

Is Calli g another editor a gremlin. Personal attack, then continue the attack by strik in g gremlin. putting problemagic person? I believe that is a pot Callin g kettle situation. Later and thanks, Maybeparaphrased (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Maybeparaphrased, I've tried to read all that is written on that page, but there's not world enough and time. The editor is blocked, and it is entirely possible that some admin will come along and revoke talk page access. As for me, I think the disparaging remarks about a bunch of people made on that talk page are outweighed by the editor's continued self-exposure. If I were you I'd simply disregard them, since the comments say more about them than about you or me or others. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:ORCP#Izno

Promised reply from ORCP, since getting into the specifics of that AFD gets a little too far from the purpose of the poll page. Some thoughts:

A review of WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY seems to indicate the source is okay for establishing notability. It's independent, though blatantly using material from the press release, and neither N nor NCOMPANY seem to take issue with that sort of source. So I disagree with you on this point. I'm waffling, but I think I'd still either end up !voting keep or weak keep, based on those criteria and the comment by BU Rob at the ORCP that the rest of the article had decent-enough sourcing not to have written a one-line stub (since I can't see the deleted article). However, what goes unmentioned in most of the delete comments at the AFD (yours included), and implied only by one person, is WP:SUSTAINED. On review of the fuller guideline rather than the GNG alone, I would have found myself agreeing that there is sufficient cause for deletion of the article in question. --Izno (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Izno, as I argued at the AfD the source is extraordinarily thin and offers very little; what it offers is simply regurgitated from a press release. In other words, it's poor journalism too. I don't know what SUSTAINED says, though I can guess. Drmies (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

    • Yes, that's what you argued, but I can't find anything in either WP:N or WP:NCOMPANY that says such a source can't be used. It's distinctly not a press release as it was not reprinted verbatim. An editorial team, separate to the one which put out the press release, OKd the article for publication in a national newspaper, and there's at least one item in N which says "that's good!" I won't argue whether it's poor journalism, and in fact, tacitly agreed above regarding this point, but poor journalism is still not a criterion in our notability guidelines. Maybe you'd like to review them and point out the exact phrasing in N or NCOMPANY which agrees with your point of view, because I didn't see it after a protracted review this morning.

      SUSTAINED says, ...brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events. New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER..., and in this case, the article probably fails, because (from memory) every source used was a burst-y sort of news item. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

    • That it's thin, maybe that's an argument regarding "in-depth". In which case, maybe that's just a different interpretation on my part. I've got enough in that press release rehash to write a stub. (I'm not sure I'd want to, but there it is.) Someone managed more than a stub, because they found other sources, so a 'weak keep' or even a 'keep' isn't that far from where a comment could have landed, if we were only discussing that point (as it happens, in the AFD, we were only discussing that point, but a discussion in retrospect shouldn't restrict itself to only the AFD in question). --Izno (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Thin --> not in-depth. I don't see why everything that's published in a good source should be taken as quality material. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Since we're at a common understanding of your objection, I think I'm good regarding the AFD. I'm still unsure that I would change my !vote regarding the in-depth point, but certainly would have regarding the sustained point, were it more explicit. Regarding the second part, the bar for WP:N isn't "quality", only that it's a "reliable" source--the distinction of which should probably be a discussion for a different time. Lastly, thanks for your time here. --Izno (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Not everything is or should be covered under a guideline. How is regurgitated press release not a statement about "significant coverage"? It is true that a regurgitated press release in a notable newspaper deserves more attention than this one, but in terms of adding notability to the subject, it's nothing compared to how this article adds notability to its subject (as if it needed more notability--but this is the first article on a company I pulled from the NYT business section). That's judgement, and that's the kind of discussion you'll find in AfDs. Thanks for indulging me, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

Kind WP admin, I have the following doubt:

1 - was I deprived of this right? 2 - do I have still have it but have not had it activated? In my previous account, in addition to that feature, I was a reviewer; I admit to this day I still don't know much about the latter, but the rollback feature sometimes comes in really handy, for instance when undoing several instances of vandalism by same "user".

However, since I misused that feature on occasion, maybe it was stripped from me and I am not aware. If it has, of course I will accept the punishment and will not protest. Just wondering here...

Attentively, continue the good work --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The username from which you posted this has never had the "rollback right". You can see the relevant information here, which also indicates the username was granted (and did not lose) the "autopatrolled right".
Maybe you were previously using WP:Twinkle, which has a "rollback" button and can be enabled in the "Browsing" part of this section of your Preferences. MPS1992 (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Faiz Syed for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Faiz Syed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faiz Syed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. for (;;) (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed

JohnSpecialK's userpage is a 32,000-byte advertisement for himself and his books. He's also even added the magic word "INDEX" to it so Google will pick up the page. By the way, his sole editing across Wikipedia and global wikis is to promote his own self-published (through CreateSpace) books. I posted the {{subst:uw-userpage}} notice on his talk page, and explained that I was going to remove the userpage material as it violated WP:NOTWEBHOST. I did so and he has reverted my removal. It looks like an admin is going to have to outright delete it. I could MfD it, but last time I MfDed something the nomination languished in obscurity and I still don't think it has been dealt with. Could someone take care of this? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The sad thing is, he is doing it equally as much on German-wiki, but we have no jurisdiction there. Plus German-wiki is so bizarrely set up in that you can't track user edits to an article and so forth. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Plus it's in German. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
That user page should be a straightforward CSD#U5. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
OK thanks; if he reinstates it, one of us can tag it. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I wish you hadn't said "one of us"--I won't get that song out of my head tonight. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The author uses a pling in his book title ("Josephine !")- which reminded me of the house style of this particular magazine- TV Choice!. Published by a German company! Achtung Spitfeuer! For you the unerbittlicheselbstförderungkampagne is over! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Some sections don't have references; they could be removed (like wot I done). The dating of the letter by watermark could do with elucidation (if a source is found)- it seems to imply that the paper wasn't made earlier than 1812. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
OK thanks, that helped. When I say "I don't know how to", I basically mean "I don't want to". Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way, not that anybody asked, it pisses me off big time that that stupid movie Immortal Beloved ruined for all time the correct English translation of Unsterbliche Geliebte, which is obviously "Eternally Beloved" (as in "unsterbliche Liebe" -- undying love, which refers to the love, not the love object). I knew that movie was going to suck the minute I heard the title -- and except for a few scenes it did not prove me wrong. I'm still mad about that mistranslation (which doesn't even make sense!) which has spread everywhere now and can never be put back to rights. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Back to the subject at hand: I notice that on the German-wiki version of the article, someone rolled back a large entry of Klapproth's theories [6]. Softlavender (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Editing the article's like knitting with spaghetti. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, it's an effing mess. Softlavender (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Sandstein may be of assistance here. Irondome (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the translation from Immortal Beloved as unattributed and a copyright violation. Also there was a link to a pirated copy of the film. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Edited to add: He wrote that entire Josephine Brunsvik article, so it is going to have to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb in regards to accuracy and neutrality, and in terms of the claims made therein. Softlavender (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My IP "fan"

So looking up the IP, it's an AT&T Wireless IP. Looks like someone on a mobile phone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

The old guy who spends most of his time in front of my local supermarket (but is not allowed inside!) asked me to thank you. And thanks for the wikibreak and for improving the Shetland Black-article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Danilo K

Thanks for the talk page comments there. That was one of the dozens of pages I removed from my watchlist because eventually it came down to a choice between continuing to deal with Wikipedia's gangs of jingoists and preserving my sanity. But I'll rewatch that article. I've only read a couple of books by Kis but I'm pretty sure he would not be a fan of the Wiki-chauvinists and their tagging. After all, he once called nationalism a "form of collective paranoia". There used to be an even better interview with him on the subject on the Internet but I can't find it now. Maybe it was collected in his book Homo Poeticus, but that's not available online and I don't have access to a copy. Cheers anyway. --Folantin (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability 101...

