This is an archive of past discussions about User:Drmies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Tradedia, thank you for the compliment. As it happens, I do have a lot of experience, but none of it with content like this. That discussion is obviously leading to "delete", but I do not understand what xaosflux's comment about data points is about. In other words, it's better if an admin who does know this takes care of things: that is quicker than explaining it to me (which might be useless in the first place). Funny--this topic came up in conversation the other day; I didn't know there was one that was more unwieldy than the Syria map. Maybe Floquenbeam or SpacemanSpiff? Drmies (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI for any of the other people pinged above - as this is no longer in articles, part of my conditional keep (it being orphaned) is satisfied, the other appears to be as well based on the rest of the discussion - that there are not useful historical mappoints that could be of use elsewhere. — xaosfluxTalk01:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
File:Modulemiddleeastov.pngScreenshot of Module:Middle East conflicts detailed map@xaosflux: Hi again and thank you for your time. Indeed, there is not even one mappoint on it. Not even one village. As can be seen from the screenshot of Module:Middle East conflicts detailed map which draws the template in question, it invokes country modules which contain the datapoints (orange oval). For example, the first line is: “return { secondary Modules = { [Module:Turkish insurgency detailed map]”, so it takes all the places from Turkey module, then second line it takes all the places from another module, etc.
@Drmies & Spaceman: Thank you for your reply. It is actually not that fancy. We basically put colored dots on a map to indicate who controls what. Each dot is put by a line of code that specifies the size of the dot, its color, its label, etc. It works fine. Until someone decided to make a map for the whole of the Middle East! So now the number of dots is so large that Wikimedia computer cannot handle it. It is so huge that for the last 9 months it was not even showing up. A desperate attempt to revive it about a month ago made it show up again. But the map is drawn wrong, messed-up and mangled. For example, towns in north Turkey end up in the sea; towns in south Yemen end up in the sea; towns in north Syria end up in Turkey; towns in north Egypt end up in the sea, etc... So basically, we cannot have a map with all of the Middle East (and it doesn’t make sense conceptually, more on this in the template discussion…)
Now, the only complication is that xaosflux was concerned that we might lose datapoints (towns) if we delete the template, so he voted initially “Conditional Keep”. So if an admin only looks at votes, they will see a “Conditional Keep” and a “Delete” and then wonder what they should do. However, xaosflux seems to indicate above that there are no longer concerns about losing datapoints, then his opinion should be read as a delete. So then we end up with 2 deletes and no vote opposing delete, so that would lead to a delete outcome for the discussion. You can click on the template and see for yourselves how long it takes to load and how bad it looks or you could just trust the opinions of Doug Weller & xaosflux and close as delete… Tradediatalk06:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to discuss the soon to be built Interaction Timeline
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.
I see your point. I wonder if these are students from the same class. There doesn't seem to be anything nefarious so I don't see a reason to dig much further, but I'm sure you're keeping an eye on it. Did you read your email? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought about it. There seem to be some sources for those awards, but I say go for it: AfD. Is it still going on? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I ran CU: that account I blocked has not made any other edits from the IP they used; I don't think proxies were used in that history. The geolocation is all over the place, so maybe they are using proxies (and I just don't see it) or it's organized from somewhere. I'll protect if necessary. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It'd make me feel old and cranky. Thanks for the words at ANI, but if someone expects me to spend hours on ANI posts, they are talking to the wrong person. I made my points and I'm pretty much done. Unlike some youngsters, I don't need to up my visibility to fuel the RfA that's surely coming. I mean, come on, we can all see the trajectory here ... do some gnoming, comment a lot at the dramah boards, raise your visibility and run for admin. Not like it's not happened before and won't happen again... (And I'll stop this post before I start talking about how the roses smelled better when I was younger and how in my day admin-wannabees had to walk uphill in the snow both directions...) Ealdgyth - Talk11:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, they did smell pretty good back then--now I just smell the dung they grow in. Yes, I saw that too, and it comes with... yes I'll stop too. BTW I think "elders" is a pretty appropriate term in that context--we have both had our ten-year anniversary, and DYK that we started within months of each other? It took me a while to get going... Anyway, thank you for still being around. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth and Drmies: I was actually pretty disappointed to see these comments here, as they are clearly aimed at me or at least in my direction. That being said, I am more than willing to learn from people who have more experience than I do as that is the circle of life (I ask people for advice all the time, especially in IRC), but I start to worry when people attempt to shut down opposing arguments with the sole reasoning that one is more experienced. How is one to learn when your main argument is "watch how your elders do it" followed by poor assessments of what I said? And how does one learn if you don't address the (presumably reasonable) questions that they ask? Thanks, Nihlus07:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It was not the sole reasoning. And they were right. If you're going to push the civility thing, you'll never make admin, btw: there is no right answer to that issue and a dogmatic approach just pisses people off. - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Another tip from an old-timer (take it or leave it): when someone appears to be fairly new to the project and your most edited page is ANI, history tells us it doesn't bode well. There is a perception that such people are meddling in things they need not meddle with, inserting themselves into disputes and almost invariably adding more heat than light. The perception may be wrong but it is what it is and you're not going to change it. Indeed, people have been sanctioned in various ways for spending too much time there. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't remember saying I wanted to be an admin. Honestly, I wasn't expecting to get to a "right answer" but rather to an understanding as to why an entire pillar would be tossed aside so quickly. I even clarified later that I understand that it's not something that is black and white but that the line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise you're going to end up with a bunch of demoralized editors. And to your last point, I am the first person who will admit to needing to trade out some dogmatism for some pragmatism, but that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nihlus08:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
And to your second comment, I used to comment at ANI almost out of boredom (I don't really anymore). However, if you look at the recent edits to the page, you will see I have cut back on a lot of the "wikivulturing" and focused on specific topics that are widely discussed or topics that involve vandalism, counter-vandalism, and range calculations. So, I appreciate the concern, but that number doesn't paint the entire picture. Nihlus08:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Nihlus, I have no intention of throwing you out, but I will take issue with your charge that Ealdgyth or I had nothing better to offer as an argument than our old age extensive experience: that will not work here. It seems to me you tried to minimize what we were trying to say at ANI, and you shouldn't be doing that here (doing that is more appropriately called "patronizing"). In a nutshell, our argument is a. civility is not easily enforceable b. throwing long blocks at someone is probably not going to do much good c. if these cases aren't simply applications of some guideline but rather matters of judgement, then judgement (formed from experience) matters. Ealdgyth and I can certainly claim experience, and I will ascribe judgement to her as well. I will be happy to suggest more itemized points, but I trust this is relevant. The bigger thing for this case is that the supposed infraction of our civility rules was made on a user's own talk page, and that we give users more latitude there is proven by experience, and it's a good thing or we'd be blocking people all the time. Finally, forgive us for jumping to the generalized case rather quickly--that also is the result of some experience (confirmed by Sitush), and since we don't really know you (how could we?), perhaps we jumped to conclusions. I trust you will prove us wrong. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
That was poor wording on my part, so I apologize (I believe we actually agree on many things with this case). I had a long statement typed up, but I will just end it by saying that I appreciate your expanding on your position as it provides more context that was missing from your original statement at ANI. Thanks. Nihlus15:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Nihlus. We probably do agree on many things; coming together takes an effort from both sides, and my apologies if I didn't make enough of an effort. Sometimes I take things for granted. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I see that you have a good rapport with User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, so could you please give that editor some advice on how to resolve Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#False accusation of vandalism? I find this refusal to withdraw accusations of extreme wrongdoing very upsetting, especially because another editor is still using these accusations to try to justify behaviour that led to a block. I'm still the same person that had a positive interaction with you here, as should be pretty obvious with a quick look at my talk page and my contributions. I have no wish to call for a block, but would like this matter resolved properly rather than by FIM's obviously sarcastic latest comment in that discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, Fortuna said "Firstly and fulsomely an apology is definitely owed to the IP if they are not and have no connection with Vote X. This is not a non-apology I hasten to add- more of a placeholder." The use of the passive is a bit...passive, but I would accept this as an apology; if it were me I'd say thank you and move on, even if I felt a bit dissatisfied and would rather get a cake or a Starbucks gift card to go along with it. So I understand if you're a bit miffed. But asking for one, or a more explicit one, or a "real" one, and then asking a few more times, does that ever work? So Fortuna was proven incorrect in the reverts, though they reverted in good faith--but I looked at them too when that thread was happening, and I wouldn't have arrived at that conclusion. I agree that they could have been more fulsome in their apology, but insisting on it only has the opposite effect (and whatever the Quixotic user argues from this is his alone). There is nothing that I can do about this. I'm sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Drmies. Please take a look at the continued disruptive and vandalizing editing on Ryan Wiik and recently on James F. Cardwell in that connection. I've had to create a new account, as my previous User:HarrisB got blocked in connection with reverting multiple entries of vandalism and biased editing. Notice how the editors have dumped in sources to prove stark and biased points, instead of constructively updating the article. Thank you Grassroot76 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
"You won't take me alive, Sheriff! You dirty rat!"
