Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 112

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115

Dilemma

Yes, I am a postgraduate researcher at the University of Oxford, who also works with various post-docs. I have been searching for someone to talk to about the conduct of two administrators, and it's impossible to outline my case since its deleted before I get the chance by those two very same administrators. This is manifestly absurd. You just banned an IP for and I quote "messing around with IP addresses" from the University of Oxford, for restating my concerns on the page. You did not take action against the two administrators concerned or even approach the case from a neutral point of view. Since I now have the opportunity to make my case, on the off chance you won't immediately delete the comment and ban the IP for "disruptive edits" by attempting to reinstate by request for help in dealing with two administrators who attempted to repeatedly remove the register of my complaint for help, I'll explain the situation. The editor MarnetteD with Sr203 appear to have been reverting all - and I mean all- edits to articles on the European Schools, including but not limited to the European School, Luxembourg I, without explanation, just as they did to me in the TeaHouse. Now, from what I have ascertained, they appear to have been in a long running battle against one user who was banned. They accused me of being that user, they locked the page. I went to another admin to ask for help, they repeatedly removed my requests for help on that admins page, which then the admin banned me for "disruptive editing" - just as you did - for simply reinstating my complaint. That is all! Following 24 hours, I created an account, as I thought this perhaps was the reason why I was being suspected, and left a message on the talk page of the article in question asking for clarity. It was removed by MarnetteD an hour ago, so I reinstated it. It was removed by Sro23. So I saw a link to the TeaHouse for help, and registered my complaint.

Now as far as I can see, these two admins have been the true disruptive editors, they are making judgements with no evidence and nothing to support them. It doesn't help when other administrators support them blindly. I'm not asking for much, just the ability to edit articles. I think it is evident that the rules regarding the conduct of admins needs tightening up, especially in regard to how they pursue claims. This isn't Star Chamber, though the analogy is apt for how these two are behaving.