You recently nominated Eglinton LRT Carhouse for deletion. I used the term "Notability 101" in my keep reply.

There is a grain of truth in this nomination. Not every building is notable. One of the flaws in the nomination is the assertion that press coverage doesn't make a building notable. Of course press coverage, and other reliable, authoritative coverage, is precisely what makes topics notable. That is Notability 101.

I came to your talk page to decide whether I should discuss my reply with you, here. Prior to deciding whether to leave a reply I saw your reply comment at #Again I'm sorry, and I will suspend all AfD activity.

Dontreader, I'm kind of on the run and can only skim, but let me just say that Wikipedia needs those who defend articles at AfD, and if it's about winning and losing, terms I don't really like, I don't mind losing if I voted delete since we typically end up with a better article, which is why we're here. Sorry I have to run; I'll respond in more detail later if you like me to.

One interpretation of your comment is that you see AFD as a useful tool to goad the contributors who first worked on an article to make improvements to it.

I joined the wikipedia during its golden age, when there was a good balance between anabolism and catabolism. At that time, the deletion policy, and other key wikidocuments related to deletion, were quite clear. Nominations for deletion were to be based on the notability of the topic, itself -- not on the current quality of the article. When a topic was notable, but the current state of the article sucked, deletion was not in order; nominations for deletion were not in order. Good faith efforts to improve the article were what was in order.

Okay, since then, out of concern for non-notable people, we tightened up the criteria for biographies of living people. We delete them, if they are poorly referenced, even if the subject is notable. But the Eglinton Carhouse article is not a BLP.

In 2007 there was a sudden change in wikipedia participation. It marked a defection of that portion of the wikipedia community who create new articles. Most people who write about the sea change of this defection treat the defection as a mystery. It is not a mystery to me. The defection most of the contributors who were good at adding new content coincided with the introduction of WP:BLP. BLP changed the balance of catabolism and anabolism. It changed the balance and gave too much power to those who wanted to delete articles.

Now maybe your nomination of the Eglinton Carhouse article is not typical of your nominations -- not your best work? But if you regularly nominate articles for deletion, when the topics they covered might measure up to our notability criteria, because you thought the nomination might trigger article improvement, I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to use the other techniques for article improvement first.

Your comment to Dontreader strongly implied that !voting delete, based on the article quality being poor, was "no harm, no foul", if those who actually add content, and keep articles up to date, rushed in to improve and save the article. If that is what you meant, I think you couldn't be more wrong.

Such nominations are manufactured false crises. It is extremely unpleasant to be pushed into rushing to respond to an AFD. It is particularly unpleasant when there are strong clues, in the nomination, that the nominator didn't bother to take the time to read more than the first few sentences of the article, check any of the references, or conduct a meaningful web search of their own. That web search is essential for the nominator to reach an independent conclusion as to whether the article in question was a problematic article on a topic that was definitely notable.

In this particular case you referred to the Eglinton Carhouse as a "yard for buses". Light rail vehicles are very different than buses. This mistake gives the appearance that you spent only seconds, barely skimming the article, prior to initiating the AFD. Even a stub, with only a couple of references, represents a substantial input of time.

Since our policies state that articles on notable topics should be preserved, and improved, when the article itself is weak, it seems to me that everyone who offers an opinion at an AFD should conduct their own web search, and form their own opinion as to whether the topic itself is notable. Clearly, a lot of AFD participants don't do this, put their trust in the nominator to have done so. It seems to me that nominators, at least, should conduct a good, thorough web search.

So, if you really meant to imply "no harm, no foul", I think you couldn't be more wrong. Escalating immediately to AFD, when you find an article with poor references, or a similar issue, strains the patience of the dwindling number of contributors who actually add new content.

It is exhausting to respond to any AFD. In some ways responding to AFD where the nominator hasn't actually read the article, or complied with WP:BEFORE, is even more of a strain than responding to substantive, policy-based challenges. Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Geo Swan, you are welcome to think that I am discouraging new editors by nominating poor articles on non-notable topics. And I don't think that going to AfD is an escalation. At that AfD, by the way, I encourage you to present some actual evidence, besides your usual grand statements. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Does this have to go though SPI or can it quicker?

What do you think? The Banner talk 17:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Done. I don't think much of it. I didn't know I was on the guy's shit list; can't remember having run into them. (On the bright side, they think I'm dumb, so they can't be that stupid.) What I can't figure out is why I can't see who suppressed all those edits; the log gives me no entries. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If you're only talking about revdel, I think you have to look at the log for the page(s) in question. For instance, Writ Keeper did at least one of them [8]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It was not nice to deal with this guy in 2013. so I don't want another episode. I still have the unproven suspicion that he is the one behind a few threatening e-mails I have received about Wikipedia. English language mails about what I did on the Dutch Wikipedia... The Banner talk 08:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's old, it's redirected, and maybe I'm over-sensitive ...

But could someone with a toolkit please revdelete this? Thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fangusu edit

Are you sure you want to let a Fangusu edit stand like you did on Bulsara? You know you are inviting more of her bullshit to continue if you do.

Have some sources btw: http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Adi%20Bulsara&nojs=1 https://books.google.com/books/about/Adi_Bulsara.html?id=2VSmuAAACAAJ http://america.pink/bulsara_787432.html --Tarage (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And if you are going to protect articles, protect this one too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_Loving_You --Tarage (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't really care what you're dropping here ("revolvy"? wtf is that? go read WP:RS). The edit you keep restoring is completely tripe. Sock or not, you are making the article worse--ffs, what's someone's cousin doing on a dab page? I'm going to step away from the keyboard, because I am thinking too much of your completely unacceptable edit summaries. If you can't make your case without telling someone to fuck off and die or to go and kill themselves, you should really, really step away too. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I need to report a vandal

Hello. Someone is damaging the wikipage of the 2012 US presidential election. What can I do to stop them??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  • It seems the user stopped. I sent a notification about vandalism. Sorry for bothering you. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • No bother. I'm surprised someone still cares for 2012. That's almost ancient history, making it an encyclopedic topic. Anyway, that user is perilously close to being a vandalism-only editor, unless they can't tell the difference between a 2 and a 6--and even then. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Well: thank **** for Nixon eh; or it could've been three terms... Muffled Pocketed 19:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for getting to that ANI so fast, some people just never learn. BTW love the geolocate =) Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ham

Hello

I am new to this so I hope that I am doing this right..yiikes. In response to my Canaan edit, I am greatly baffled. All I did was add the correct information to a flawed and very misleading page and even cited the Scripture Genesis 10:6 the second time around. It isn't shocking that I used Scripture for the page is RIFE with references to Scripture. Genesis 10:6 very plainly says that Ham was the father of 4 sons and those sons were Mizraim, Put, Cush and Canaan. There is a plethora of information about who Ham was and what his name means. Why is this new knowledge to Wikipedia? For a site that claims to inform and educate this is downright embarrassing.