C.Fred, I'm pinging you as the blocking admin on the HarrisB accoun: CU confirms the admission that Grassroot76 = HarrisB. In addition, User:Miamigo13 is also User:Danielmay1970 (confirmed) and Danielmay1970 is very likely also User:Danlig55; those last three all edit using proxies, which I am about to block. To top it all off, User:TheCorrectorOFtruth is also User:HAFFEN7. I was going to simply say have a nice day with it, but maybe a real CheckUser should look at the last set and see if they're also one of the other two sets. NeilN, you may also be interested. Enjoy! Drmies (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The content you restored was recently added [3]. My removal due to BLP concerns was the "R." You have not responded to my concerns on the talk page. Please self revert. 23:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I edit-conflicted with that other person, and I'm not here at your beck and call. Had to get the potatoes in the oven, you know. Once again, the B was yours, the R was mine, so you should have moved to D--if you want to roll with BRD anyway, which you have to since you're calling it on me. Also, if there are valid BLP concerns you should mark them, but there really aren't any BLP concerns here that warrant your removing reliably sourced information. You will note that, for instance, I have not contested your removal of that "pinknews" bit. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no interest in engaging in your personalization of this discussion which is unhelpful. The content I removed was added today as is shown in the link I provided above. Removing it is the R in BRD not as you have now twice said the "B." You have fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Please self-revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm "personalizing" this? How so? And how are you not engaging in what you claim is a "personalization" when you use the second person pronoun twice in this one sentence? Sorry, James, but you're being ridiculous, and I think it would be a good idea if you drop this line of argument. Besides, the misunderstanding is yours. That other editor, with the many consonants, adds stuff--you remove it, boldly I imagine. And I revert. And then you are supposed to discuss. You can't expect me to assume the role of the other editor and discuss your revert in their stead; that makes no sense. You can ask them to discuss, I suppose, but you can hardly forbid me from editing the article just because you don't agree with them. Unless I'm their sock, of course. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
You admit my edit was a reversion of recently-added content but claim it was a "bold" revert and thus the B in BRD. This perversion of the guideline combined with your off-topic comments makes honest discussion impossible. We are done here. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
That's laughable, James Lambden. Take it to ANI and see if that shit flies there. But I don't mind being done with you--that officious, patronizing tone is just really unpleasant here, in this happy place. You know, back when America was great, in the good old days, people listened to their elders...Drmies (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Dude, what's Trump doing on your user page? You're clearly not here for that "fair and balanced" stuff, are you? With that look on his face he's certainly not going to grab my pussy! Drmies (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is some very inappropriate POV pushing going on at the biography of deep voiced actor Morgan Freeman, who had the temerity to narrate a two minute online video criticizing Putin and the Kremlin. Of course, that angered the Kremlin, and that rage has sloshed over into Freeman's biography. I have explained my thinking at great length at Talk:Morgan Freeman. If I am wrong, please let me know. If I am right, then please back me up. Thanks. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, of course, but the firestorm is at least five miles north of us, and the local officials are evacuating people to our home town, rather than from it. I must admit that this is a highly stressful week in the Napa Valley, and the suffering to the north is almost unimaginable . Cullen328Let's discuss it05:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
First, glad you're safe. It's like Beijing here. Are you serious about the pissed-off Kremlin bit? I'm curious if you think it's a coordinated effort or just some random nationalist or whatever. Seren_Dept06:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your edit. We were both removing the same block of text but I inadvertently included an extra comma in my deletion. An edit conflict left me appearing to simply revert a comma - not my intention ! VelellaVelella Talk 18:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm having issues with this new, eager, but stubborn and uncommunicative user. They want to add a new paragraph to Software engineer with insufficient cites, that is (AFAIK) also inaccurate. (See Talk:Software engineer/Archives/2017#BRD for "most states prohibit unlicensed" engineers for details.) I've reverted and tried to engage the user on talk, but the only response is they re-add it. I've warned the user for EW, even though that seems a bit harsh to me. It's not working. I'm looking for any advice, Drmies or any TPSs, on some way to encourage this eager and well-meaning user who does show potential. Thanks. --A D Monroe III(talk)14:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
OK so User:A D Monroe III this communication is from User:Engineeringword2 --- so I changed to the word "most" to many. So now it reads "many states prohibit unlicensed". You have at least 10 references in there... till I get time to add more references in there for the "most"
In addition to that User: A D Monroe III your claim (correction) is incorrect. Since, Georgia is not an engineering discipline state, and Georgia instead regulates the use of "Engineer". So overall your claim about adding Georgia to the following paragraph would be incorrect.
Hi there, longtime no "see", i have just seen (and composed/relocated) the changes to (for example) Wim Kieft, with the fellow user writing about a feat he and other four PSV'ers achieved in 1988. I browsed the overall web, and found nothing. The other guys the other chap added the content to are Hans van Breukelen, Berry van Aerle, Ronald Koeman and Gerald Vanenburg, i have ever only edited/arranged Kieft, Van Aerle and Vanenburg. Do you think you can retrieve something from the Dutch web? That'd be a hoot. Take care, from Portugal --Quite A Character (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand--in the same year? Because van Basten was on that 1988 team too, and he won everything there is to win. Same with Gullit. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from my friend, but no: Milan won the 1987–88 Serie A indeed, but not the 1987–88 European Cup (who went to PSV as mentioned), heck they did not even win the 1987–88 Coppa Italia. So, the five chaps I wrote about to you earlier won FOUR tournaments (league, cup, European cup and European Championships), van Basten and Gullit two (league and E. Championship). --Quite A Character (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
So--in the same year. I don't even know how to start looking for that--we didn't use to think about those things in those terms. OK, I looked but I can't find anything. I did get to see that miraculous goal he scored against Ireland... Drmies (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you did a soft block of GillianKeegan (talk·contribs) because of potential issues relating to Gillian Keegan. I think Lvta (talk·contribs) is quite probably the same person but there is still no apparent declaration of a conflict of interest. I am at a loss what to do about this: one simple statement and a commitment to not actually editing the article is all it would take but the person behind the original account didn't seem to get it and the person behind this new account looks likely to have the same mental block. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Sitush, I'll have a look, but it's cocktail time, and I have yet to get the actual ingredients for the cocktails... Drmies (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Sitush (talk)I am new to this and so I appreciate I may not be doing everything right, but I looked at this page as she is my MP so if that is a vested interest, sorry. GillianKeegan (talk·contribs) expressed she didn't like the photo, and when I checked the official parliamentary photo and the link to it I could only find the photo I keep putting up. I thought this site was supposed to be as official and accurate as possible. Furthermore the link used for the photo in Green leads to the photo in pink and therefore my understanding you are therefore failing the copyright criteria for this site. It is also my understanding the image you insist on using you do not have permission to use as the copyright holder has withdrawn it. thanks, Lvta (talk·contribs)
Lvta (talk·contribs), thank you for stopping by. Hey, you can "sign" with four tildes, ~~~~--{{user|Lvta}} is a way to alert that user. I just did it! Sitush, I'm not quite sure what the problem is--she may well have a COI (though voting for someone doesn't really add up to one, I think), but even if she does, changing a picture is not forbidden. Lvta, apparently there are license questions here (goes over my head) and I think you should continue to address them on the talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem is there is consensus for the older picture. The licensing issue is a red herring, as far as I can see. They're edit warring, both under the Lvta account and logged out, and they're almost certainly the article subject, her family or agent. It's the thin end of a big wedge: they need to learn that they should not be editing that article at all They've just reverted me again, btw. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the edit warring and meat puppetry, etc. are not helpful. However, the "pink photo" is the official photo and its licensing has been sorted out on Commons, so it seems acceptable to use. Is the purpose of using the older photo simply to teach them that COI editing is bad, or is there another technical reason for using a photo which is no longer being used as Keegan's official photo? I've posed the same question on the article's talk page, so it can be answered there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Mubariz Ibrahimov
Can you please take a look at the talk page for Mubariz Ibrahimov? Their is an Ip that is trying to start an edit war with me. They posted a ridiculous claim. I posted showing why it was incorrect. Now they are removing my answers and edit warring. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
What do you do if you, yourself, are the source of information.
I was personally involved in something I edited. I tried to source it by using a source I found online but truthfully, the information is a correction of date and adds additional associates. Truth2120 (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hy Drmies, I listed a case at the adminstrators' notice board but it was not attended to before it fell out of the page range. Please let me know what you thing, it is here, with a number of links to his work. He is now under observation on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
A FB friend posted something about the poor young man, and then it made sense I saw that name go by in Recent changes... Drmies (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
This might be Janina Cünnen: position and bio. Wouldn't it be great if everyone who published had an easily available cv? It's one thing when it's someone with a tenured and stable position, but when it's someone with a less stable job and/or for whom publishing is not required (e.g., a student or a curator), let alone someone from the pre-internet ages, finding them and the rest of their work can be a pain. But sometimes fun as well; you've just inspired me to figure out who Godfrid Storms actually was, and put together a brief article on him. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Ha, that's awesome! Short articles on obscure but cited scholars of the Middle Ages, sounds about my speed. You're definitely right that it's a treat to find out that they're still around. Afraid this has started a bit of a wormhole; just spent the last five hours trying to figure out a) who Caroline Brady is (see Sutton Hoo helmet#Bibliography), and b) why she disappeared from (visible) academia for 24 years. Fairly successful on the first front, not at all on the second. There's enough information to put together an article, but the quarter-century of silence is curious. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Appears that this image is taken by Mellersh using a self-timer. Since he died in 1980 the file probably should be deleted. I originally thought that the photo was taken pre-WW1 by someone called Melluish; I just today made the identification. How Mellersh's negatives ended up at an East Midlands car boot sale will perhaps never be known; fortunately he wrote his name and a self-caricature on one of the boxes- recent interest in Mellersh meant that Google's autocomplete filled in the name from the "H E L" bit. One of Churchward's taper-boilered 4-4-0s passes behind. The wall gets broken down by the sea and rebuilt every few years, so the actual spot's unlocateable (I tried). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 24
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017
User Group update
Global branches update
Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
Bytes in brief
Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
BTW you did have a good point on "denounce". Shows you we should be really careful, and I thank you for that. But you know I've been to that article before, right? and the talk page? Drmies (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with following another editor whose behavior is problematic James. Be a little more WP:HERE and you'll get a lot less attention. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Dude, considering your obvious partisanship someone should keep an eye on you. Nice try at the SPLC page! By the way, I made my first edit on that page in 2010. Your first one came six years later (were you following me?), where you reverted Malik Shabazz, without explanation--and you were reverted by yet another editor, of course, for POV editing. I assume you followed Malik there? I note that your additions there typically consist of adding critical commentary by conservative blogs and policy institutes. Bravo. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
If your recent edits are indicative I would gladly hold the neutrality of my edits up to yours. The distinction is an administrator your actions should be beyond reproach. They have not been. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I can't be everything to all people, though I try. Find where I chose "left" think tanks over reliable sources. Good luck. And if you find any, tell me about it so I can change them if necessary. And "but the 'mainstream media' ARE left-wing and blah blah" won't cut it. Now, if you want more people following you around, by all means keep posting here. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
You all seem very satisfied with yourselves. I do not derive my happiness from arguing on the internet and I do not expect further discussion will be productive so I will abstain. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @James J. Lambden: It does you little credit to come to a talk page, start a conversation, and then magnaminously choose to "abstain" :D well, you can, of course; but isn't there an expression devoted to that situation? Something to do with an "ass", a "plate" and the one being handed back on the other?! — fortunavelut luna14:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
You don't understand, James, that this is my talk page--it's a happy place, for fun and chatter between friends and foes. Everyone is welcome as long as they come in good faith, to help fill the bucket of human kindness and maybe solve a Wikipedia problem or two--or to start an interesting one. What you want is to empty my bucket and I can't let you do that. I have been wrong plenty of times on Wikipedia, and I hope I have acknowledged that and apologized for it, but in this case, I don't believe I am. You should save your energy to argue your case on all these talk pages and noticeboards where you are spreading the word: this is not one of those forums. I do find it funny, though, that I check out BLPN to see what you had to say, and run into a nest of obvious right-wing tennis socks trying to blackball Jemele Hill, John Skipper, ESPN, etc. At least you have the decency to be your own man and I appreciate that. Later, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm watching a lady called "Rachel Maddow" on TV right now. Seems veeery liberal. Anyway, she cites ProPublica--I don't think I've ever cited anything like that. No, my sister-in-law gave me a "Notorious RBG" t-shirt, which is pretty cool. So I wore it to a hamburger-tasting event, with lots of red meat and red meaty people, but the eaters were mostly hipsters, plus me. Anyway, one of the restaurant owners, a good old boy, looked at my shirt, angrily, and grumbled "oh that Hillary Clinton". My date says, "dude that's Ruth Bader Ginsberg" and he cheers up going "oh, OK!": it couldn't have been more obvious that he had NO IDEA who this was. Hmm--it was more hilarious when it happened, and that was without drinking beers. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I had no idea who RBG was until two days ago, when I was browsing SNL Youtube videos, and I had to consult my favourite online encyclopedia. Now you're wearing the t-shirt. I wear my "Skullfuck" t-shirt to teaparties 'cos I'm the only Deadhead in the whole of the city. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
And that is why I just reverted it. It has nothing to do with the notability of the subject, which is what that discussion should be about. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought another and very recent example of collaborative bias (plus whose "vanity"?) would seem essential to that particular AfD. How does one defend oneself against group hounding, if not allowed to give examples? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
You commies and Nazis are the same. Both ideologies of anti-Semitic socialists.