And please, if you could, do not delete this message, but reply. 129.67.117.15 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI: [1], [2], [3] and Euexperttime (talk · contribs). At a dead minimum they were harassing MarnetteD, and their edits are identical to Euexperttime's socks. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to update the articles so I went back to the last version I remember seeing a few months ago and started editing from there. This is obscenely absurd. The edits you've linked to were me trying to reinstate my edits following this outlandish attack. At a dead minimum I was harassing MarnetteD? Are you joking? I think 20 or so of my edits were reverted without explanation, I was accused of being someone, the investigation into me being that person failed, yet I was not allowed to edit. I have now just been informed that I have been listed as being that person anyway with no evidence other than the suspicion of the double act admin crew. Doens't a check user test settle this question? Hasn't it been run and hasn't it concluded that I'm not who you say I am? Every attempt to simply write to a third party for assessment has been removed, and any attempt to reinstate it is listed as disruptive editing. And on top of that, I'm witnessing a strange miscarriage of justice and notable failiure of admin policy. I'm aware that there is a wiki ambassador at the University at that may help in resolving this since I can meet in person. Edit: I've just noticed that the edit summary left by Acroterion very crudely repeats the accusation of me being another user by saying "hello euepxerttime". I think the case is settled and he's made clear that this is a with hunt against that user - perhaps even a politically motivated one - who knows?!. I hope to see the appropriate action taken against these administrators. 129.67.117.15 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I see Drmies is familiar with your circumstances [4] and has arrived at the same conclusion as I did. Therefore, I'm blocking this IP for evasion as well. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm the one who blocked the range for 24 hours. The reason were clear harassment and block evasion. To put it simply, your behavior is disruptive, and has gone beyond any claims of sock-puppetry, which those have been separately reviewed by a clerk (User:GeneralizationsAreBad) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime/Archive.
To spell it out, here's the reason for that range block:
  • WP:HARASS - if someone removes your post from their talk page, it's evidence that they saw it and are not interested in discussing (at least, not on their talk page). Repeatedly restoring that discussion after they removed it is, by definition, harassment. Also, repeatedly restoring the discussion also runs afoul of WP:EW (edit warring), which is also a blockable disruptive behavior - a specific exemption in policy allows a user from deleting an unwanted discussion from their own talk page, but does not exempt the repeated restoration of that discussion.
  • WP:EVADE - intentionally changing your IP after one is blocked is block evasion, and is another blockable offense under Wikipedia policy - and I note you have done it again to post here, after both user:129.67.117.187 and user:Vindicators vengence were blocked earlier today (and both remain blocked).
As an additional issue - WP:POINT. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is also a blockable issue. Because article talk pages are for the purpose of discussing improvements to that article and not for portraying or insinuating a link between the article subject with your perception of another editor. So the edit warring to harass user:MarnetteD at Talk:Star Chamber could have also been used as a blockable reason in itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
And to spell it out for you, the user MarnetteD repeatedly undid my revisions to the article without justification, which IS in the fist instance WP:EW. The user in question then insinuated I was another user and continued that accusation without evidence. The user in question ran an investigation using the check user service which yielded a null, and then continued to his allegation nonetheless, also removing my queries from the talk page of the article (!) - which included such outrageous comments as opening a discussion on what was going on. That would be disruptive editing by MarnetteD to make a point? No? An admin then intervened to remove my power to reinstate the question on the talk page of the article citing disruptive edits - disruptive to whom? Who does that disrupt? I then admit that after that much injustice I lost my temper and tagged the user on Talk:Star Chamber. However, I thought - and think even more - that it is an EXTREMELY APT analogy to how certain administrators behave; the wielding of absolute authority by an accuser, with no effective recourse of the accused, and the hilarious presumption of a fair process. You don't think so? What do you asses my situation to be? I notice that the account I created this morning was banned on no evidence but the presumption of the accuser, with no process involved. The only oversight is other administrators such as yourself, who see a in your words "disruptive" editor - and as we've already explored, editing the talk page of the article in question to ask why my edits are being reversed can in absolutely no way be described as disruptive. How is this remotely fair? Now you may not like me, or know me, and I don't have a billion barnstars like you other admins but I have a very good point. 129.67.117.155 (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)\
Edit: Also, just to make absolutely and abundantly clear, what was the result of that investigation you cited and what hard evidence was cited? I just want to make doubly sure we are all on the same page as to how absurd these accusations against me are. 129.67.117.155 (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
To be abundantly clear: I didn't even know about the claim of socking when I applied the prior range block - that range block was strictly for the harassment and block evasion. I learned about the sock investigation afterwards, and I was not involved with it - that was processed separately via a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime. Your behavior was disruptive, and the block was a direct result of that disruption.
Continued block evasion and attempts at wikilawyering to obfuscate that issue ... have obvious results. 129.67.116.0/22 blocked 60 hours. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment) Just want to add that reading this thread only strengthens my opinion that some kind of long-term resolution, such as perhaps indefinite temporary protection of the concerned article(s) might be worth considering. Accounts have been blocked for various reasons, but the editor/editors subsequently hop(s) to a new account to continue engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND over article content when the protection runs out. This type of long-term disruption is, in my opinion, slightly different from the kind of nonsense talking place at some articles (for example, the silliness continuously happening at Whisk) since it has spread to other pages and has evolved into accusing administrators of acting inappropriately when they appear to have only acted in good faith to prevent further disruption. There are appropriate venues to discuss concerns one may have about other editors, including administrators, but editing warring on talk pages and at the Teahouse is not going to elicit sympathy from others. There appears to be no attempt being made to stop blaming others and instead figure out a way to be here and edit according to relevant policies and guidelines. My advice to this person/these persons is to stop all attempts to try and force the community to "see the light" in this matter since they are almost certainly going to continue to be rebuffed. If you really want to be a seen as a constructive member of the community, then read WP:UNBLOCK, WP:GAB and even WP:OFFER to figure out what needs to be done to get unblocked because the deeper you dig the hole you currently find yourself in, the harder it's going to be to find a way out. Once your account is unblocked, you can then work on resolving any issues you may have with other editors in accordance with WP:DR or just drop the stick altogether and move on to something else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines on pinging and i-bans

I know that there are comparatively few individuals around here who have blocked themselves. One such person is someone I have been in an interaction ban with for some time now. I think the history of his user talk page, particularly since his self-block, might show that he has rather clearly used his user talk page to ping people I have been in disagreement with.

I want to make it clear that I am not actually seeking any sort of action against this person, which is why I am not specifically identifying him here. My own impression is that the pings are likely being made, at least to some extent, to remind me of his presence as a form of indirect intimidation or whatever, but I think if the option were removed from him he would start using Wikipedia email instead, so there might not be any real change in the situation anyway. But I was wondering whether you might think there might be enough possibilities of pinging messages to others, and perhaps adding a link to the person on the other side of the ban to effectively ping them, on user talk pages in such a way as to maybe put something in the guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Ha, yes, an area where common sense should prevail, I suppose. You've asked them to stop? It's a weird situation: if someone else had blocked them it would be abuse. But I'm not the person to ask about changing or adding to policy here. If you've asked them to stop and they didn't, I can talk to them. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Ignocrates is someone I am subject to an interaction ban with. After being blocked for thirty days for violating that interaction ban, he, somehow, changed his user settings so that he is unable to edit anything other than his talk page, based on comments from others on that page. And, FWIW, taking that into account along with his having changed user names once already, ir seemed to me to make sense to watch his page in the event he changes his name again to get around the self-imposed restriction. So, no, I haven't contacted him. And, like I said, I'm not actually seeking anything against him. But, as I doubt I am or have been the only person who has been or will be involved in such matters, I do think maybe having some sort of clear statement against such in the future might be useful. I personally, however, am miserable at attempting to write policy or guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Ignocrates is under a voluntary indef block, which means he can edit nothing except his own talk. I don't see any edits by him at his talk page since 31 January 2017. John, I wonder how he could have been leaving any pings for you? In my view, we don't yet have evidence for a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say they were for me, I don't think anyway. And, like I said, I'm not looking for any sanctions against him. But, if you were to see the timing of his posts, you would see he pretty much exclusively was pinging people I was in disputes with at the time, which seems pretty obvious stalking. I was raising concerns about the idea itself, based on the one incident I know of, thinking others might be encountering it as well. It probably is less common than stalking emails, but it also might be more visible than them too. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
John, can you provide a diff for such a post? EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving
A little early, but still...

Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness.

If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I need your help

First of all, I promise I won't attack GrapefruitSculpin anymore. I accepted your warning.

Well, how to make a form on Wikipedia? Such as I had something I need to make a form. And how to do it? ScrewsHirsch (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, I want to give a belated thanks for your help. I haven't had much time to deal with this group of disruptive editors, which ScrewsHirsch is a part of and Davey2010 has been helping me with. I appreciate your sound judgement in handling things. I'm building a little spreadsheet on these users (mostly IP) for a future sockpuppet investigation. - GS ⋙ ☎ 05:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, Doctor. Hope all is well with you & your family. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • It is, Joe--thanks. The Thanksgiving craziness is over, which is both good and bad--my little boy is complaining RIGHT NOW that he wished that his aunt and uncle and cousins could have stayed longer. I overcooked the pork roast a bit, but hey. I hope you and yours are well too; I really appreciate the note. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible NLT

Hi Drmies and Drmies' talk page watchers. I'm wondering if someone would keeping an eye on Wikidocs. This is a fairly new account who maybe involved in some COI editing involving Jigsaw Records. The reason I'm asking for more eyes on this editor is because of this "possible" legal threat made at User talk:Wikidocs#Jigsaw Records. I'm not bringing this straight to ANI because again this is apparently a new editor who might not be familiar with things such as WP:NLT, etc. I have posted something in the thread about NLT and suggested that they reconsider what they posted. ANI or a block may be necessary depending upon how they respond. There is also some related discussion at User talk:Theroadislong#Jigsaw Records and Talk:Jigsaw Records for reference. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick update. It appears that Wikidocs has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of someone who has been trying to continously recreate previously deleted articles related to this company and its founder. The Jigsaw Records (UK company) article has also been speedily deleted and salted as well. Thanks to anyone who helped sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Haha, that's not me--welcome back again, JzG, and thanks for helping out, and you too, Yunshui. Marchjuly, you saw two of our administrative MVPs in action--turkey legs all around! Drmies (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Surely "two MVPs" is a contradiction in terms? Yunshui 雲水 16:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Review of my latest DYK by Saff V.

Hi Drmies. In the recent past I had a protracted dispute with Saff V. and now this user has taken to reviewing my latest DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Polity of the Lacedaemonians where he did not pass it based on questions about notability(!) (it is a classical work by Xenophon, carried in 8 other wikis) and has issues with the way I cited the same source for different page numbers, which is not a DYK problem or issue. I am going to ask for another reviewer but I may also need your assistance in this because there may also be a language barrier in this case. Thank you. Dr. K. 14:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I just copy-edited the article.  – Corinne (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Wait, what? What is this Xenophon fellow up to now? Seriously, any work by Xenophon is notable, unless someone can explain why not. Perhaps I should look at it in more detail in order to understand what on earth is happening. What is this about? MPS1992 (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC) My apologies, seems already resolved, please ignore me :) MPS1992 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Haha, it seems I did, having taken off for the holiday! All is well? Drmies (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Nice to see you back Doc. I hope you had a wonderful Thankgiving. A quick update: Yes, now all is well, thanks to BlueMoonset who acted quickly to request a new reviewer, who subsequently approved both proposed hooks, although I'll go with ALT1. It turns out this is the only surviving constitution of ancient Sparta. Isn't DYK wonderful? Take care Doc. Dr. K. 17:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Moona Sehgal (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:B4204T43