HolyJustus (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

A removed prod and hello

Hi Dr, I removed this prod [9], noticing after the fact that you'd placed it there. I think that particular issue has been resolved. Anyway, it gave me the chance to drop by and say hello. Hope you're staying cool this summer, enjoying both the pool and the ale. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, that was certainly an improvement. The pool looks great, by the way--crystal clear, not like when Writ Keeper used to visit. But I'm on the office pretending to work. Hope you and yours are well too, and thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

108.199.223.23

You should consider blocking 108.199.223.23 for longer than 31 hours. He was blocked the other day using - JT Country Pop and 108.199.223.221
2601:983:8102:24A0:FD12:4581:127A:AF1B (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I should? Makes no difference, since they switched IPs before and will probably do so again. If you want to help, start an SPI, if there isn't one already, or add to it. Drmies (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking more like a range block to block his future available addresses. I don't know how you do it, I just know that I get caught in them all the time on my mobile devices. Every time I boot or drive down the road to a new tower, I risk not being able to post because of a range block. The difference being, my ips vary quite drastically, while those two have the first 3 groupings the same. 68.33.90.182 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
And here's a good reason to log in: I don't know who I'm talking to. Range block for future addresses is not doable, and I don't do rangeblocks in the first place (not smart enough). Drmies (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I have an account for when I am on a blocked ip or am on a protected page. But all of my browsers are set for privacy mode - all cookies and history get cleared every time I close a window. I would need to log in every time I am here - too much hassle. If I wanted involved with policy making or regularly policing users, maybe I would consider logging in. But I am just a minor page editor. 166.216.159.217 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. OK. Well, I couldn't tell if the first message here was from the same person as the second message. You'll note there's a comment below from an equally numerical IP editor who identifies himself as "99", from an old IP he used to use, and so I always know who I'm talking to (besides that, I recognize his editing style and language). So that's something you can consider whenever you roam outside of article space. Anyway, yeah, I can't do rangeblocks and don't see how someone who can would do it here; whenever I propose one the answer is always "too much collateral damage", haha. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I need to identify IPs

Hello again. Some IP users wrote very strange commentaries about a cleanup I made in an article in my talk page. I did the cleanup as parts of the article violated WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR and the political content was WP:UNDUE but these users mistook me for some kind of conservative activist. The users are violating the policy WP:NPA so I'm wondering whether and whom I need to report this. Thanks for your help. Leo Bonilla (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Actually they claimed User:Chronus is a communist and they are asking me to be some kind of Wikipedia police and they asked the same to others users. Do you think I can stop them to be WP:JAGUAR showing them the list of policies on Wikipedia and asking them to continue the conversation in the respective talk page? Leo Bonilla (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla and Drmies: About the IP, please see this! Chronus (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla: Me too. Chronus (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)And I see they are blocked as socks of Bazaira.[10] Doug Weller talk 10:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Danratedrko's sockpuppet DS-616

In connection with this message, you may or may not find it interesting to know that, by coincidence, when I saw it I had just logged into Wikipedia with the intention of consulting a CheckUser about the possibility of looking for Danratedrko's self-declared sockpuppet. As for whether I "want to do something about this user's block", I'm not sure what there is to do, but thanks for letting me know anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that was my fault, for saying "you won't be surprised or disappointed", rather than the more direct "you are blocked indefinitely". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It's more complicated than that: because I thought they weren't blocked indefinitely I didn't see that they in fact were; I must have seen that they were blocked or I wouldn't have pinged you. Perception steered by presumption. I liked your handwritten notice. BTW, my misreading was not unlike Cavalcante de' Cavalcanti's, though this is not something our article explains. I'll get on it. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Perception is often steered by presumption in that way, and yet in other situations the contrast between presumption and what actually occurs can hit one's perception very forcefully. As for Cavalcante de' Cavalcanti, that is a bit of the Inferno that I had never read. From what I have now seen, it looks as though the incident is probably notable enough to be mentioned in the article: probably far more notable than many of the trivia that appear in "In popular culture" sections and the like. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello. I noticed you had posted an additional warning on the talk page of Vwvu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so would you mind taking a look at their recent edits? It's an editor with an obvious COI repeatedly (as in three times today, so far...) adding/re-adding unsourced and/or improperly sourced trivia on Jain International Residential School, in spite of tonnes of warnings on their talk page, treating the article as if it's their property, and an extension of the school website. Thomas.W talk 13:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Please disregard, they were blocked after a report at WP:AIV. I wouldn't mind if you would semiprotect the article for a couple of weeks or more, though, to prevent socking during their two-week block, since they have a history of using multiple parallell accounts (including a previous block for it). Thomas.W talk 13:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

WO

Hi. Did you recently make a post on Wikipediocracy? There is an account claiming to be you and I am not sure if it is a joe job. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's old Jared, who's got nothing better to do. I don't know how to post on Wikipediocracy and I never look at it; I hope someone there blocks them--is that the kind of thing they do? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Shenanigans at Andrij Dobriansky again

Hi Drmies. You and Jpgordon blocked User:Nosay990 and User:LGR02g as socks. Just a heads-up that a new editor has appeared, ALU0819, who is carrying on the shenanigans at Andrij Dobriansky where the first two left off. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Barinder Rasode for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barinder Rasode is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barinder Rasode until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Canuckle (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

User editing in violation of ARBPIA 30/500 GASP

Hi Drmies, I don't want to open up a full AE action, but this user Dreamsarenotreal has been making edits that he's not allowed to. I've reverted, posted on his talk page, Bolter has also informed him, but he just doesn't listen. Is there anything you can do short of me initiating an AE since I thought admins can take action without an AE action. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

see in real life

I looked up in his archives what I exchanged with Kevin and found your "Hope to see you again in real life somewhere." Hope it happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I found us talking about health, and me pointing at an image for the deceased, - kind of chilling in retrospect. We disagreed a lot, but always in a friendly way. I created Ethics of Dissensus when we met, for the DYK of Kevin Gorman and Eric Corbett, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

73.53.121.199

73.53.121.199 has edited 4 articles and all are vandalism. You warned him about a block.—Anomalocaris (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this with a 72-hour block.—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I aim to please. Thanks for the note; the block was well-deserved. But don't forget that the folks at WP:AIV also need to meet their block quota, or their families will go breadless. Drmies (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