All of you deserved to be gassed like you did to us. Every. Single. One. Of. You. Evil. Degenerate. Bastards. [unsigned]
Nice punctuation, hipster. Please provide proof of your alleged background, since I believe you're just a little child who can't get a date. You can identify yourself to the Foundation--coward. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Tornado chaser, is that an apology, for an editor of five months complaining on someone's talk page why that someone does something on that very someone's own talk page? At the risk of sounding grumpy, wtf? NorthBySouthBaranof, you know it's not just me; I'm just in a grumpy mood cause a. some Amazon seller fucked up my t-shirt order, b. I really need to order a #7 Kap shirt, c. it is such a fucking shame that children get to play on the internet without adult supervision. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Kansas Bear, that is very, very nice of you. It is well above my pay grade, though I am sure I deserve it, haha! Seriously, I appreciate it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I believe Jimbo Wales should have put you on payroll a long time ago. I'd ping him, but he never listens to me anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah Drmies, boy howdy do I know it. I'm of the opinion that Wikipedians should be allowed to choose to indefinitely semi-protect their own userspace. The signal-to-noise ratio with IPs is just off the charts at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
There have been a lot of editors who have been victimized, many of them for political reasons--and some of them of the right-wing persuasion, though almost all of the cases I know of it's been "liberal" victims of right-wing vigilante trolling. You've had your fair share of it. I don't like keeping my talk page protected, since many an IP editor comes by here in good faith, bringing gifts and greetings. Ha, maybe we can have a setting that allows IP editors but not editors with a registered account who've made less than x edits in main space. I think we are moving closer to "you must register an account", and if the WMF would pay for someone to sit in a cubicle in San Francisco simply checking the user names of all the new accounts (on all the wikis, haha--a nominalist polyglot!), with a block button, man we'd keep this place a lot cleaner. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Oddly enough, despite being one of the more vocal proponents of ACTRIAL, I am very much *for* IP editing and opposed to limiting it in most cases. To the point where I think your new protection level might actually do more good than the current semi-protection. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I think you know I am with you. When I say I think this is where we might be headed I'm not giving my opinion, rather an educated guess. Now that you're an admin you probably have an even better feel for how much vandalism comes from IP editors, and perhaps you have also seen that it's a numbers game: we simply have a lot of IP editors, many of whom make really good edits (I try to recognize them when I can). But you know, on a week day, when school lets out in Australia, the UK, or across the US, I feel a bit different. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, I'm sorry to hear some Amazon seller fucked up your order. FWIW, if you complain loudly enough to Amazon, they might extend your Prime membership for a month. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Haha, my wife is paying for it already. It was just sad: I got sort-of matching BLM shirts for me and my daughter, and they sent us four baby-size shirts with some weird periodic table slogan on it. I just need to get off my ass and return them. :) Drmies (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, that was easy--package tracking says "it's not there yet--would you like to get a replacement?", so yes! When the right shirts come I'll post a pic of the four I have: maybe some of you have kids with those sizes.
OK, so they're all like "Ladies Small", two saying "I Got Books", one with a logo saying "Weapons of Mass Percussion", and one saying "I Play P Er Cu S Si O N Periodically" (get it?). When the right shirts come in, I'll post here, and then it's first come, first serve. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You are an editor who I trust to do the right thing, I in no way meant to accuse you of anything, I saw the edit on my wachlist, and went to make sure the troll had been reported/blocked, when I saw you had put it there I was confused and asked what it was. It sounded like I assumed bad faith but it can be hard to convay intent in a written message, I never assumed bad faith, I was just wondering what had happened, sorry about that. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Note that I have re-opened discussion on the Talk page of this article and have raised the idea of administrator involvement. Given your previous input I would like you to be aware of the development, and ideally chime in. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry if you felt "dude" was an insult, dude. Hey, it's really quite exciting, and Ealdgyth is just being plain silly by not picking up on it. OK Ealdgyth, let's play this game: find me another example of that set in the Miller's Prologue, "For any lord to leggen in his bedde,. Or yet for any good yeman to wedde". Or that praise of the pearl in Pearl--yeah, you find that in the legends of St Margaret, and guess who wrote one. Or, or! remember the French from Stratford-atte-Bowe? a reference to ladies who lisp just to attract lovers? Who might have written on that avant la lettre de Chaucer? You guessed it. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh please, I don't know. So many of the good, regular editors already hate me--I don't know how I did it but I did. If you look at how the "regulars" complain about ArbCom, and I'm not even talking about editors we sanctioned and had bad tempers to begin with, we must be doing a terrible job. And among the arbs I'm probably the dumbest: I can't even figure out fucking gmail and its threads, nor do I speak the language well enough to write up those cases. I've tried to handle the things that I can handle, over email mostly and usually quietly, but most of those things I can't talk about.
Iridescent would be a good candidate: an editor's admin, with a great name (literally) and a good record. I think that just about every arb but me should be re-elected: they are really a fine bunch of people. Y'all may not know this, and there's a lot of stuff we just can't talk about, but you want arbs like K-stick, GW, Keilana, OR, Callanecc. Euryalus and esp. Mdkw have been fantastic additions.
I'm really interested in seeing who's going to run. I think y'all should support some relatively new editors, not old farts like me and most of the other arbs. Grad someone with some common sense, someone who's been here maybe two or three years, someone who has a lot more patience than me and the technical skills of GW or DW. And ask them to report regularly. I kind of wanted to do that, but I'm never sure how much I can really say, plus after dealing with a bunch of the stuff we have to deal with, some of which is just pure shit, you're just not in a good mood anymore. Tell you what, have Yngvadottir run; we all trusted her with the tools the first time, so that she's a former admin shouldn't matter. Same with Malik: someone recruit him. He's less short-tempered than I am, he has a cooler name, and he's been a great admin. Oh, or Ad Orientem, who's older than me (HAHAHAHAHAHA) but doesn't have as much mileage on-wiki. TParis--it would be about time he shuts the hell up and pulls his weight! (this is worth pinging, TParis)
I tell you what, though: it's a privilege to be on ArbCom. First of all, people have trusted me to handle shit. Second, the secret cabal part, because there are really a lot of things we can't talk about, has an attraction of its own, I'll not deny that, though it also means we can't explain ourselves very well sometimes. Third, I feel privileged to be working with a group of people who have gained the trust of so many editors, a group of people who have their heart in the right place and are dedicating a lot of their time to making the joint run (more) smoothly. I am not going to forget that. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Please, I only became an admin to get access to the super secret admin-only lounge with the free beer and cigars.--v/r - TP02:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Come, doctor, is it really that bad? Some hatred must surely come with the job, as it does for any authority figure? Personally, I'd really like to see you run. I don't participate in very many admin-y discussions but I read a lot of them, and I cannot remember an occasion when I read something and though "well, Drmies was dead wrong on that occasion". I've not agreed with everything you say, but my disagreements are about things I would acknowledge to be matters of judgement and not fundamental understanding. And while we're on the topic, a person I'd like to see run is Boing! said Zebedee, though somehow I suspect he's not interested. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde, I'm not sure what you mean--it's not the "hatred", though I get more of that than I used to. I think many of my fellow arbs will agree that the amount of time it takes seriously detracts from editing; that's a big thing. Plus, I am still not convinced arbness is something I'm good at; I have colleagues who are really good at it. You put it all together, and arb-dom brings you so much more of the not-so-great sides of Wikipedia, and less of the good sides. There is no joy (for me) in signing off on some decree that bans someone or restricts someone. I wasn't there for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 (previous ArbComs have dealt with much more difficult cases than we have), but where's the fun in that? That someone like DGG is still sticking with it deserves a barnstar, or a big fat check from Intel (JOKE JOKE JOKE). As for Boing--yeah, I can see that, that he'd be a good one and that he'd say no. You could recruit Rosiestep, but imagine the loss in article space. Anyway, thanks for your kind words. I feel the same way about you, and really about most of the editors here. See, ArbCom frequently deals with the dark side, but what we often forget is that we still manage to churn out awesome content, despite all this fighting and bitching... (Someone pull up a Virgilian metaphor about ants or bees, please...) Drmies (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I get what you mean, truly. I've experienced similar situations; which is why I frequently avoid all admin tasks and write content, and indeed why I avoid indic articles and run to speculative fiction. The irony of course is that your distaste for the job and for placing restrictions on other editors is part of why I trust you to do it; if somebody genuinely enjoyed such things, I'd be concerned about it, and would likely not vote for them. Vanamonde (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
It comes down to collective responsibility, of course. Anyone who joins arbcom will almost automatically be hated regardless of however much they were previously loved, not because they have done anything to earn hatred but because arbcom has. Of course, there are bound to be, as in any such group, individuals who make it particularly easy to earn loathing- indeed, probably revel in the opportunity :) — fortunavelut luna14:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Haven't heard from Kiefer in a long time. I dropped him a line occasionally over the years, just to see how he was doing. Last I heard was two years ago. I'll email him again when the spirit moves me. OR is wonderful. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Pull yourself together, man! Mop-wielders only clean the floor. If you know what it can do, you know everything about it. 3 months is lots. Are you claiming that you learned anything really significant about Wikipedia in your first month of being an administrator? MPS1992 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I haven't learned much new about Wikipedia, MPS1992, but I have learned more than I want about the darkness of the human soul. Yesterday, an editor I blocked called me a "kike", a "nigger" and a "Communist". I immediately thought of Julius Lester, a guy I like a lot. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Seconded for CambridgeBayWeather here, who in my mind, is the cat's pajamas. Doubtful I will be running again, although I am willing to host the Lobster Bake/Chili Cook-off again next year. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Rosiestep, for thinking of me. It's not something I'm interested in, though. Most of my time, I create content, and that what gives me most pleasure. I'm grateful that there are editors who happily take on the ARBCOM role. Schwede6618:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
A note to my detractors
"Drmies caught demanding bribes from Intel for Wikipedia edits: Wikipedia Arbcom member has been caught repeatedly demanding cuts from shady Wiki-PR agency Beutler Ink for edits to Intel CEO Brian Krzanich's Wikipedia article."