Based on the discussion on that page, it seems to me that they may be running a boiler room type editing center. "The boss knows". This user's defense of the sockmaster's edits while apologizing for his conduct. The sockmaster is no longer working for them because of the personal attack edit summary. Obviously, there is more going on there beneath the surface. I sense an agenda that is apart from building the encyclopedia. I'm all for AGF too, but sometimes one must see that which is staring them in the face. I suppose AGF preculudes a CU, but I think we are allowing the wool to occlude our vision. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There have been many (un)worthy candidates for "worst AN/I report of 2017", but that thread has skyrocketed to the top of the list. I only got three sentences in and the effort to parse the post caused my brain to liquefy and leak out my ears. The effect is so horrific that I am hereby pouring myself a lovely glass of chilled Sauvignon Blanc and logging off of Wikipedia until at least Monday. Enjoy your turkey leftovers, my friend! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ponyo: I avoid AN/I on advice of my physician-- blood pressure, you know. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Gah, this reply was meant for the section directly above! And that's before the glass of wine...--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ha! What, did the Archivebot get in the way? YES that report is something, isn't it. Ponyo, you may have seen what we're talking about; a little-known variation on LITTLEBROTHER called CURRRENTLOWERLEVELEMPLOYEEREPLACINGTHEFORMERLOWERLEVELEMPLOYEEWHOSCREWEDITUPANDTHEBOSSWANTSMETOCLEARTHISUPREALLYTHAT'SWHATHESAID. On the subject of drinks, I poured the last of the Chimay Dorees, which is a sad, sad tale: I bought them by accident since they come in yellow four packs, THE EXACT SAME COLOR of the famous Chimay Cinq Cent, their delicious tripel, but in fact it's more like a table beer, at a low alcohol level and a very watered-down taste. And they're still twenty bucks! The real tragedy is that this was the second time I made the same mistake. You know what the prez said...Fool me once...fool me twice...you don't fool me twice...oh wait you just did... Drmies (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holiday Greetings

Want more yams?
No thanks, I'm stuffed.
Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
A Thanksgiving tale...

Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns).
The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?”
The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”.
The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?”

Atsme📞📧 02:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Ha, that's a pretty good joke--thanks. I'll have you know I didn't cook a turkey--just a turkey breast, and we ate almost the entire thing. Your joke reminds me of a Dutch remark regarding spruitjes, where Jantje says "Oh my god it would be terrible if I like spruitjes, because then I'd eat them!" Drmies (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Spruitjes - love them! *lol* Speaking of Dutch, the cuisine on Bonaire tantalizes even the most discriminating palates, and with a wide range of delectables, although I've yet to see any spruitjes. My favorite place to shop for Dutch cuisine on-island is van den Tweel. If only I knew how to read the labels... Atsme📞📧 03:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Remember?

"To the memory of an angel" is finally on its way to appear, pictured on Sunday, if things go as planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

In 2017, I tried one article a day, new or expand, and it worked for most days ;) - Thank you for the barnstar! ... reformation, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
It's on the Main page now, and I changed several related articles which said the unusual scale was by Bach, while credit goes to some Johann Rudolf Ahle who wrote it before Bach was born. "It is enough" will make a good icon for use in lengthy discussions ;) - To you and your watchers: I had hoped to get rid of the tags on Duruflé's Requiem by today, but didn't get to it, and there's RL, believe it or not. The refs needed are all in the article, but need to get to the prose. Help welcome, even small steps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope six's enough

{}{}{}{}{}{}

Take it easy. Volunteer Marek  01:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

On Iban's

So seriously what am I meant to do now? I'm in an editing dispute with Slatersteven and Gilmore heads over to his talk page and calls me a Pig He adds shite to an article I created and am still working on, so now I can't do anything to it. I can't be dealing with this ejit messing about anymore. Other than take pages I created and others off my watch list, any advice please, I know he will appear to lawyer this so will not post again. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I did inform Gilmore that his comment on my talk page might well be a convention of his interaction ban.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
My first interaction (on the 25th was 2 hours before the comment on my talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but your full on dust up with threats of 3RR and all; this has come in the past 22hrs. It's not like I can predict the future or even spoke of a single editor. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
This is why In said it was borderline, I will let admins decide if it was a violation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
(orange butt icon Buttinsky) Drmies, it appears 6 is not enough. Atsme📞📧 17:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Then you should have made that clear when admonishing me at Cyberpowers talk page. Sorry for disturbing Ya Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
That's nonsense, DS--a fellow admin asked me a question. I opined. I didn't "admonish" as much as I advised you, and I didn't act. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
(ec)Sorry, I'm just so pissed off with this constant needling, I've taken it to ANI, were no doubt I'll get blamed again. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Just to let you know...the accusation article you wished didn't exist is open again. The initial close didn't follow proper procedures so I had it reopened. Hopefully an admin with BLP experience will close it next time around. It's time for tea & honey. Atsme📞📧 03:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

For your info

Your attention is drawn to the bottom of: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden jackal/archive1 William Harris • (talk) • 09:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Reported and revdelled & IP blocked. Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. Clearly on ongoing issue with someone who just won't let go. It validates that Drmies has been making the correct decisions.William Harris • (talk) • 20:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Everyone knows who it is, and I'm sure he's been Redditing about me all over the place. It's weird how they could have disguised their true nature for so long. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I have a natural gift for detecting that personality type. I like most people, but those I do not like and can perceive them from the beginning. (It is possible that I am a border-line one myself, but I choose to use my powers for doing "good" rather than "harm".) Keep up the challenging job, you are what keeps Wikipedia ticking! William Harris • (talk) • 11:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