ICARE Foundation

Sometimes I tag an article and throw up my hands--perhaps the good Dr or one of his talk page stalkers can have a look at this. To my eye pretty much the whole thing is an advert. Thanks from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not often wrong and right again, '99. I'll probably get bollocked for stubbing it, but between the advertorial and the near-50%copyright violations, there wasn't much to be picked out. Muffled Pocketed 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I thought a lot of it was probably copyright violation, but was having trouble separating out distinct examples. Much appreciated, 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much the same issues at Agribusiness Teaching Center, a related article. If you don't get to it, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I will return to the article later. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks 99, dealt similarly with that. But I wish the Dr waz ere: there's some major WP:MEAT going on on both of them, and we could use some temporary protection. Cheers! Muffled Pocketed 14:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
All in good time; he can't pretend to be on vacation forever. Plus, there are other good-natured admins who check in here. Thank you. The Agribusiness article has a helpful listing of 'see also' pages, and I wouldn't be surprised if we find similar issues with some of those. The IP you warned is operating out of the University. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I just saw you add the 'Who Is' bit- Great thinking! Talk about COI. But now it's open for all to see. And also- isn't reverting opyvios a 3RR exemption...? Muffled Pocketed 14:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I should think so--I've never hesitated to revert copyright violations, though doing so as an IP has several times earned warnings from undiscerning passersby. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You all have NO idea how much time it takes to sign up for coupons at Betty Crocker. And why isn't the Publix app pulling up in the Apple Appstore? 99, you're a good housewife--how are you scoring with your digital coupons? Drmies (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably pretty well, since he gets everyone else to do his yardwork! :p  ;) Muffled Pocketed 20:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, hey, easy does it. The balance of my day was spent packaging a large artwork to ship to a buyer overseas, then driving Mrs. 99 across the state to see the surgeon who operated on her last winter for an update on her condition. Tonight I'm starting on an article for the magazine I write for, and if I have time will get to a pile of rank laundry. And there's a barnstar in this for you, Fortuna, so no kvetching. I will have a look at the Cristo article when I can, Dr. 2601:188:1:AEA0:EDF4:356E:4D91:F8E4 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The cry of academics across the United States... realizing that all those wonderful things you were going to get done over the summer are receding beyond your grasp. The choice is now between a frenzied last-minute attempt at redemption (you know, the thing the criticize undergrads for) and "screw it, here we go again." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
At least I got my grades in less than six hours late. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The statue's outstretched arms, clad in the sleeves of a tunic, are aerodynamically shaped so that when the wind blows from Jerusalem the statue rises several metres from the ground." (A Visitor's Guide to The Pearl of the Tyrrhenian ed. R. Dawkins) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yep. And they all repeat the same stuff, which in the end probably came from the local tourist agency. As a work of art it hasn't attracted much attention. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

An Apology y

I am sorry for my disruptive and uncivil behavior on the Wikipedia Teahouse a year and a quarter ago. I am sorry for all the rude things that I said to the Wikipedia community and about falsely accusing you of having an agenda against hate groups, pseudoscience promoters, and pedophiles. I wasn't thinking clearly then. To be clear, I do not support or advocate these group's ideologies especially those of pedophiles who view adult-child sexual relationships as healthy and safe, on-or-off Wikipedia. Editors who use Wikipedia to promote the ideologies of hate groupes, theories that are thought to be pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community, and pedophiles who promote pedophilia on Wikipedia, or edit articles to support their views must not be allowed on Wikipedia. Please forgive me. Frogger48 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Relevant links:
Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable content removal on Time-Series Database page

Hello, I noticed you reverted my changes on Time series database. I removed a section on TS transformations that I originally authored for several reasons: a) I disagree with one of administrators of this article who effectively enforces write-protection on parts of this article (see version history) despite community contributions and, perhaps more relevant, b) since the section no longer applies to TSDB implementations that remain after mass-deletion of non-notable content. The original list of TSDB implementations, prior to mass-deletion, included systems that have been developed relatively recently and as such do not have stand-along entries on wikipedia. These implementations were removed (and continue to be removed) based on non-notable guidelines. See version history for this article. The result is that remaining systems (notable ones, with wikipedia pages) do not support these TS transformations. As a result, the content is misleading. For the record, I am an SME in this field and I'm affiliated with one of the removed implementations. My logic is as follows: the content should be consistent. The list of TS transformations which is implementation-specific since there are no ISO standards, should match the referenced implementations. I'm not expert on wikipedia guidelines though. What do you think? Rodionos (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Rodionos, thank you for your note. I think you were arguing that as the writer of the section you had the right to remove it. I also think you should discuss this on the talk page, not here--you might scare people off with your talk of technology; folks usually discuss feelings and poetry here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm confused by your comment, I really am. When I removed a section from Time series database page that I authored, I received policy warnings on MY personal talk page, not on the article page. I'm just going with conventions that appear to be in place. Can we make an exception and discuss it here, I would prefer not to cross-post. If you don't mind, could you please tell why an author is not allowed to remove the section of the page that he/she contributed in the first place, because the author considers the content of this section to be inconsistent with the rest of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodionos (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Disregard the last comment. The discussion will be open on the article's talk page. Please feel free to remove this thread. Rodionos (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Rodionos, you received a warning because an editor felt your edits were not productive. The user's talk page is the proper place for that. The article talk page is where the edits are to be discussed. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Drmies, this is poetry indeed, wide open to artistic interpretation and confusing to uninitiated. I removed a section I authored, it's an article edit as far as I can see. Then someone reverts my edit and calls it unproductive. Do you see the irony?Rodionos (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
There's no irony; it doesn't matter who added the information, if removal of it is contested then you need to discuss on the article's talk page and achieve WP:CONSENSUS among the participating editors. Detail your points of reasoning there, where everyone interested in the article can see -- not here on Drmies' talk page or another user's talk page. Warnings belong on user talkpages, but discussions of (or questions about) content always belongs on the article talk page. Softlavender (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
              • Softlavender, that's exactly my point. I want to discuss this on the article's talk page. I was confused, why the other editor who reverted my change went straight to my user talk page instead of the article page. I created sections on the article's talk page Time series database to discuss open issues instead of user pages. It feels the right thing to do. Thank you. Rodionos (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Help requested from Drmies talk page stalkers