...says someone called "pinkminnow", a really sweet name, on something called Reddit. Further on down the thread the same person says this,
The language used by Drmies is precise and indicates he is demanding a cut for misusing his admin tools.
In the Julie Meyer paid editing suit, the PR company billed the client £76,000 for unsuccessfully attempting to fashion the client's Wikipedia article. Your own paid editing on Wikipedia probably gets chump change under the adage if you pay in peanuts you get monkeys.
Admin/arbs like Drmies are known to demand and get $5,000 for small paid editing assignment articles. Our sources say Roger (Davies) used to charge upto £10,000. In Brian Krzanich's case the bill to Intel could even be $500,000.
Let me be absolutely clear. I'm not Derek B., who gets paid in pounds, not in dollars, though 76,0000 pounds sounds like some good money. If I know that I was known to demand...wait, I'm not. If I knew I could ask as much as $5,000, I'd have gotten a subwoofer for my Prius a long time ago. Also, I think I only said I deserved getting paid once, though I could be wrong. For the record, I still haven't gotten a check, either from Intel or from George Soros. I thought I found a check in my pocket today, but guess what, it was just a dumb receipt from my kids' school, so today has really been a big fat disappointment. In that same "Reddit", one of our former colleagues, User:Singora, here operating under the handle ReasonablyAverageGuy, says I'm "...dogshit. The man is sick, twisted slime...", and that I'm a "sick worm" who banned him. Well, I only blocked him indefinitely (see WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, Singora), so that casts a bit of doubt on the whole "worm" thing too, doesn't it. Dennis, in a related thread this same pinkminnow talks about you, "Dennis Brown self-righteous "hacker" Wikipedia admin"--I tell you what, if I get that check (apparently by someone called "Beutler", for something like 2nd page Google result or some other techno-gibberish), I'll split it with you. Fair enough? Drmies (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Lol. No one's ever accused me of demanding bribes. I get - from Mikemikev on the racist right "Communistuseful idiot Doug Weller supports the Semite led genocide of the European people and Semitic fake science and should be executed for treason== What an asshole" and "Doug Weller supports White genocide and the rape of little White girls in England by low IQ filth from Pakistan What an asshole." And a short while before those billet doux "U RoCk Bro Nuggers stfu and stay in theyre place. Kneelers banned! #MAGA 83/88 WP!" and a barnstar "For putting nigs in their place WP 14words they will not replace us" from Morty C-137 who is somewhere on the left. Does that make me an equal opportunity asshole? Doug Wellertalk16:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I am puzzled by that last one. Tell you what, Doug, ever since CU I run into so many of these jerks that they're sort of all the same to me now. Who was Morty again? Right--SkepticAnonymous, but I forgot who that was. There's so many of em... Drmies (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Morty might be the best example, because he appears to one of those cases of Trollhausen by proxy, the folk who create personas to attack themselves, in order to garner sympathy, or to tar their opponents. Anmccaff (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to psychologize, but the good-hand/bad-hand thing is more common than I used to think. But then, socking is already a kind of exercising a split personality. "Is your name Lulu, the crazy hot glue-gun guy, also known as the wiener man who runs a wiener stand?" Who can keep all that straight? Drmies (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm flattered to be called a hacker, but flattery doesn't pay the bills. If someone is paying £76,000 for edits to a single article, successful or not, then let me just say I'm on the wrong team and I'm officially for hire. Honestly, I would slap Drmies for a Klondike bar, but with that kind of scratch, I can edit one article a month and live like a king. I mean, come on, we all have a price, so let the bidding begin so I can finally put my s33krit h4ck3r s0ck 4rmy to work. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Would a subwoofer for your car really be what you'd buy if you happened to receive a few thousand dollars in cash outside your normal salary? It didn't seem an obvious choice to me. MPS1992 (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah baby, and a steak. Plus I'm going to the carwash to get the expensive treatment. Remeber, we're not talking about a "few" thousand dollars: 5,000 is the low end! Drmies (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Uhm...y'all go ahead and fight over the Klondike bars...I want the phone number for Brian Krzanich and his contact info at Intel. And don't mention a word of it to JW...he may write the article himself for $500k. j/s Atsme📞📧19:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Ha, well, you should get on the Reddit. Those characters there know lots of things that I don't, including about me, so I'm sure they know that too. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Apparently this old video (that's me on the Hammond organ) has been doing the rounds over on Reddit or somewhere. I've got no idea what they could have possibly said, maybe nitpicking about bum notes from me, but they're probably lucky Rhonda's even less likely to read it than I am, because although she's normally as nice as pie, you really don't want to ever get on the wrong side of her. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
?? - I play no instruments...however (gratuitous claim to fame) I did work in a hospital briefly with Deniz Tek who is a physician (Rock'n'roll royalty in Oz)...see [5] 20:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit and the edit summary ‘we NEVER cite blurbs,’ I’m pretty sure from past experience reading your work that you have some relevant policy in mind. I hope you can improve my ignorance by directing me to that policy page. Thanks in anticipation. Does it say we cannot quote from blurbs cited in secondary or tertiary sources? because at a glance, the remarks you removed by Mearsheimer and Falk in particular are cited from Gilad Atzmon's home page, not the blurb, and are cited all over the web by authors hostile to the author and the blurb writers, such as Alan Dershowitz, who is definitely RS for this.
A final point. I think you might not have noticed that in erasing that section, you, I'm sure inadvertently, wiped out citations from Marc H. Ellis's book, which were culled from his book's comment on Atzmon, not from the blurb. I'd appreciate you flicking an eye over the edit to make sure you didn't mean to assert Ellis made those remarks on the blurb. That is a physical impossibility, since Ellis's book was published 3 years after the book and its blurb were printed. If I'm correct, then could you kindly, for the moment, restore the Ellis half of the erased material? Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani: if I removed material that is in fact cited to a reliable source, please go ahead and restore it (it is a dense paragraph). You're an experienced editor, probably more experienced than me, so I know that you know that there is no such "policy"--at least not explicitly. But I will amuse you, in this facetiousness, though I am well aware that you are a longtime editor in whom I have more faith than you seem to have in me.
"We never cite blurbs" is found in the Grand Book of Common Knowledge. There need be no relevant policy--in fact, if you want one, it's WP:RS. It does not matter who, in turn, cites a blurb--a blurb is a blurb, a promotional piece. I am tickled to read that the first example in our fine encyclopedia is of Walt Whitman, who, as you know...well, you can read that in our article. I am even more pleased to remember that I put that in there a few years ago; I was taught this by Philip Beidler, my mentor. Anyway, blurbs are not to be cited because they are not neutral, by definition. I don't know what you do for a living, but in my business we get asked, on occasion, to write them, and when we do we make sure to write them as nice as we can within, roughly, the parameters of truth. A few years ago I looked for the source of a whole bunch of blurbs for one particular book, and found that publishers have no qualms whatsoever about selective quoting. In other words, I'll be happy to write up WP:NOBLURBS, but I really don't think it's necessary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies. You misread me. I wasn't writing ironically. I really know nothing about policy, policy pages defeat my capacity to withstand boredom, and everytime they are seriously waved my way (often) I have to read the page, even a commonplace one, to examine whether the policy is actually being used correctly. Most editors who trouble to fix my edits accept that on policy and technical things, my knowledge is zero.
A book I wrote has been reprinted several times: it has a very high googled scholar score. When a second edition was being mulled, they asked me for input from the many reviews of it to give browsers an idea of the reactions it stirred, for a blurb. Well, I gave them a dozen, half highly flattering, and the other half extremely critical. All of the material from the blurbs was from tenured scholars writing reviews of it on its appearance. Nothing in the blurb was written as an advertisement. The blurb was edited to advertise the fact that the book elicited very powerful judgements for and against by 'competent' critics. Indeed, comments were 95% highly favourable, but I made sure the most hostile remarks of the few upset that their pet theories had been shattered, were given equal coverage.
In this sense, I still fail to understand why you think that what a scholar is quoted as saying about a book,. simply because it is reproduced on the cover, is nothing more than an advertisement. None of those scholars cited on the cover of Atzmon's booki wrote an advertisement. They wrote it full awareness that merely mentioning Atzmon's name would get them accused of being anti-Semites. They did so, sending him a page or two of impressions, with permission to print, I presume, because no journal would every review Atzmon.Nishidani (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think a new policy is warranted. Blurbs by default are advertisements and are promotional in nature, and as such is not a RS or NPOV. Sir Joseph(talk)00:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
You're confused. Book blurbs, in this kind of literature, cull comments made by experts who, in writing them, do not write advertisements. There are several types of blurb. The only problem is, has the blurb reported the original RS reviewers remarks faithfully or not Nishidani (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is about or the reason behind Drmies' edit, but a recurring problem at Wikipedia is that people use Google to find choice bits and pieces, then use selected items—the ones which coincide with the editor's favored view. Often easily found text comes from blurbs and abstracts, so the cautious editor would not welcome such text if it was found in an article. The ideal would be to find a longer piece written by the author of the blurb, then present a summary of the longer work. It is too hard to determine which blurbs are in fact an accurate summary of the blurb's author. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't put the blurb up there. I looked through google scholar, found several pages by a tenured professor of Jewish studies analyzing Atzmon's approach, and paraphrasing it, added this to the text. It was wiped off the page, with the rest.That is the fourth time information regarding some assessment of Atzmon that is not hysterically negative has been ripped off the page. On each occasion, no removalist editor has provided a sound policy basis for the excisions. Drmies is a very careful editor, totally neutral in my experience, and I take this to be a slip, of the kind we all do. The issue still requires, at least I am asking for, clarity so that I can reorganize what is basically an attack page of aggressive quotes ripped from their contexts with, as Malik Shabazz notes, no use of material from secondary sources explaining what on earth Atzmon actually thinks or states in this contested book. These quotes can easily be sourced to the writers themselves, or polemical critics who cite them, and I wonder what the technical objections would be were I do restore the material with these secondary or tertiary RS? Alan Dershowitz on the article cites precisely Falk and Mearsheimer's comments, for example. No one questions him as RS, rightly so, but if I'm being told that one cannot cite a part of an RS where it in turns cites a blurb written by distinguished professors and chairs (while trivia from non-notable sources attacking him can stay), then we are in very queer waters.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I can figure things out pretty quickly. I'll look at a first sentence [of a galley], I'll look at the cover and it just comes to me. ... Sometimes I try to read further — but you know, how far can you get? --Gary Shteyngart
Nishidani, I am not saying anything about who put what up there, but what I am saying, as someone who consumes books and is writing one, and as someone who has been asked to blurb, we shouldn't cite blurbs. My edit has nothing whatsoever to do with the article, the subject of the article, the opinions of the subject of the article, the opinions of those who wrote blurbs for the books by the subject of the article, etc. If a blurb ultimately derives from a review, as sometimes happens on the n-th reprint of a bestseller, find and cite the original. Blurbs are marketing. They are meant to be positive--that is why they are written, that is why they are reproduced. They are also completely devoid of context. And that is why we shouldn't cite them--ever. Read the article. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Duly read, and thanks. I can now take Gary Shteyngart off my 'to read' list where it has been, with so much else, a prompt to a bad conscience about not reading everything. By the way, the wiki article on him cites his blurbing.