184.146.207.38

Hi, could you pull talk page access from them. They are continuing to be disruptive/time wasting after you blocked them. Sakura CarteletTalk 00:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

BelAirWhale

Not sure if this was intentional or not, given your sometimes snarky closing statements but... you didn't actually block BelAirWhale. You just closed it saying you would. He's not blocked as far as I can see. --Tarage (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom

I am a bit confused about the ArbCom. Is your term expiring now? If so, will you run again? The Banner talk 10:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Lucky Drmies eh  ;) "It's not luck... Todd" :D Yo, @The Banner: This page explains the terms (basically they overlap... in droves), with a nice coloured picture to explain it for the likes of me! — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving pings. Bizarre. 10:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Please run again. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
How can we convince you to run again? Bribe you with some back and white pudding? The famous Wikipedia t-shirt? The Banner talk 02:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I can haz bribe?
Please run again. You are qualified, after coffee (see above), and I also said I'd vote for you. I bribed Opabinia regalis with images of three cats (obviously not enough yet), what do you want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Please do run. Even if you don't have detailed policy knowledge (or whatever it is you refer to as making a contribution) I trust your judgement, and ultimately I think that's all this is about. Vanamonde (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll join the pile-on in also urging you to run. If nothing else, you bring a much needed sense of humor, not to mention the Dutch perspective. "Run, Doc, run!!" Geoff | Who, me? 16:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
We already know you don't suffer from insanity. You enjoy every minute of it. Put your name in the hat! ;-) Atsme📞📧 23:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
+1 SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Username1928374666/Sandbox

Any idea what's going on here: User:Username1928374666/Sandbox? Username1928374666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created the account then and only the sandbox. Since, it's been a hack-a-thon. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just testing or practicing for major mischief? Geoff | Who, me? 15:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) makes you wonder. i can't see anything that warrants a spedee tag tho, so i'm jsut going to watch it for now.-- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, someone's playing around a bit, including copying within Wikipedia without proper contribution. I gotta get to work, so I won't do anything now, but you can save this as a question for an RfA: What to do about the page, the user, the IPs? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Another 30/500 case?

The contribution history of Belchicks (talk · contribs) is looking mighty odd, but I don't want to jump on it in case it's just me... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hashemites

The Jordanian Hashemites are a branch of the Hashemites (big group), the main Hashemite page should list the main links. Unless its better the way it is now, you mus be seeing something I don't see? Tiwahi (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I just read your comment, I get it so it will ruin the edit history, makes sense sorry...sounds like a lot of headache to fix it...I tried. Have a good day Tiwahi (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

Drmies, I’m trying to figure out what just happened with this close, and if the 5 days the AfD was shut down actually counted toward the 11 days we’re supposed to have for discussion? MelanieN originally opened the AfD on Nov 15th. It was inappropriately closed by an involved non-admin as a Snow Keep on Nov 19th, only 4 days later. There’s no way it was a snow keep based on the comments. [5]. I requested a review of the AfD 5 days later on the 26th, and an admin agreed that it was an inappropriate close. He opened the AfD just yesterday and it was closed today, the 27th. That’s barely 6 days total that the AfD was open to discussion, not 11 days. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am over the way that entire AfD was handled - the sock activity, the brand new spa accts that were created to vote in that AfD - it was just plain inappropriate. Atsme📞📧 06:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • One can take issue with the NAC quality of that first close, but that was a valid application of SNOW, in my opinion. SNOW doesn't require unanimity--it requires the possibility of a discussion going any other way, and at that point, there wasn't. It's by the same token, plus another, that I can't find fault with Oshwah and his colleague: this was going to be kept. You can argue (and you have a point) that it wasn't open for that long, but since that period was spread out, there was an opportunity for nay-sayers to pitch in during that last time period it was open. I know, it doesn't look superclean, but I don't see how this was ever going to go any other way: there is just too much well-verified content from too many sources on those allegations (besides the new Veritas-related scam) for this article to be deleted from our Wikipedia, which is focused way too much on the NEWS. BTW there's a Christmas tree on the steps of the Montgomery Capitol building; I drove by this morning to take pictures. No sign of any other activity, though there was a (smallish) demonstration yesterday. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree...there's no sense in re-opening it now. I've learned something new from this close and will keep it handy as a reference. I believe it set a precedent as the shortest 4 day AfD that was allowed to stay open 1 more day. *lol* I wasn't aware we could Snow Keep an AfD with a substantial mix of iVotes - sorry, but I disagree about the direction it was going, and the rush to close speaks volumes. Anyway, it was relief for me when RoySmith finally caught on to the point I was trying to make about the premature close - he also explained it much better than I did. Atsme📞📧 20:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Zeyrek