Please see Sukhnidhey Films and Rituraj Devaang. I've begun to clean the former, but am encountering resistance from likely COI accounts. Two awful press releases. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I've nominated the film company article for speedy deletion, which may be too severe a step, but in looking for an early version to revert to, I could find no incarnation that wasn't blatantly promotional. Short of that, the cleaning process would be an eye-roller. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Coffee to the rescue. You may ignore this and return to what I imagine is a weekend poolside ale-drinking extravaganza. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm drinking coffee, getting to work on reviewing an exciting article. If you're done with your movie stars, perhaps you can polish up Barbara Yorke a little? Drmies (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
☕ — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Dear Drmies, A couple of days ago there was an issue in which I was involved, and in the absence of admin Pony I thought maybe you could help, but unfortunately you weren't available. Anyway, I apologize for any inconveniences I (pinging) may have caused you, and thank you just the same. Regards Mona778 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I think I saw a ping yesterday, but I have not been here in a very concentrated manner. I hope the matter was resolved. Thanks for the dessert, Drmies (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue was resolved, but not before being ... Do you know what? I think I was singled out by a bunch of users who were just trying to hit a nerve. Mona778 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey @Mona778:, just to add my thoughts in here, because dear Drmies may be less concentrated due to being a little diluted as has also been mentioned as a possibility by the unregistered editor recently posting here on this page. (I am sure you understand my viewpoint on such aids to merriment.)
On one occasion recently I made an edit that I thought was Better Wording on a quite high-profile page on Wikipedia, and I had made a mistake in my edit that I had not noticed and one of the people involved with the page changed my edit with an edit summary that I thought was quite insulting to my English Language skills -- and they fixed the small mistake I had made but they also retained the better wording fix that I had made. So the page was improved, by both of us, but I was very annoyed about what I thought was an insult so I thought about having an argument with them and telling them what I thought of them and expressing my very great anger, as you can imagine.
Then I went for a walk and then I came back and soon after that I needed to phone some people back home, and during almost all of this time I had forgotten about this very great rage of mine and the need for an argument. And then I came back to Wikipedia and remembered this edit summary that had angered me, but somehow it no longer seemed necessary or useful to have an argument with the person, and after thinking about it a little more I also realized that they were perhaps not deliberately insulting my language skills at all, but they had just written something quickly without thinking about how it might hurt my feelings. And actually it wasn't an insult anyway. So I finally understood that it really was not important at all, and no-one had actually been insulted, and I continued to make Wording Better in many different places.
I think in both of these instances there are some edits made, or things said, that might have been said better, or said with more sympathy for how the other person might feel about what was said. And I think this is a common problem in English Wikipedia -- maybe other Wikipedias too -- that is really important because it affects how people feel about editing on Wikipedia and how many people are willing to continue to do so. Do you agree?
On the receiving end, other than recommending going for walks and phoning home -- people at home never understand that Wikipedia can be a hobby that is also important, so they are a great distraction! -- I can only recommend trying to WP:AGF as much as possible. Always assume that people are not actually trying to hit a nerve, they are just typing things in reaction to what they see on their computer screen and maybe they do not intend to cause offence at all. MPS1992 (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello MPS1992. Thank you for taking the time to tell me about your not so pleasant experience you had with an editor. I see where you're coming from. You know how much I respect you, I'm sorry, but I beg to disagree. Mona778 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hey, any chance you could revdel this edit. It uses my real name which I do not want to be used. Plus I don't want to get into a long discussion with doc rushing anyway because I really just think he's trying to push his personal website onto the page even though it's terrible and spam. oknazevad (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Have you ever posted your personal information on Wikipedia?--v/r - TP 23:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I used to have my first name on my user page but removed it years ago. I have never posted my last name as far as I know. Plus I had previously reverted Doc Rushing and asked him (in the edit summary) to not post again regarding it. oknazevad (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: Email me that edit summary so I can revdel that edit too--v/r - TP 00:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
You already got it. Maybe I should have been a little more explicit than "I have nothing more to say" while reverting his longwinded mess. I really find Doc's posting style exceedingly grating; he writes these obnoxious one-sentence paragraphs that read like the script of a court TV series where a lawyer is badgering the witness. Frankly, I'm amazed that he claims to be a professional writer; the quality is so poor. Especially considering that I was removing his own amateurish website looks that like it hasn't been updated in 20 years. Which he himself added, making it just spam. Soak he adds to the wrong section, too. Can't even follow simple guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks TParis. I appreciate you helping out here--as you can guess, I was out plastering the neighborhood with Green Party flyers. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Gary Johnson is counting on your vote.--v/r - TP 01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Guess what I did last night that made me think of him. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
        • You enjoyed liberty?--v/r - TP 01:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
          • In a manner of speaking, sure! Drmies (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Haha, okay, what were you doing last night? And no giggity business.--v/r - TP 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
              • No, I just realized the lack of legality of certain things in my state. Land of the free, you know, but not everywhere in the same manner. :) Drmies (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
                • Heh, well, it's tough when you realize that some laws are other people's values being forced upon you. But then when you consider that other values, such as freedom, equality, and justice, need to be codified in law and forced on people who would not otherwise be civilized, then you start to run into a conundrum. How do you determine which laws, like don't rape people, are just and right while others, like don't enter the park after 10pm, are not? *shrug* I'm happy to see you getting a taste, though.--v/r - TP 02:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
                  • I have been struggling to find a basis for morality and law for the last thirty years. Drmies (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
                    • I read recently about a tribe who killed all their newborn girls and most of their boys (they ate the boys they killed). They took their wives from neighboroughing tribes- the two processes of infanticide and wife-trading were intended to weaken their neighbours. Asked why they didn't allow the girls to grow up to be their wives they replied "That's incest- it's disgusting!" Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Greater Albania

DS notices.

I got worried about an edit on Greater Albania that is in my opinion is not neutral. Seeing his other edits, we have here another Albanian warrior, so reverting will nearly certain lead to an edit war. But as far as I remember, the ArbCom also issued a few restrains about the topics Albania/Balkan/Kosovo etc.

What do to? The Banner talk 21:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Persian Mastiff

I tried PRODing the Persian Mastiff article back in August 2015 but it was removed by an IP. There are 7 refs in the article:

  • Ref #1 appears to be a Persian(?) book but when I check the ISBN I cannot find anything (perhaps that may just be a geographical problem though?)
  • Refs #2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are to unreliable sources (dogbreedinfo.com; Dogs Arena; and petyourdog.com)
  • The final ref #7 seems to go to the Persian(?) wiki where, according to Google translate, I just get some kind of error message that it can only be viewed by those with special access.

The FCI standard #328 given in the info box is actually for the Caucasian Shepherd Dog - I can find nothing listed under the FCI searching for the various names listed (Persian Mastiff, Sarabi etc). Nothing under AKC FSS, UKC etc either.

The article came to my attention as it's a favourite of Young John's various IPs and socks. Looking at the article history a bit deeper there's also History of Persia, blocked indefinitely for socking/copy vio, and an SPA (AGF it's not HoP?); other edits are just tidying or reverts. Does this need to go to AfD or can some other deletion process cover it? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Arf! Arf! I got rabies. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Coffee