I'll take the issue to RSN to ask if a secondary or tertiary source cites a blurb of an author's book, and that blurb is used in RS debates regarding that author, can we cite the blurb from the secondary or tertiary source.
Last point. You removed, as a blurb, this material:
Marc H. Ellis, professor of Jewish studies at Baylor University, likens Atzmon's rhetorical extremism and harsh censure of Jews to the prophetic voices of the Old Testament, arguing that, for Atzmon, diasporic Jews are asked to construct their identity on the basis of the State of Israel and the Holocaust, an identity he regards as without foundation. He adds that Atzmon considers charges that he is anti-Semitic as 'last ditch attempts' to validate that identity. In Ellis's view, there may be, in the perceived anxiety in these repeated attacks, a reflection of the same anxiety Atsmon himself arguably embodies. [1][2][a]
I think it just common courtesy to correct an edit, if someone points it out, at least where an error of one's own making occurs. I'd appreciate it if you just put this material back, since none of it is quoting blurbs, but books, and therefore should never have been removed under that edit summary.
Best wishes, in the meantime, for your projected book. I've wasted enough of your time, and feel rather guilty that I might look needlessly remonstrative over small matters. I know nothing of policy, and my only editing principles on wiki are the one I was trained to do in several disciplines: write to the substance of the topic by using academic sources wherever possible, be fearless whatever the authority analysed or taboos or prejudices, and read closely. Mearsheimer and Falk have a lifetime of doing this on areas of great topical sensitivity: they do not chuck out 'blurbs' in Shteyngart mode. They write to illuminate topics rather than scatter shit on its subject, as most of our hack journo pieces all over wiki do, and typically on that page, to meet a deadline, be paid for it and cosy into a clubby network of (dis/)like-feelers. RegardsNishidani (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Reincarnation
I couldn't find a previous SPI case for AlexVegaEsquire; since you appear to have blocked the other socks I just wanted to point at new apparent sock Imjustaporrboy. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
More about my £76,000
[[
File:Wikipedia editors are predominantly male EN.svg|thumb|right|OK penis bearers, time to show up.]]
Apparently there's still a few jokers who think I took money for some biographical article. I ask you, where's my subwoofer?
[–]ReasonablyAverageGuy 0 points 3 days ago
IMO, you talk too much about power. Try to remember this loser is just an English teacher.
If you can do it, do it. If you can't, teach it. And if you can't do jack shit, teach your own language.
I've only ever viewed Drmies as a pitiful failure. He's a man with zero skills, zero initiative and zero ambition. He's a very sad excuse for an adult. I would hate to have a son as worthless as him.
[–]TheDarkenedKnight[S] 1 point 3 days ago
I know what he is. But within the narrow confines of Wikipedia, he has power. And unfortunately, given its influence over all manner of real world things, that means his abuses of power have real world effects. Skewing this biography away from WP:NPOV could be worth millions to Intel as a corporation (i.e. its stock holders), in addition to Krzanich personally.
OK, so I should be taking a cut of "millions"! And ReasonablyPerson (I forgot who you are--Singora?), I am not just an English teacher, dude; I'm a really good English teacher--in fact, if you think I'm teaching my own language, I'm doing pretty good (better than you, with zero "points", whatever the hell those are). BTW, there's nothing easy about that, but you wouldn't know that, would you. TheDarkenedKnight, are you TDA? All those secret names... Please do tell me how I can get that cut. Toodles y'all. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, little birdies keep emailing me. I have no interest, and I keep asking them to stop, since it really doesn't matter to me what a few disgruntled idiots have to say--fools who can't read or write properly. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Drmies, the superhero name generator I randomly Googled suggested that you should be The Laughing Gladiator. Should you be in the market for a Reddit handle. Oh, and don't these people know the difference between a teacher and a tenured professor? TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to know how much I'll get for my edit on Dorsal artery of the penis. Most Wikipedia editors have one, and so does a significant minority of the world population. If they all chip in, surely that'll pay for a subwoofer--perhaps even a new rear bumper. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
"Oh, and don't these people know the difference between a teacher and a tenured professor?" - Please sir, is it that one of them doesn't have to worry about job security? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Correction, I only copied information from the banned Talk page to my sandbox to save for quick reference in my distant appeal. As it may be years before I launch such an appeal, I needed to keep such archives handy for a very long time. No editing or even mention of the banned page has been done in the sandbox, just 'copy and pasted' to store the information for my future appeal. I have been wrong accused of editing the banned page in my sandbox, by 'EdJohnston'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the notice you posted on my page: "I closed the ANI discussion; it will not surprise you that it closed with a topic ban. You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
EdJohnston wrote to me stating: "Gilmore should not be editing about Patriot Prayer anywhere on Wikipedia, even in their own sandbox, and risks a sanction if they continue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)" and I took objection to it as EdJohnston was informed that I had not been editing, but only copied the archives to my sandbox for later use in appealing my ban. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Darkness Shines has been pushing this tag that:"How is this not a violation of your topic ban? You cannot be writing about Patriot Prayer at all, that's what a topic ban means."[7] And pushing it to other Administrators[8] but as Doug Weller said, "You actually have to respect the ban, but I'll ask DS to stay away from your talk page." Doug Weller talk 15:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Now it is on to EdJohnston.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
C. W. Gilmore, I'm sorry, but what are we doing here? Lawyering the universe to death? Would you like for me to go back to the ANI discussion and draw a more detailed topic ban out of it? I'm sure I can--there were plenty of problems with your editing. Or shall I go back to ANI, and bring Darkness Shines with me, and explain how you keep pushing the boundaries of a fairly simple topic ban to the point of exhaustion? If the kids come home from trick or treating, and mama says "stop eating your Halloween candy!", and Kid A proceeds to eat Kid B's candy saying "I'm not eating MY candy", do you think mama will be upset? Drmies (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
To be fair - I'm a hair confused here. Your notice to Gilmore was "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page." Did you mean the ban to be only from the article and its talk page or did you mean it in the normal sense of a WP topic ban, where it applies to the topic anywhere in WP, not just the article and its talk page? I'm assuming you meant the later, but your statement could very easily be read to mean the former. Granted, either way, Gilmore's pushing the boundaries, but there is a difference between pushing the boundaries and breaking a topic ban. Ealdgyth - Talk14:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I should have just borrowed the standard language. I'm tired of this. Ealdgyth, you're an admin, and you're watching this. Just tell me, or Gilmore, or Ed, or DS, what to do. Tell me and I'll do it. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with the traditional "do not mention the topic ever anywhere on Wikipedia" topic ban. That's what I assumed you wanted. Unfortunately, for someone as wikilawyerish as Gilmore, that's not going to work. They apparantly need everything exactly spelled out. Unfortunately, I suspect if the actual admin who closed the discussion doesn't do it, we'll just get more wikilawyering from Gilmore. Some advice, @C. W. Gilmore:, you should stop all mention of Patriot Prayer ANYWHERE on wikipedia, even your sandboxes. Don't lawyer about it. Don't pester admins with multiple posts. Just. Drop. It. And, I'll add, just as another piece of advice, drop the topic of Darkness Shines too. If you keep up with the trajectory you're on with him, you're going to end up totally banned from wikipedia. No, that's not an IBAN or anything, it's purely advice, but it's good advice. Stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground or a law court. It's not. Ealdgyth - Talk14:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
All I did was to copy from the talk page information I would need my latter appeal; no editing as everyone claims. I have now changed it to a link back to the archived sections of the Talk page. How am I to appeal a topical ban if I can not even copy information from it's Talk page or link to it in my sandbox? I have not only stayed away from the banned page(s) but have not even written out the words so I could stay out of trouble; but I have to be able to collect past data for an appeal, that is logical and that is ALL I did.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Having Darkness Shines and everyone else digging through my sandbox and threatening me for violating the ban for gathering data for my appeal feels quite invasive, harassing and heavy handed.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, that others would be digging is par for the course after the ANI thread. I'm not sure why you'd need to copy any content for an appeal. Can't you just say "I'll stop being disruptive?" Trying to prove that it was always already the other user's fault is rarely productive. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Darkness has been pushing POV over locally reported evidence and facts,[9] it is morally repugnant to let that go unchallenged. In a few years, DS will tire of the topic and leave it for something else that is shiny; then I will request an appeal and seek consensus before making changes. This is a large part of the reason for him being banned from all topics related to India and Pakistan; that DS was uncivil in pushing a POV. The pages I need to appeal the ban in a few years will be deep in archives, if not available to me at all; so I felt I did need to save them and not just link to them (as it is now). The disruption was and is not me.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
OK. I looked at User:C. W. Gilmore/sandbox. The current version is acceptable, IMO, in order to prepare an appeal; there are no actual article edits being proposed. However, given the tone of your last message, I'm going to place bets on the likelihood of your topic ban being lifted in a discussion on WP:AN, and I will win. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I was not wrong, have been shown no evidence that I was and will not change my 'tone'. But I can wait a very long time. The coming years shall tell their tale.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course you weren't wrong. No need to put scare quotes around "tone"--but if you keep on badmouthing the other editor I will block you for personal attacks, which would be funny he and I disagree on just about everything. Now, this talk page is a happy place, and lots of things are allowed here that aren't really allowed in other places; I do, however, have to object, even if mildly, to this personification of "years" as a possibly storyteller. Also, it is not clear to me whose story they are supposed to tell--that is, I don't know what the antecedent of "their" is. But I am not going to hold my breath; with a bit of luck I'll be long gone by the time this makes it back to a noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that in truth, the ban should have been to keep the two of us away from each other, Darkness Shines and my self. No contact, direct or indirect, no commenting or editing on a page within a week of the other. This will be the basis of my appeal, not to lift it, but to modify it. For as you see, DS has this way of showing up wherever I am. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, considering how well things are settled now and how much DS and I are out of your way, altering the ban as I suggest, would at least work this well, if not better; but then no one listened to me then and I expect similar in the future given EdJohnston's accusations that I was editing a banned page in my sandbox (which I was not). The best I can hope for is that this will end the false accusations. Thanks
This all started because YOU reported me to EdJohnston. I'm pointing out the edit warring that continues, even though I'm banned. I'm not the one with a problem or the base language. I'm not the one snooping in other peoples sandbox and I'm not the one posting on someone's Talking page after demanding that the same person not post on yours; I'm pointing to the problem and that it will continue even with me banned. Thanks, and I will say no more. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen. Yes, I am not sure myself. I am reminded of that hymn writer, and of course of Wyandanch. Situs, Kelapstick, and LadyofShalott will remember, no doubt. Are you well, dear Cullen? Is all the news still happy news? Drmies (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I am doing very well, Drmies. Our granddaughter was born happy and healthy ten days ago, which was the best news imaginable. You may recall that we lost a grandson at birth two years ago, so we have been quite anxious about this little one. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I know, Cullen, and I am very, very happy for y'all. I read David's post. Life goes on and I wish them the best. Enjoy life with baby! I imagine you and Deb will be spending time with her. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It is a two hour drive to their home. We will spend Sunday there, and several days at Thanksgiving. We will probably move closer when we retire. Thank you, my friend. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up, the proposed speedy deletion template you applies to David Berger AZA was removed by the user who created the article. I have since restored it, but you may want to keep an eye on that page. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, User:Atlantic306 removed it after Ryecatcher restored it, though their edit summary makes no sense. It's at AfD now, so I'm sure all is well. That creator, Mark612, currently blocked for edit warring, should probably be blocked per WP:NOTHERE for stuff like this. Plus, that whole article is mostly a joke, it seems to me. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The nomination for deletion was removed by another user who was in defense of the article being kept up.