Should I drop my attempt to improve Zeyrek? not sure how to preserve the edit history. In this article its the same issue (3 Zeyreks) Tiwahi (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't know what you are looking for, but what you should do is any time you copy content from one article into another, mark it appropriately, according to the policy in the link I gave you. An edit summary is the least of it. If you move the content of an entire article, as you did before, you should really move the whole article, but for that you may need consensus from WP:RM. It really depends on the situation, and the best advice I can give you is to discuss this with someone, or more than one, who a. knows your subject matter a bit (not me, for example) and b. is a more experienced editor. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Good, thanks Tiwahi (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

BAn decision not available

Drmies. The decision is unavailable. Please provide it clearly in writing, including justification. However, you probably understand that this perpetuates poor quality of outdated article CAGE. The article contains I.e. false quotations and descriptions based on presumptions of editors without factual evidence. I regret decision to accept wrong factual information in wiki. Cautious (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Cautious (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)#Musical style and influences

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)#Musical style and influences. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

To the N.Y. review of books, the caricature in that article is based on Isaac of Norwich, which we have an article on, did you mean we should have an article on the actual drawing? I have a few sources which discuss it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You asked, I answered. re:User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63

But, as I explained in that answer, if you need to continue this... whatever it is, then please do so here. I don't want your kind of attitide on my talk page. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 04:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, I don't need your bullshit attitude on mine, and more importantly, the IP editor didn't want your bullshit on their talk page either, but you never bothered to ask them or to apologize. It's your fuck-up, and your rude response to the IP, that brought me to your talk page. Hint: if you fuck up, cop to it. If you make needless edits that piss people off, people who have contributed significantly to the project, stop making them and apologize. Your responses are in fact rude and hostile--OK, your first one, to the IP, was more pissy and condescending, but really, you could have gone up since then, not down. I've worked with that editor for years, as have a bunch of others, and I don't understand what you think you were doing (you never answered anyway). User:JJMC89, User:El cid, el campeador, User:Diannaa, grrr. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, so much for 'calming down before posting'. Instead, it's just anothen expletive filled rant. I wasn't rude to anyone and I didn't give you "attitude". Your tirade is not justified, and is beneath an experienced, adult editor and admin to boot. I would be more than happy to discuss with someone that is mature and civil, but not you, not now. We'll just have to agree to disagree. And with that, I'm out. Good night. - theWOLFchild 05:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • btw - that ip user had been here just under 7 months and had less than 3500 edits. Not sure where the "worked with him for years and tens of thousands of edits came from, but anyway... - wolf 05:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    • IP addresses can change while the person remains the same. Wikipedia contributors are people, not accounts or IPs. I have at least three of that IP user’s talk pages watchlisted. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
      • That IP editor (an actual individual human being) has been contributing productively to Wikipedia for years, has interacted with Drmies and other experienced editors for years, and explained a recent IP address change on their (now deleted) current talk page only a few days ago. It is really sad that they may have left the project as a result of this. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Agreed. He goes by the handle "99" when he wants to identify himself to people who might not recognize him, and he is positively famous around these parts, especially here on Drmies' talk page, where he often posts requests for collaboration or assistance. Softlavender (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
        • This was also the editor who brought the whole Neelix mess to light and often took on the job of rooting out advertising from articles. Not the easy stuff, like spam links, but the puffery added over years by COI editors. All as an IP who got templated so much by careless editors that I felt obligated to put this at the top of one of their talk pages. Grrr is right. --NeilN talk to me 06:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
          • What a shame to see yet another brilliant editor leave this year. I've spoken to the very well-known IP user on a few occasions and I can fully understand why, even if information with regards to their location is relatively easy to access, they would feel as if they had been "outed" in some way. What TWC did was make information that would have previously been slightly more difficult to find than before significantly easier for any old Tom, Dick, or Harry. That is either very poor judgement or very deliberate provocation. Patient Zerotalk 14:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It certainly was not "deliberate provocation or poor judgement". The shared-ip tempmate has been added to thousands of IP user talk pages. Like I said, it's in the twinkle drop-down menu. I explained why I add it, along with a 'welcome' template and the benefits that can be had. If this guy is as helpful as some of you say, then I hope he doesn't quit. As it is, his identity is still unknown. But if he does quit, just because his city was briefly posted, then I think that is an over-reaction. And I have to ask why some of you, his so-called friends, didn't counsel him about the ease of geolocating an IP address, the existence of the shared-ip template and other tools, (if he didn't know, you all damn well did), and encourage him to register for an acccount, to maintain the anonymity that was so important to him? Also, if he continues to edit with IP accounts, what's to stop someone else from adding the shared-ip template to one of his future pages? If that happens, is he going to threaten to quit again? Is the user that unknowingly and innocently placed the template going to become the target of all your hostility and acccusations? It's unfortunate that this happened, but the results are quite unmecessary. I'd like to think there is a way to resolve this without all the anger and rudeness. - theWOLFchild 16:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I am late to this, and I am uninvolved. However, could a potential solution be to revdel the IP location information from the user's page? Not that it would necessarily cause them to continue editing, but perhaps mitigate their concerns. To speak for the Wolfchild I assume they were acting in good faith. We need all the productive editors we can get, and I think this situation can still be resolved peaceably. I hope this helps the situation rather than harming it. Cheers all. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, that does nothing--having an IP means that kind of information is obtainable. What gets my goat is first of all the need to put that template there: there may be good reasons to do so, but there was no good reason given in this case, and in this case I don't know what a good reason would be to begin with. But more disconcerting than that was the flippant attitude, on three or four occasions. Even if one thinks the IP's privacy concerns are, I don't know, unrealistic or whatever, one should take their concerns seriously. What I see here also is the old "you're just an IP, it's not your talk page". But I haven't read over this whole thread yet nor do I know if I want to. I don't often get this upset, and I don't feel good about it, but the editor could have prevented all of this after their very first edit to that talk page, which may have been in good faith but was still needless. The subsequent responses were simply not good. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wolfchild, if you had simply responded on your talk page in a reasonable way, with something reasonable to say, we wouldn't be here: you seem to forget that the rudeness was yours--in your response to the IP's response, and then to my first remark. Doing that here, on my talk page, because ... because what? you don't want to have it on yours? seems to have backfired. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh puh-leeeze... Don't give me the "Golly gee wolf, if only..." back-tracking B.S. I explained why I use the shared-ip template, and I was not "rude" when I did so. Maybe you didn't care for my answer, or more likely you just saw it was me and didn't care what I had to say. Either way, nothing justifies the full-froth rant you posted on my talk page. And you're still going on about this. I see you catering to the injured psych of our flighty-IP-resident-delicate-genius because; "OMG! 5 people now know what city he's in!"... as if anyone cares. And what I really don't get is, while this guy keeps bitching and moaning about that template, he does so by repeatedly posting with his IP address, the very thing that exposes his info. I tried to, (nicely btw), explain the benefits of getting an account for more privacy, and you want to see a "snarky" reply? Look at his reply to my post. And of course, he is STILL crying about his info being exposed... while STILL exposing his info. Just now I tried to let him know that the shared-ip template is basically irrelevant, there is a "geolocation" link at the very bottom of his (current) talk page. What thanks do I get? He reverts it, with insults. So, enough. I wash my hands of this. I didn't do anything wrong. I even tried to be helpful, and address the very root of this problem, something all of you keep ignoring, while dumping on me, so why should I give a rat's ass about any of this anymore? I don't. I'm done, leave me out of it. Good night. - theWOLFchild 03:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, fuck off now. You are of much less use than the IP editor, who is no child. Word of advice? If you get told by a dozen people that you were wrong, maybe you were wrong. The very root of the problem was you. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your help with correcting my grammar and helping me with AWB edits! I will follow your advice from now on! Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring Noticeboard