This is a buddy of yours, no? Can you give me any hint as to why they are making utterly ridiculous statements here? Did I have some run in with them in the past or something? Their comments seem vicious and completely unwarranted. They literally left me flabbergasted and I am just wondering what the hell is going on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) <munching popcorn>... Doc talk 08:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You do realize you're violating your topic ban, right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
How is that, exactly? My topic ban was for "all pages related to Donald Trump". Good thing, too, because I'd be running amok on those articles if that ban were not in place! Yay for everyone! But, I digress. Perhaps the "any disruption in the topic areas covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban" part was what you saw. I... don't think this page is covered there. Or that my comment was considered "further disruption" of American politics 2. I sincerely hope it isn't... Doc talk 08:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Because the AE request has to do with the article Donald Trump. Seriously, I'm not going to report you, cuz that'd be kind of petty, and because, well, I really don't care, but I'm just letting you know in case there's someone out there with a grudge against you or something. You might not realize it, but I'm trying to be helpful here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: In no way can Doc's comment here be construed as a violation of his topic ban, and in no way was such an accusation "helpful". — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You engineered my topic ban when I was fighting your garbage.[11] A broader topic ban for you is going to be richly deserved. Doc talk 08:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't engineer crap, you got topic banned before I even finished typing up the AE request. Probably because you see editing as "running amok" and "fighting your garbage". But whatever. If it makes you feel better to blame others I'm happy to serve as the vessel for someone's increased happiness.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This edit is a total disgrace.[12] This is not what Wikipedia is about. You refuse to follow NPOV and should have been topic-banned long ago. I hope this one sticks. Doc talk 09:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Taking a random edit of mine and calling it "childish" even though it's a perfectly legit edit. And having this edit be from six months ago! And trying to hang a ridiculous sanction on that basis. Accusing me of "making legal accusations". Trying to hang a sanction on that too. The whole statement is ridiculous - note that no other admin there is even remotely close to seeing things the same way. That's why I'm like "what the fuck???" This is just completely out of left field and incomprehensible to me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, why is this conversation here? On Coffee's talk seems enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The good doctor was doing the administratin' when that dispute happened... six months ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I was doing the sleepin' when y'all came by for this, and now I'm going to do the mornin' exercisin', then the breakfastin', then the takin' kids to school etc. But y'all carry on without me. Drmies (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Marek! Old friend! Oh, it's almost football season--you ready? Got a quarterback yet? Yes, Coffee is a "buddy", but that's more or less in the same sense that you're a buddy of me as well, that loose, American sense. Coffee is of course a fellow admin, which means that by unwritten law I can never disagree with him. What I can say is that it does you no good to attack him here or elsewhere. This is my free advice to you. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Conversely, per unwritten law, schmoozing up to admins is always fine, because the canvassing rules don't apply to schmoozers who schmooze admins.[13]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A sitcom writer could have earned an Emmy for this morning's absurdity...

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.

I concede a lack of strategic privacy-focused forethought and humbly request that the holly-and-unicorn-tail-hair Oversight wand be waved in necessary directions that I am happy to help triangulate. Thanks in advance from a 358XX native, Drmies. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ban appeal and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Africa Center for Strategic Studies

Oh, hell. I decided not to merely leave drive-by tags, and what did it get me? Thanks for any assistance to the Dr or talk page stalkers. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:6984:3659:65B8:7B8 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! And I very much appreciate you for discussing it with me and helping work as a team to remove the right content that should be! Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oshwah! Thanks for dropping by, and for realizing that this IP editor is usually right when signaling crap. 99, why don't you rewrite the whole damn thing so that the lead at the very least says what it is? I assume it's paid for by the US tax payer, which means that there's no copyvios in it if they copied their own website, which they seem to have done. Anyway, please turn it into a decent article... Drmies (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You got it! Always happy to lend a hand... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Their logo has at its centre the "Dark Continent", with surrounding text in French and English. Must have hired a graphic designer from the 1880s, judging by the colonialist attitudes implicit in that design. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I added the NDU's description of what they think the Center's about. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I am a big fan of WP:Avoid mission statements. The lead seems to be the antithesis of that philosophy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Cullen and tend to delete mission statements wherever I see them. They're virtually always hype/promotional and not enyclopedic, unless of course discussed in independent reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
(from 2601, aka 99) If the self description I placed in the intro reads as mission statement, please remove it. Per Drmies's suggestion, the intent was to offer a description. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:A960:D977:40F7:F350 (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Food for thought

User:Tom harrison/The page of my enemy. Drmies (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Bjorn Briggs

If you really think that was worth oversighting, you missed Maunus's comment. BethNaught (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but that's a needless conditional. Yes I did, and yes I'm not the only one. GorillaWarfare can you have a look? I'm waging Twitter wars, bwuhaha. If only this little bird would leave my window sill and announce my words of wisdom to the world--it doesn't like the rain. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Never mind, GW--BethNaught, that's not an identification. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Given recent events, I'm surprised you don't think so given the really obvious implication. BethNaught (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
      • BethNaught, if you got a problem with me, say it: your tone here is antagonistic from the get-go. Basic logic: your first "if" was useless: since I oversighted (some of) the edits, I obviously thought it was worth oversighting (as did a few other arbs). Second, that implication was still an implication: it was not a link. Third, if you think that, given what I did, I did miss something, the appropriate thing to do for you, as an admin, would have been to correct it, bearing in mind that the BLP mandates we err on the side of caution. Can we move on? I'm not that big a fan of Barbra Streisand. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Gun show loophole

Hello Drmies (and friends),

This is a Good article that has been subject to sporadic attacks by POV pushing editors, some of whom are IPs. Lately, attempts have been made to remove the image from the article. Today, a new IP has cropped up, determined to delete the image. I am not going to edit war with a throw-away IP. Discussion on the talk page has been extensive. It would be great if uninvolved NPOV editors, especially administrators, would take a look. If I am crazy, please let me know, and I will go see a psychiatrist. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Crazy If you have to ask....you should definitely seek medical advice. I would not want you to exploit some loophole and buy and old pickup or old tractor and go on a homicidal spree like we see in video games. 208.54.80.238 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I support biscuits and gravy albeit no lard No way am I going to let Wikipedia editors who cry wolf continuously surprisingly like the infamous Lightbreather interrupt my pie hole stuffing. That is just my two cents. 208.54.80.238 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • (1) Is that a firearm? It looks more like a construction tool to me. (2) Why does Xanty know so much about this stuff? Seriously dude, WTF? (3) I think semi-protection would be quite reasonable given the eight solid weeks of IP disruption. If Drmies is too busy with Pilates and eggs&grits (we used to stir the scrambled eggs, bacon, and grits all together), could go straight to RFPP. Softlavender (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • (1) Someone's been busy with a fretsaw and a plank (2) I have to appraise stuff to see if it's worth buying and selling. These daggers can sell for up to 600 GBP. (3) Seriously, there's something off about this. A snapshot of `a stall at a gun show is being used to illustrate an article on a contentious area of law in the USA, regarding private sales. The file description's already been altered by the photographer/uploader to remove the "private seller" description. There's enough information in the image to make identification of the vendor possible, and use of the image in the article implies that they're acting as a private seller. (4) Don't buy one, they're absolutely useless for prying the lids off paint tins. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Now, Drmies, we have a newly-minted editor, User:Breathe of Light, who is editing the talk page all of a sudden. Visualize this: A human being, somewhere, someplace, has decided out of the blue, "I think that I will become a Wikipedia editor, and I think that I will start by commenting on a gun control article, and I think that I will call myself Breathe of Light." My reaction to that is "yeah, right" but maybe I am wrong and we should AGF. What do you think, Doc? Am I too cynical? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, but you conveniently failed to mention their second edit of all time [14]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's priceless. I love those user page notes where people say they don't harass other people, and I hope that one of you will welcome them and let them know about AC/DS Gun control. :) Drmies (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've had another look at the image; third type Commando dagger with bright blade and blackened handle, probably by Rodgers, with scabbard in brown leather, third type Commando dagger, chrome plated, probably by Wilkinson, British army issue kukri, the helmet may be Eastern bloc. Don't know about the guns. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
OK now you're just showing off. And you're stealing Cullen's thunder. When he said "Thanks to the rest of you as well, to greater or lesser extents" above, I'm certain now that he meant the word "greater" to apply to me, and "lesser" to apply to you. Take a hint? Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please reconsider.