As far as the article itself goes, I take offense to the fact that you claim that it is "mostly a joke". This is a legitimate BBYO Chapter with legitimate awards and recognition for various forms community and social action. I wouldn't spend countless hours creating, editing, and defending an article if it were a joke. Mark612
Oh please. How many hours did it take you to "research" that someone could touch their nose with their toes, or whatever it was? And what's this motto about bagels? Drmies (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm that's not easy. We need to bring this in, but the kids will be here shortly. I did some cutting (sorry)--see my edit summaries. If you get a hold of that re-editing of her diary, you probably have everything you need... Drmies (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
November 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Colchis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
First of all, don't delete an entire section if you have an issue with a single source. Secondly I'm not the one who started deleting an entire segment of sourced information. If you have such a big issue with the section than rename it to trivia but don't delete it completly. It's neither poorly sourced nor does it cause any wiki policy issue. I took effort in sourcing it and actualy read all those novels. Thirdly sources that are not perfectly English are used a lot. That doesn't negate the fact a subject exists. It's an invalid argument.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not. Sure, but what exactly are you trying to achieve ? The admins see everything here. I merely reverted the deletion of an entire section of sourced information. What reason do the other guy or you have for trying to remove them and to put a warning on my talk page ?
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.
Satirist is spelt incorrectly. And see my post on Talk: Zakynthos on Zakynthian literature. Frankly, the entry on Literature in the Zakynthos entry is extremely poor and misses most of the key figures.
The central figure in the Heptanese School of Literature was Solomos not an important poet. Essentially, all the other poets and playwrights gathered around Solomos and his innovations. This EmmanuelTzannes (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)entry needs a major revision of someone who knows the school and its main figures.
(talk page stalker) I'm sure the section needs improvement; I note it is also all about literature, except for someone also being a painter—surely there are other branches of culture to mention. And I've fixed the spelling error you note. But the solution is not to blank the section! Can you make a start on improving it, instead? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Not right now, Yngvadottir--the editor is blocked. Please note in the article history that the version I restored is condensed from the version that editor wrote up. EmmanuelTzannes, you are correct in saying that content here should be written by "someone who knows [the content]"--but that person should also know the Wikipedia guidelines... Drmies (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Rbka
Hi. Regarding this edit, you say There was an excellent opportunity here, of course, and now it is gone. Disappointingly-for-me, I don't understand. "There was an excellent opportunity" for whom to do what? (If you prefer, please feel free to reply via email.) With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
For that other user to, how shall I put this, to play nice and practice collaboration. I was on the verge of restoring your comment but felt that would be a bit out of line; since I thought your rebuttal had validity I linked to it. I've had encounters with that person before. Drmies (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Need someone who speaks Danish to verify what the original title of Ibsen's Ghosts was (don't ask me why it was written in Danish, maybe to avoid scandal), and someone who speaks Norwegian to verify what the Norwegian title/word is, because there appears to be some confusion. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Need clarification as to what language is being referred to, please. Also, I'd prefer not to go by the trans-wiki articles, because for instance the NO-wiki version mentions two words in the "Title" section (which seems to be a/the source of the confusion). Softlavender (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It's the title of the play in Norwegian as well as, for what it's worth, Danish. The sentence "Tittelen Gengangere har en dobbeltbetydning, nemlig gjengangere som i spøkelser, og som hendelser som gjentar seg" in the Norwegian wiki article makes it clear that the play's title is Gengangere whereas the (current) Norwegian word for ghosts is "gjengangere". Full, amateur translation: "The title Gengangere has a double meaning, namely 'gjengangere' as in ghosts, and events that repeat themselves." Favonian (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Coda: The Henrik Ibsen article informs me that: "Ibsen wrote his plays in Danish (the common written language of Denmark and Norway)[1] and they were published by the Danish publisher Gyldendal."
^Danish language was the written language of both Denmark and Norway at the time, although it was referred to as Norwegian in Norway and occasionally included some minor differences from the language used in Denmark. Ibsen occasionally used some Norwegianisms in his early work, but in his later work wrote a more standardised Danish, as his plays were published by a Danish publisher and marketed at both Norwegian and Danish audiences in its original language. Cf. Haugen, Einar (1979). "The nuances of Norwegian". Ibsen's Drama: Author to Audience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. p. 99. ISBN0-8166-0896-2.
I notified you here but wanted to make it abundantly clear here also, that I support MEDRS. I was not being ironic or sarcastic in my post on Jimbo Wales's thread and I felt, having recently seen the article I linked to, that the person who started the thread there should read it to know that insistence on MEDRS is part of our project and that not liking it is going to lead to resistance, which shouldn't be compared to bullying. If anything my feeling is that partisan editorship on the part of ALT/CAM junk salesmen constitutes an effort to bully Wikipedia and our policies on MEDRS are in part an effort to counter that - after all a sales person has a lot more invested in the online appearance of their product than a person who just likes writing accurate encyclopedia articles. Sorry for taking up your time and for the confusion. Edaham (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, now I see--and now I see what that was for. Thanks. But I don't see the use of those things at all--first of all, I suppose it's about the thing, not the word, but for both--well, "limited use" is a rather difficult term to apply here, and "archaic", what does that even mean when we're talking about sailing, which is by definition archaic? In fact, every single sail is of limited use, given that it is 2017. Nor do I see why a "junk rig" would be marked as having "limited use", since the Chinese have been sailing junks for over two millennia. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
archaic is not different from other archaics: not used with modern models
Those are very weak arguments. I consider the Asymmetrical spinnaker (a specialty sail for racing boats--how long have we had modern racing boats? and how many are there?) to have very limited use. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
> "Those are very weak arguments" Friendly question: what was your last time in European marinas? I'm asking year.
Hmm 2015 I suppose. Say, you think "China" is limited geographically but "European marina" is not? And "current"--this is an encyclopedia. We don't do "current". In fact, you have exported your opinions and value judgments, which might find their way into an article after talk page discussion, into a template, dozens of times. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
This conversation reminds me of Grace Quan, an article I wrote about a Chinese style junk built in California in 2003 to commemorate the history of shrimp fishing junks on San Francisco Bay. Shipyards were established in the late 19th century to build commercial fishing junks to Chinese specifications using California timber. Dozens of these junks fished San Francisco Bay for decades. There was similar use of Chinese style junks on Puget Sound in the same era. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Canti
You graciously thanked me for three songs that are on DYK. Other planned ones are held up by tags discussed on the talk. The German is ahead this time, and once I translated the extras (perhaps tomorrow), the tags can probably go. I am just uneasy with one editor demanding certain content (which I invited him to add), as if it was DYK requirements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Gerda, Ceoil strongly dislikes me, and I have no desire whatsoever to interact with him, so please don't ping me from his talkpage. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I came to thank you for having had enough coffee. - Ok, will try to remember, such as the user who asked me never to thank them, but my memory is not reliable. The reformation day canti were with me all day yesterday, actually listened to Ein feste Burg, live! My sister's birthday was celebrated as a national holiday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
On the church: can you find anything worth mentioning here (augustijnen). I can't find a ref for the consecration date, - St. Stefanus Gent always leads me to beer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
You recently blocked me for edit warring and I understand that night I was frustrated and behaving stupidly. I reviewed my edits and I understand why you blocked me. But can you please advise me on what I can do about this:
Anyway I think he saw I posted here and got scared so he posted a couple of comments on talk right after I posted this - (though it was more a BRRRRD), basically the comments are just asking me to stop discussing. I'm a little worried about the inability to distinguish between Ancient Greece and modern Greece, and the persistent incivility and accusations. I could post an RfC but I probably won't because there are so many other articles I would rather be working on, but this has been an issue with the same editors on more then one article, at least three now, so I'm worried it will continue when I change articles. I would appreciate some advice on whether or not I did anything that was disruptive or sanctionable. Seraphim System(talk)09:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not entirely sure what your issue is. I see Nishidani's comments and they make sense to me. I'm not going to read up and get involved with the discussion, but as an admin, let me just say that I don't really understand why you'd fight over this--it's published by Brill, it verified the basic statement abundantly, and if you're not taking issue with the statement, why remove that reference? BTW, the page number is correct (unless you want to be pedantic and say "it should say 297 n.6"), and it does verify. You removed that twice--I can see someone warning you over that, and I can see an admin blocking you for that since it continues edit warring as a behavior in that article: remember, 3RR is a bright line, but one doesn't need to revert three or more times to be considered an edit warrior. If I were you I wouldn't revert more than once in that article, at least for the time being. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I actually made a mistake with the quote since it is a footnotes - but it actually doesn't verify the statement being Greece is the cradle of Western Civilization - the sentence has multiple parts after that. The statement in the source is talking about political developments, but a lot of literature developed outside the geographic boundaries of modern Greece. Add to that none of those topics is clearly identified in the source as being connected to the concept "cradle of Western Civilization" - it is used exclusively to discuss certain developments different from what is in our article. Which makes it WP:OR. Additionally there is no dispute that Ancient Greece is sourced as could be used as well, so I see no justification to not link it as it contains a lot of useful information. So I don't agree that it verifies entirely, it is on the whole sloppy, but as I said I would rather work on other things. Seraphim System(talk)19:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Anyway the issue is by and large that I work very nearly and thoroughly and source every part of a statement to avoid WP:SYNTH, and I don't want to change articles and have the same thing keep happening with the same editors finishing each other's thoughts. It's not fair to me. Seraphim System(talk) 19:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System(talk)19:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
You were wrong. The first revert excises a source which differs from the article only in saying 'West' vs 'Western.' You said the page was incorrect. It wasn't, one click gets you there. I'm a complete outsider to that page, though my first degree was in classical Greek: I know the topic, and my imput was neutral. Most of the classical Greek articles are shit, there are better things to do than quibble over the 'truth' of a cliché.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I was wrong, I did not see the footnote. But there are issues I don't intend to raise like the concept "cradle of Western Civilization" is not linked to the modern Olympics, or even science/math. That is not to say it couldn't be sourced, but it is not in the source I reverted. To the point, I made a mistake and the second revert was because I have concerns about the source not verifying the rest of the sentence, concerns which have not been addressed by the discussion or Nishidani's comments but I've let it go. It's pretty much a given that I've taken very demanding academic courses, and that I am able to read and use sources correctly and that I understand the concepts of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and that I don't insert my own WP:OR into articles. This all takes a considerable amount of time. And what Nishidani said sort of gets to the heart of the issue "Most of the classical Greek articles are shit" and this is true for a number of articles that I don't think are reliable, even by Wikipedia's standard of not being a finished product. Some topic areas are effected by this more then others, but that does not seem to be the main issue of concern for some of the editors here. I may have to read actual books, and that is so much harder because they don't have Wikilinks. Seraphim System(talk)21:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I am allowed to comment on edit warring reports, like everyone else. I don't think I have ever initiated contact by reverting first, and I have generally tried to avoid him on articles, though he has so far reverted me on (I think) four separate articles. Are you asking me to make his hounding case for him or does he have diffs to support this? If he doesn't will you warn him to not make further unsubstantiated accusations/civility? Seraphim System(talk)02:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