Hello, there were three comments left on the noticeboard where I had reported an editor. Will you please change the title back to "in discussion" until a consensus is found ?

MakinaterJones (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Drmies,
Thank you for your patience and attention, I thought that noticeboard was like all others and it was a discussion to be had - is there something specific that is disruptive (just the reporting?) or were there other things?
I want to do my best (I learned how to indent today)
MakinaterJones (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr

@Primefac and Sir Sputnik: courtesy pings

Hey there, I see you issued some CU blocks in the DKRJ case. Please tell me you also compared behaviour? DKRJ intersects with legitimate users involved in a WMF outreach program in Ghana. I've dealt with a couple of angry unblock requests from WMF staff regarding users who were CU-blocked as DKRJ socks in the past couple months, and each time I keep promising that we'll do better next time. Cheers? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I blocked based on the creation of the page mentioned in the SPI, which was word-for-word identical to the deleted version created by a now-blocked sock of DKRJ. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I am butting in unnecessarily here, but @Ivanvector: please could you enquire of your angry WMF contacts as to if they have been involved in supporting or enabling editors -- or groups of editors -- who have created word-for-word identical articles using more than one account after the first account was blocked? MPS1992 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is a permalink to the last discussion that came up over a Ghanian user being blocked because they were an absolutely-definitely-for-suresies-confirmed Checkuser match to DKRJ, who turned out to actually be an innocent user. That was the second time; the first (that I'm aware of) is linked from that discussion and involved multiple innocent users at a WMF-sanctioned event. I have no horse in this race, other than that it makes Wikipedia look bad that we keep blocking new African users after the issue has been raised multiple times and so I have an interest in helping that not happen again. If you all tell me you're aware of the situation and you're sure in this instance and you're doing all the appropriate checks, then I'm satisfied. If all I'm going to get back from all of you when I try to raise the issue is snark, then fuck it. It turns out I don't actually give a crap about any of this, and I have better things to do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I won't bother replying to Drmies email, but I can confirm that things were done nice and conservatively. Though I would recommend that Drmies unblock the account with no edits, unless I'm missing something. These other accounts (as any admin can see) or pretty much dead ringers, at least for each other. And some admin might want to look at user Bloomshouse who doesn't seem unrelated. You're right it's easy to mix things up on Ghanaian IPs, and it's certainly happened in the past, but I don't think that's happened here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector, I don't think your time here is wasted, and I'm glad you brought this up. Clearly none of us here were aware of the situation, and even if we did know a second set of eyes is always appreciated. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Given you're referring to my mistaken CU block above, I don't think I was snarky, though I apologise if I've come across that way.. The CU evidence looks very very similar (even more so to a newly minted CU!). Perhaps a note at the top of the SPI archives advising of this situation would help in the future - at least then we'd be able to give the technical evidence less weight. I agree we need to improve when dealing with this individual case, and these conversations help us to do that, so thank you -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think there was a note like that in the SPI, but then, that thing is huge. Plus, I think there may have been up to a dozen accounts in the IPs I saw, so one wonders what kind of network they're on. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfair treated