Hello User:Drmies. I would like to ask you to please reconsider your comments on User:Auerbachkeller's talk page. I do not believe that you made these comments in good faith. The welcome template particularly drips with sarcasm. I realize you are in disagreement with him, but he clearly feels slighted by the powers that be here, and I feel your actions only serve to make the situation worse. Would you consider reverting yourself? If I am wrong and you were genuine, please feel free to remove this section from your talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Drmies As unsolicited advice, I would advise you to ignore any remarks on Twitter. It is a cesspool. It is also irrelevant. (I have seen the comments on Twitter. I follow Auerbach for his very useful and thoughtful links, but I ignore the sniping.)

More importantly, there isn't anything to do about Wikipedians Tweeting. At the most, it will drive people to delink their Wikipedia and Twitter accounts. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Kingsindian, I appreciate your advice, solicited or not. I don't think Auerbach will delink his accounts, BTW, but yes, it is a cesspool. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I just meant to say that one can't really do much about off-wiki stuff. It is the reason why venues like Facebook, reddit and Wikipediocracy exist. The delinking was simply an example of a workaround which make connecting accounts off-wiki harder. For instance, I don't link to my Twitter account anywhere on-wiki (or elsewhere). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I know, thanks. I just think that Wikipedia conflicts between good-faith editors should be handled on-wiki. Wait. EVEN YOU HAVE A TWITTER ACCOUNT? I gotta get with the times. What's next, a fitbit? Drmies (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please enforce the word limits

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence#Please enforce the word limits in the interest of fairness --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Your closure of the Jason Binn AfD

The Admin's Barnstar
As someone whose position on this AfD was opposite to its outcome, I want to say I was very impressed by your thoughtful closure of it. Despite the fact that I still disagree, it's very clear that you took the time to wade in and consider all discussion points, and to drill down on arguments even when inartfully made. Thank you for your work here. TJRC (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • TJRC, I appreciate that. I might add that typically I find myself inclined to delete vanity resumes, but on closer inspection it turned out that there was a bit more to it than that, and fortunately that was indicated (even if imperfectly) by some of the comments. So our next job as editors is to make that article as neutral and as good as it can be. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

COI edits, total lack of communication and general disruption

Hello. A bit over two weeks ago you warned user Vwvu that continuing what they have been doing for more than a year now when returning from their two-week block would result in an indefinite block, a warning they have totally ignored, making the exact same edits now as before their block: last edits before their block on 28 July, first edits on 13 July after returning from their block (followed by a string of edits adding a mention of, and a link to, the school to the lead section of a bunch of other articles, edits that also repeated what they were doing right before their block). Tom/ Thomas.W talk 12:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Oops--I meant to do that. Must have missed a button. While I was looking into that I also found a likely example of collusion by some other accounts and I suppose that distracted me a bit--thanks, Bish, for correcting me. Drmies (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Black Pink

Thats it you need to chill and stop blanking half the article for no reason.Junkoo (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

He is back and on full collision course. Still refuses to take advice. Still thinking his opinion is more important than other opinions or the rules. The Banner talk 20:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanda- related stuff

There is something odd going on regarding a community in India. You blocked Rahulsinghf11 but we also have Raghura (talk · contribs) and I suspect a sock. Both have been repeatedly using sources that are affiliated to the alleged community, which doesn't seem to exist except in their own minds. It seems like a classic example of a group of Indians attempting to create a caste community - something that has a long history. I'm not 100% sure if they're socking because this sort of campaign is often orchestrated off-wiki in communal discussion forums. What do you think? - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, their edits are obvious, including all the copyvios. CU didn't directly confirm, but did produce a half dozen IP addresses similar to those used by Rahulsinghf11, from the same domain, so while for me the socking is clear, at the very least CU confirms meating. If you want to you can start an SPI, pro forma, and say "already blocked", since this person may return. Thanks Sitush, Drmies (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Khaled Omar Harah

You want to check this once again. It turns the target matches the page title. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Prop (stage, screen)

This was recently changed with no discussion but...prop is an abbreviation for the full word "Property". The full term is "Theatrical property" - from when everything was the "property" of the theatrical "Company". "Theatrical" is not specific to the stage or screen with this use. As the full word is almost never used and the shorter version "prop" is in common use (as is set for "setting"), would that be Theatrical prop? I am not sure the technical term has been changed or that there are enough sources to claim this specific term is no longer in use. Over the last decade or so universities have begun offering Master's degree programs. I have no idea what, if any change has occurred in academic circles in this regards but...I don't think Prop (stage, screen) is correct. Thoughts..if any?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Hmm in such cases I typically turn to Beyond My Ken... Drmies (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The history above is substantially correct (although I'd need to see a references to accept the derivation from ownership by the company, since they would have would have owned the sets and costumes as well). "Property" is used occasionally, but by far the most common use is just plain old "prop". In 43 years in the business, I doubt I've heard "theatrical prop" more than a handful of times; besides, it would be confusing, as it implies there's a different term used for films, videos, and television, whereas they all use "prop". I see nothing wrong with "prop (stage or screen}", "prop (entertainment)" or "prop (entertainment industry)".
      I don't know who changed what to what from what, and I'm not going to get involved in that, per the new policy I outlined on my talk page of concentrating as much as possible on writing, editing and uploading. I will, however express the opinion that "theatrical prop" is not nearly inclusive enough, and implies things which are not accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Prop (stage, screen)

This was recently changed with no discussion but...prop is an abbreviation for the full word "Property". The full term is "Theatrical property" - from when everything was the "property" of the theatrical "Company". "Theatrical" is not specific to the stage or screen with this use. As the full word is almost never used and the shorter version "prop" is in common use (as is set for "setting"), would that be Theatrical prop? I am not sure the technical term has been changed or that there are enough sources to claim this specific term is no longer in use. Over the last decade or so universities have begun offering Master's degree programs. I have no idea what, if any change has occurred in academic circles in this regards but...I don't think Prop (stage, screen) is correct. Thoughts..if any?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Hmm in such cases I typically turn to Beyond My Ken... Drmies (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The history above is substantially correct (although I'd need to see a references to accept the derivation from ownership by the company, since they would have would have owned the sets and costumes as well). "Property" is used occasionally, but by far the most common use is just plain old "prop". In 43 years in the business, I doubt I've heard "theatrical prop" more than a handful of times; besides, it would be confusing, as it implies there's a different term used for films, videos, and television, whereas they all use "prop". I see nothing wrong with "prop (stage or screen}", "prop (entertainment)" or "prop (entertainment industry)".
      I don't know who changed what to what from what, and I'm not going to get involved in that, per the new policy I outlined on my talk page of concentrating as much as possible on writing, editing and uploading. I will, however express the opinion that "theatrical prop" is not nearly inclusive enough, and implies things which are not accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment on commons