In principle you are; in practice it is not wise. If you have tried to avoid Dr.K., good for you--please continue to do so. Another, in principle uninvolved editor weighing in on an ANEW report is somewhat unusual and in this case it just seems like a drive-by hit job. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
You recently removed a large chunk of the lead of the LaVar Ball article, and I am not exactly sure why you did so. Ball is mostly (if not solely) notable for his sports media presence and bold claims. Removing that info from the lead, leaving only details about his football career and fatherhood, would completely miss the point of why he even has his own article. Ball was not notable before making his claims, and a vast majority of headlines about him have come in the last year, after he rose to fame. Therefore, the details about his personal life and sports career should merely be side notes to his time as a media personality. TempleM (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with TempleM here. Quite literally the only thing Ball is known for is his media appearances and the outlandish claims he's made in trying to push his brand and his son's careers. Though it started in 2016 really. Capeo (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
But that's nonsense. If that were true he would be nothing but a television personality--he's clearly a businessman etc. He's making $500 sneakers that made it onto SNL. That he may have gained some (or a lot of) prominence because of his comments is true, but that is not the reason for his notability. Now, if you want to rewrite this lead in a way that makes it not look like a silly hit piece on Bleacher Report you are welcome to do so, but you need to be very mindful not just of the BLP but also of UNDUE. The thing did not look like an encyclopedic article. (And Capeo, you don't have to agree...) Drmies (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, true, I don't have to agree. :) In this case, I happen to, to a degree. Ball only came to prominence based on his outlandish media presence and trying to turn his kids into a brand. His $500 dollar sneakers made it onto SNL as a joke because nobody is buying them. His only prominence is from his from his outlandish, and sometimes misogynistic, media blitz in the last two years. He has zero notability as an athlete. So... the article could be rewritten to say that his outlandish claims are all part of building his business brand. I'm sure there's some RS out there that would attest to that. Okay, in the course of writing this I just kinda talked my way out of disagreeing with your BLP concerns. Capeo (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I was mostly bothered by the UNDUEness of the way the article was written. I am sure that a better writer than me can do it justice: like you, for example! Now, any of my children, of course, can outwrite anyone any day of the week, and if I had chosen to be a writer I would have been better than Hemingway and McCarthy together. And did I tell you that I can take Murakami one-on-one with my hands tied behind my back? Thanks, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Me? A better writer? The only significant article contributions I've made, after being around her for more than a decade, is to an obscure horror movie I enjoyed. Now that I have a bit more time on my hands I decided to try and tackle H.P. Lovecraft an article, that is in my opinion, barely a biography and a more a collection of fancruft. Problem is I have no idea about how to go about that. I'm not a good writer of prose and I've invited anyone interested to look at, and edit my start in my sand box, because it would involve some pretty large scale edits. Maybe I'm not bold enough. You have no shortage of lurkers. Any help is welcome. Look, I just turned this from a disagreement, into a plea for help on another article.03:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Capeo (talk)
I think you should get MrX to help you out: he's probably tired of all that political BS, and if he's not he's in denial. (Also, hey--be bold. It's OK.) Drmies (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Being bold right now would mean creating an Early Years period that dwarfs the rest of a very short biography, completely upsetting the balance to the reader. It would look silly, that's the issue. I'm a third into an over thousand page biography and have two more biographies to go through. We're talking months here where the article will keep looking weird. I'm not sure other editors will sit well with that. I guess I can just try though. MrX, take a look at my sandbox and advise me if I'm going down a trail of article expansion that might work.Capeo (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I have no idea. The only thing I’ve touched so far is the Early Life section. All the referencing is mess really. My plan is to take a top down approach. First a more substantial biography, then a section on his literary style and themes, then a section on his influence (which will prose and remove all the fancruft lists), then make the lede reflect the article and lastly clean up the reference sections. All assuming I didn’t bite off more than I can chew here. This evening I want to expand/switch out some of the references in the early life section. Currently it’s referenced entirely to one biography, which is far from ideal. I have two more I’m going through now. I figured I’d just get the section in there so people can start making changes or suggestions. Capeo (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you've looked at the various spin-offs. Maybe more can be spun off--all that "popular culture" stuff, the games, whatnot. All of these need solid secondary sourcing too... Is there a navigational template? You could make that... Yes, I think I saw different systems of documentation, that always sucks. Ha, and then you're done cleaning that up, and the "original" editor comes by and reverts all of it! (Stuff like that happens.) Drmies (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The vast majority of the pop culture stuff can be moved to the existing spin-offs. If they're even sourced. A good deal wasn't but it looks like you already did some of that clean-up. Thanks! Ugh, and don't scare me with the thought of a mass revert after hours and hours of research and editing. I sincerely hope that can be avoided, though I know it's possible. Capeo (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: Ball is essentially a television personality, or at least that is what he is notable for. He launched Big Baller Brand in 2016 but he hardly made any headlines until he began making his outlandish claims in March 2017, so it's not his business that made him notable. The excessive pricing of his brand's sneakers in May 2017 only served to further increase his fame, which had already been heavily built up in the months prior. I am also not exactly sure what makes you think this article doesn't sound encyclopedic, so feel free to elaborate on that. TempleM (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you are confusing things here. Maybe his brand wouldn't have been as noteworthy if it hadn't been for those dumb comments, but it's still a brand. If the brand is not notable without his comments, the article for the brand should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Big Baller Brand was not notable before his comments, but it rapidly rose in profile after Ball made some comments and actions relating to it a few months into his "media blitz" (e.g. the excessive shoe price and conflict with Nike). However, the point of my previous reply was that Ball is mainly known as a television personality, which you did not address. TempleM (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Havesting sock farms
Darn! I have no clue how a CU does it - I harvest hay not socks - so it amazes me how you know who is or isn't a sock. Not sure if this edit summary even matters now - I'll leave it with you - (Violent oppose. Atsme, your comment merely indicates your own ignorance of the legal issues involved here. I suggest you read some of the sources before ignorantly opining on matters on which you know next to nothing.) When an editor uses "violent", it makes me nervous. Atsme📞📧01:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, to me it sounds like typical rhetorical overload. Jpgordon had apparently found/blocked a whole bunch of socks of that person, so that's how that happened. That user does not sound like a very friendly person. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ugh bleeeeeeeeeeh I looked at that a few times ago, and then went hiking. and grocery shopping. and sleeping. ANYTHING BUT THAT. I don't know: what that thing needs is attention from others (I really don't want to engage that other user in conversation), or just be closed. Maybe I'll get more coffee and have a look... thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I felt the same way, luckily I got out of having to think about a valid resolution by declaring myself borderline involved. :D Anyways, it's been closed with no action. Cheers, ansh66607:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you should have! Thanks. (When I was doing what I was doing they hadn't made the second edit. At least they didn't go on to leave another one such message.) Drmies (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, should it be? Sorry--I'll ask for that next time. Ha this is making me hungry; of all the American inventions, from Ben and Jerry's to the Tomahawk missile, the cheeseburger is still one of the most important ones. Nice to see you back, Guy. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I just removed a paragraph from the article, and discussed it at the AfD; I'd like your review. I would have revdel'd except there's too much material after it, but maybe it's appropriate anyway. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Esteban
Your edit is fine with me, the page and others are a target of Cebr1979, a LTA blocked user, which is why their edits were reverted by me and others. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I know--but if an asshole give me a free BBQ sandwich I'll probably still eat it. You may have seen that I threw a rangeblock at them. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
We've discussed this before but not sure you recall or care. Headlines for news stories are written by local editors, not the author of the report. Here's an article that is correct and reliable. No one should accept the headline however. Headline: "Astrologers discover new type of ‘Zombie Star’ supernovae" - the article doesn't mention "astrologers" (because it's idiotic)[17]. Headlines are not reliable. --DHeyward (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Zombie stars! Yes! We (my boy and I) saw one on TV! That's really exciting... and then he found one on some Stargazer app on his iPad. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Drmies and @DHeyward: yes that is indeed a very amusing mistake for someone to have made in a headline, but I'm not sure what the context is here. I agree that one should base article content on reliable sources, so, as you say, that is what is in the source not in the source's headline. But, I assume that it is still acceptable -- indeed, required? -- to use the headline, however silly, when writing the reference citation? MPS1992 (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The proper way of dealing with such funny material when citing it is to put a remark into the original text and leave it untouched elsewhere: "Astrologers [sic!] discover new type of ‘Zombie Star’ supernovae". De728631 (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The point is that headlines aren't written by the reliable source, it's written by a local editor. AP and Reuters stories that are word-for-word the same in multiple outlets will have different headlines depending on space and custom. The author, which is the reliable source, didn't use "astrologer", the local editor did. Headlines are similar to Wikipedia articles and about as reliable. We don't cite our own writing and for that reason, we shouldn't cite headlines as fact. You can see little sublties like this and this. Both pieces are Reuters identical articles with different headlines. Sometimes the headlines are fine, sometimes the boneheaded local editor makes rather gross mistakes because they aren't the ones researching, verifying and overlooking the article, they are looking for a way to fit on their page. Messing up Astrologer with astronomer is easy to catch, the difference between "Woman accuses U.S. Senator Al Franken of unwanted groping, kiss" and "US senator Al Franken accused of groping broadcaster" is subtly different for an identical article. The point being, the reliable source is the article which is word for identical. If it isn't in the article, it is bad practice to cite the headline. Astrologers discovered nothing. :) --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it might be better to say that we should be careful of headlines and use them with caution. They do have a slightly better chance of error because of the circumstances such as you describe above, and are probably more likely to contain typos and other errors. But speaking as someone who has done a lot of searches of newspaper articles in databanks, I can say that most of the time the individual titles used in articles picked up from wire services don't vary much from that of the original version of the story, which generally is at least acceptably phrased. But strange mistakes like this one aren't that common. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's not common for an article title to be incorrect and the vast majority have everything supported in the article the title represents. When they don't have it in the article, though, then it's problematic. The cases I am talking about are phrases and insinuations in titles that aren't in the article itself. That's what makes it like Wikipedia in that it should in the article. I'm sure there might be a headline like Al Franken example that use "sexual assault" (hey, look at that) in the headline while the article does not. We should not take comfort in using "title language" when it isn't in the underlying article. No one should be using that title and article to put "sexual assault" in the Al Franken article because some headline writer chose those words over the article rendition. --DHeyward (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Headlines are there to sell papers, or now as click-bait; this can lead to abuse of normal standards for quality that apply to the body of the article on rare occasions. It is always best to use material from the body of the work; similar can be said for books a well. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd be stricter and say "only in the body." Here's the HuffPost original article reran in AOL. Al Franken Hit With Sexual Assault Accusation. "Sexual assault" doesn't appear in the article. I've run into cases where editors will insist on "sexual assault" because it was a headline in a reliable source. What's wrong about it is that they attribute the title to the byline reporter which is a false attribution. As I showed above, the Reuters article author didn't write the title that was attached to his piece. If we were to source the words "sexual assault" to HuffPo author Willa Frej, we have no idea whether she wrote the title or not. Frej did not use those words in the article though, so citing her article as the basis for stating "sexual assault" is not just poor practice, it's not acceptable. All prose in our articles should be backed by content, not titles especially in BLPs. --DHeyward (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
And BTW, this started as a funny "Why headlines are bad sources for prose" entertainment piece because how often do you hear about Astrologers locating zombies in the night sky, but it took only a few minutes in today's news cycle to find egregious "title abuse" as the three Al Franken pieces show. For politically charged topics, it's very easy to find headlines with extreme language. "Groped", for example, was the term used by the person who spoke out today. Likely not by accident, and likely a very fair assessment considering the legal elements required for "sexual assault" and the difficulty in pursuing that avenue. It's the term used in a very large percentage of reliable sources in both article bodies and titles. The feeling of violation is not inherently different but we, as Wikipedia, should not inject our own perception like the HuffPo editor did. And yes, I could easily see an edit war to call it "sexual assault accusation" in Franken's BLP article because someone chooses the HuffPo article as a reliable source and attributes the term to the author of the piece because we are not aware that the title and prose may be from different people. The only way it would be changed is through retraction but that, too, is unlikely considering the news cycle and the fact that a retraction over a 72 point article title font with a 12 point addendum only keeps the issue alive. Franken will undoubtedly deny it was sexual assault and isn't about to issue a press release with that photo saying "This is groping, not sexual assault - please retract it." But back on track here, we should never be using titles to support language in our articles. All citations should be backed by prose in the body being cited. Ideally our sources have done that for us, and for the vast majority of cases they do, but we are not relieved from that responsibility. --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
New Editor
There is a new editor (less than 500 edits) who keeps marking non-minor edits as minor on Constantine, including restoring information to the infobox that was reverted last night. He restored the same info twice. I have asked twice for him to stop and don't want to break 3RR - should I post at ANI? Seraphim System(talk) 07:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System(talk)07:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Is this what it feels like to be an admin? If so, then you have my utmost admiration. Is a site ban against such a violator of WP policy not a possibility? I'm beginning to wonder if such vile attacks need to be elevated to the highest level for my own protection. I refer back to this edit summary and the sock's use of the words "violent oppose", and their ignorance about US law while making untoward allegations. I realize it's possible that we're dealing with immaturity or perhaps mental instability but I'd rather not have to deal with it.Atsme📞📧21:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Think for a minute how ridiculous you sound when you say that I should be banned because I used the words "violent oppose." That is easily the single dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone say on Wikipedia, you pathetic, whining WP:Personal attack crybaby. Why don't you stop trying to evade scrutiny for the falsehoods you added to the article, and the fact that you deleted half of the article against consensus despite 15 editors opposing your deletion request and ZERO editors supporting you? In fact, it's only a matter of time until someone takes you to AE and you are indef blocked. Your editing is so poor and your introduction of false claims and conspiracy theories and the hilarious absurdity of the way you randomly invoke policies without any clear connection to the matter at hand means it is basically inevitable that someone will sit down very soon, catalogue just a few of your most egregious edits (repeatedly edit warring to delete half the content of an article during AfD, trying to add the absurd conspiracy theory that "we now know the Russians intervened in the 2016 election to favor Hillary Clinton" to articlespace, editing warring with admins(!) to delete reliable sources written by law professors because they are "opinions" according to you, etc) and anyone will be able to see how massively bad-faith your edits are, and how clearly you are WP: not here, and are the r'aison d'etre of WP: Competence is required.
While it appears to be beyond your meagre powers of comprehension, I will explain your error regarding Criminal Contempt to you very slowly, one more time, for the sake of the project. First, read the order which is linked to in the link you sent. Do you see the word misdemeanor? No, you don't. Next, read the relevant U.S. Code provision on Criminal Contempt here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1995. Do you see the word "misdemeanor?" Again, the word misdemeanor does not occur. Third, look here at what the American Bar Association states here: "On Sept. 30, ruling on an issue of first impression, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that criminal contempt of court is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor but a unique “sui generis” category" Thus, at the Federal level, the ABA states that Criminal Contempt is not a misdemeanor or a felony, but is a distinct and separate category. Do you have a RS written by a lawyer stating otherwise? No, you don't. Finally, read the decision which constitutes binding precedent on this issue: "The principal question this appeal presents is whether criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C. § 401, should be classified as a felony or a misdemeanor. We conclude that criminal contempt is a sui generis offense and that it is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. "https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/07-13479/200713479-2011-02-28.pdf?ts=1411112000. Do you have a precedent from a higher court showing anything to the contrary? No. So, again, you are clearly wrong, and I have repeatedly explained that to you- but you don't care, because you want to push your stupid POV that the Arpaio pardon is "no big deal" "way less important than Chelsea Manning" that Arpaio's crimes are "only misdemeanors" when this simply shows you have less than no clue of what is going on here. I don't know what else to possibly say to you, but if that wasn't clear enough for you and that doesn't convince you that you are wrong, then you have no interest in being right, you simply want the article to reflect falsehoods. Astonishingly, you have the audacity to call me "ignorant of U.S. law" when you are so ignorant of U.S. law, you are unable to even realize you are ignorant. (Generally, see Dunning-Kruger effect to learn more about this phenomenon.) I merely pointed out that you added several clear errors and other howlers to the article besides the above that would prevent persons reading the article from learning anything about it. For further examples, you also included the false claim that Arpaio wasn't "convicted"-- but see the order finding him guilty of Criminal Contempt and convicting him here: https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://archive.azcentral.com/persistent/icimages/news/arpaio%2520contempt%2520decision.pdf. In pertinent part, the order states as follows:"The evidence at trial proves beyond a reasonable doubt and the Court finds that Judge Snow issued a clear and definite order enjoining Defendant from detaining persons for further investigation without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed; that Defendant knew of the order; and that Defendant willfully violated the order by failing to do anything to ensure his subordinates’ compliance and by directing them to continue to detain persons for whom no criminal charges could be filed. Because the Court finds that Defendant willfully violated an order of the court, it finds Defendant guilty of criminal contempt. IT IS ORDERED finding Defendant guilty of criminal contempt." Yet you tell our readers otherwise. See also the Order here, stating that the pardon "relieves Arpaio of punishment" but does not vacate the conviction. Instead, the pardon constitutes a "confession of guilt": https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/20/558978896/federal-judge-will-not-void-guilty-ruling-on-arpaio-despite-trumps-pardon ("The Court found defendant guilty of criminal contempt. The president issued the pardon. Defendant accepted. The pardon undoubtedly spared defendant of any punishment which might have otherwise been imposed. It did not, however, revise the historical facts of the case.") Also see the statements saying that a pardon "does not erase a judgment of conviction, or its underlying legal and factual findings...a pardon does not blot out guilt or expunge a judgment of conviction. Indeed, a pardon carries an imputation of guilt, acceptance a confession of it." It's OK if this is too complex for you! Just please stop editing on topics on which you know next to nothing, and deleting the references so you can add your unsupported, uneducated opinions. It helps no one, and makes you look like a fool, and means that people who want to learn something about the topic are prevented from doing so, since the person who wrote the article doesn't know anything about it, and so stuck a bunch of false claims in there. People want to read things written by people who know MORE about the topic than they do, not by people who know less (indeed, who know so little that they don't realize their ignorance.) Please keep that in mind when you choose what topics to edit on. 2600:1017:B416:5F37:7C2E:32A3:A1A3:4625 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
No, Atsme, I'm sorry, but it gets worse than that. When they start bringing in your family, that's when it gets bad. With socks we do what we can, which isn't much. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Please ask the other editor to stop responding to me
I don't want to be bothered and I don't want to take this [18] any further, but I would like to be left alone and not have such direct contact.
Sorry, did I miss an iBan? I thought y'all were only banned from Patriot Prayer. Anyway, you can take this to ANI, or maybe ask another admin--I feel like I've already spent too much time arguing with both of you. You're best helped by a fresher, friendlier person. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is an two-way interactive IBAN [19] which is sadly the only way to stop things, but if you and others allow (the other) to push the edges of the boundaries[20], there will be no peace. They will just comment directly to me, in the same section, just not in line with my comment. Look at what was written, it is in direct response to me and I can't find another way of taking it. The frustrating part is that Cyberpower678 suggested to me, "Try not to get too close to the boundaries of the IBAN though. Some people may eventually see it as trying to game it."[21] I get the feeling of a double standard, or at the very least, no clear lines; if others can get away with this. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I was hoping everything would calm down by way of the IBAN, so I could ask for the lifting of the topical ban as I wanted to create a new Rose City Antifa page, but some issues overlap in the the area of the topical ban. As long as I can't get away from the other editors, I can't move forward with anything else as I keep getting dragged into Admin. My hope was that this IBAN would end all that... C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
The Wikipedia Library
.jpg)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 01:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Just curious...