Re your edit here, the user The Devil's Advocate is currently blocked from en.wiki, so they can't comment. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A question for the experts

Just look at that. Glorious. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drmies and distinguished readers. These days almost all my on-wiki effort goes to the immense heap of work caused by the WMF's translation tool. My latest task—flagged at The Unnameable Site—is Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson (Esperantist), which was translated from the Esperanto (there's also a Polish version but I haven't looked at that). As I suspected, he was also known for his day job, as long-time head of Statistics Iceland. I just finished adding the other parts of his story from a lengthy obituary in Morgunblaðið; I then have to look at the Esperanto obituary that is linked on eo.wikipedia but didn't get cited in the translated version, and at the bits of the Icelandic obit that concern his Esperanto activities, and try to make sense of how many Icelandic Esperanto Associations there have been and where to add the link to the one we have an article on. I also have a few more Icelandic leads to chase. But I'm wondering how well that disambiguator suits. Perhaps he should be moved to Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson (economist), or Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson (statistician), or even bump the footballer who's at Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson. (Several others of the name came up on Google, but none obviously more deserving of the undisambiguated title.) I'm not the best person to evaluate Esperanto vs. government economist/statistician vs. footie in the notability stakes (I keep thinking of what Fjallkonan must think of the first.) Wisdom, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Do it the Stalinist way. "Esperantist? Nine grams of lead for you! Statistician? Count those logs, multiply by two, deliver the logs to my stove and the number to my superiors. Footballer? Here's an axe- let's make use of your arms as well as your legs." Obviously Esperantist then- his head carries more weight than the others. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not the best person to figure out who deserves the unqualified article name, and in this case I couldn't decide between the two options for him. So when all else fails, I go with Xanty. Nice work, BTW--thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thinking about it again this morning, I moved him to Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson (economist). I found a similar situation at Árni Böðvarsson, where the article had been translated from a totally unreferenced Esperanto article almost entirely about his Esperantist activities, and I filled it out from the Icelandic article and was able to add a couple of references. The Esperanto articles on both represent a myopic view and the Icelandic obituaries show that that was only part of what they were known for. OTOH I didn't have the guts to change it to "statistician"—he did teach economics. And I hadn't known about Þórbergur Þórðarson—whose article was not one of the translation tool batch—who was apparently primarily known as an Esperantist. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee?

Hello Drmies,

You probably remember that more than two years ago you banned me because a small group of involved editors reached consensus to ban me. I would like to have my ban lifted but:

  • You refused my appeals to lift my ban more than once with an explanation that it was not you who banned me but the community.
  • the same small group of involved editors easily reach the same kind of consensus to keep me banned every time I appeal for ban lifting.

Can I appeal to Arbitration Committee to have my ban lifted?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

  • You know, AD, I stopped beating my wife a long time ago. That's number one. See WP:UNBAN, and I will be more than happy to recuse myself, even if only so that I don't have to read the same stuff over and over again. You will recall that a. yes it was not me calling for a ban and b. twice I posted that I had no objection to your ban being lifted. Or, you're welcome. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing to WP:UNBAN, but I am uncertain if your answer is yes or no. WP:UNBAN says:
I explained in my above comment what is the fate of my appeals at WP:AN, so I guess the only way is WP:RFAR which says:
I think that my appeal to ARBCOM would meet above criteria because:
  1. it was procedurally unfair:
    1. to ban me based on the limited consensus reached mostly by the small group of editors heavily involved in disputes with me, after report of one of them who was blocked after I pointed to the issues with his edits (he reported me immediately after his block expired). I was banned based on what this small group of editors said I had said during my discussions with them at article's talkpages. The same article talkpages that contain huge walls of text with their accusations of my misbehavior (there are several ARBCOM principles on the subject of casting aspersions which probably cover this kind of activity).
    2. to keep me banned because after more than two years after my ban, the same group of editors easily reach the same kind of consensus to keep me banned in every discussion about my ban appeal. Even after I proposed lengthy probation period with very restrictive conditions. The discussions about my ban appeal included violations of WP:NPA against me (remember you warned some of them because of this) and serious accusations without any or without serious evidence. Probably the only diff presented to prove accusations against me during my last ban appeal (diff) was refuted (diff).
  2. the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad. After more than two years since my ban I did not violate it and had no serious issue with my edits.
Taking above mentioned in consideration can I consider that your answer to my above question, if I can appeal to Arbitration Committee, is yes?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It said you can appeal to ArbCom, no? So you can appeal to ArbCom. That you keep calling my decision unfair is not helpful. I'm sorry that the community did not agree with your request, but that's the way it is. With an unban, as with an unblock, arguing it's everyone else's fault is also not helpful. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"a person who is quite incapable of ..."

Hi Drmies,

Remember when I asked you (diff) if a statement about another wikipedia editor being "a person who is quite incapable of..." is violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and if admins are allowed to make such statements. You asked for the context because while the policy seems straightforward enough, much depends on context and "Context matters greatly".

With part of my above comment I replied to your question and pointed to the context of the comment about me as "a person who is quite incapable of constructively engaging...". The context of this statement was:

  • it contained serious accusation proven to be unjustified (as explained above)
  • written by an editor involved in numerous disputes against me, during my last ban appeal discussion with purpose to keep me banned
  • made by a very experienced admin who sure knows that this kind of statements are not allowed

Having this context in mind, would you say that above statement about me as a person is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I just discovered another similar comment posted during my last ban appeal. Here is a comment of another editor (diff) who also presented very serious accusations (including POV-pushing) without presenting any evidence. Please hold on with your response while I check the rest of discussions about my ban. I am afraid there might be more of similar comments. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid I was probably right when I supposed there are more similar comments. WP:NPA says that: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Here is a anoter comment (diff) during discussion about my ban which present serious accusations: "Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field" without presenting a single evidence. Even admitting "It's difficult to provide diffs...". I am afraid that this seems to be a long term pattern and that I should report it to prevent its repetion in future. What do you think about it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
If you want diffs that demonstrate the persistently tendentious and stubborn editing that got you banned, you only have to look at the report and subsequent discussion that got you banned from the Pavle Đurišić article. Plenty of evidence there. Then there's the report that got you the wider TBAN. Both have plenty of diffs. Hope that helps, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Antidiskriminator, I understand your interest in getting me to speak out on all kinds of issues, but I'm not that person, not in this case. Take it to ANI if you like. I'm sorry, but dealing with you and some of your counterparts is just not a good use of my time--though I will say that FPaS's comment in no way strikes me as a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mouse Cleaning

I didn't disrupt I added characters' quotes. 2600:1010:B066:2639:596C:1C8:1B12:8980 (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

He added it because it was there in 2009.2600:1010:B01F:C9CA:9A85:8E17:1CA8:935E (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_102&oldid=1090506538"