Like I stated before, I understood not to edit anything until the matter is solved, yet I wish the same from User Volunteer Marek. He keeps reverting pages even though it is not settled. I feel treated unfair that I get a warning while he continues.

Accused without any evidence, assumptions are just im using any bot. Renekm (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone with admin glasses please tell me ...

Did Draft:Jakob Jakobsson have any sources? Or did it just look like this? It was apparently a Sander van Ginkel article that got moved to draft space and then deleted after nobody cleaned it up. This Icelandic footballer apparently played for ÍBA and the national team but was killed in a car crash in Germany, and was memorialized with an annual match, but the newspaper source I happened upon says he was "known as" Jakobsson, so I think I may lack his legal name. Anyway, before I go blind peering at those pdfs, maybe you or one of your admin talk-page stalkers can help me do it the lazy way. Thanks in advance. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC) ... like this, which I found thanks to a paragraph in is.wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It read in full Jakob Jakobsson (born 20 April 1937) is an Icelandic former footballer. He was part of the Iceland national football team in 1961. He played 1 match.[6][7], plus an infobox. Nothing of value was lost. ‑ Iridescent 18:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! That first reference is actually the one I had no idea how to search for - he's no. 1052 in the table. I now have half a dozen newspaper articles on his death and summarizing his career. And severe eyestrain. But I believe he qualifies for an article, having played for the national team. (He was actually selected 3 times; one tour didn't happen, another time it conflicted with his school exams.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Iridescent and all: Jakob Jakobsson. Hopefully not speediable, because I must now go to bed, but the annual memorial matches need to be added; I may be able to do that from, ahem, work. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Zoe

Hi Drmies, Kinda random but I wanted to apologise for my questioning over at THAT talkpage,
I wasn't trying to put you on the spot or anything like that I was simply trying to get a better understanding of it all that was all (and for myself atleast try and get peoples opinions on it so that maybe we could say something like "Yeah I agree with your points and A would be best") but I do apologise if it seemed like I was trying to put you on the spot with that I honestly wasn't,
Anyway thanks for your comments over there :),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Bacon!!

Unless my memory is failing worse than I imagined, isn't it your page that WP bacon lovers enjoy hanging out and chewing the fat? Enjoy! Atsme📞📧 22:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • That's been a while, with some of the original baconators blocked, retired, socking under new accounts, or moving from one part of "Canada" (which I hear is a country north of here) to the other. Was there something you wanted to drop here, like a couple of thick-cut slices? Drmies (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon ⬅ my memory of the baconators, high on the hog. Atsme📞📧 23:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A third party endorsement of Jaishankar's founding of Cyber Criminology - reg

Drmies, Now a third party subscription and endorsement of jaishankar's founding of Cyber Criminology is available at http://ci2a.us/services/cyber-crime-investigations/ Is it fine to include that he is the founder of Cyber Criminology at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karuppannan_Jaishankar

Possible paid editing at Yoshiki (musician)

Hi again Drmies and Drmies talk page stalkers/watchers. I am wondering if someone might take a look at User talk:Gibmul#Paid editing, etc. Gimbul has stated he/she is being paid to update Yoshiki (musician). The editor is also working on a number of other sandbox drafts, but it's not clear if he/she is being paid for those as well. Then, there's also this edit to Silent Siren which is a pretty major addition to the article and seems rather promotional. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • "Rather promotional" is a very diplomatic statement on your part: I don't have that skill, haha--it's poorly referenced bio-fan-fluff... Drmies (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The Yoshiki article needs a lot of pruning as well. PAID operates on good faith. If you think it's not working here, please post at COIN, I guess? I have doubts about the notability of Alex Cubis as well, though there is disclosure there... Drmies (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for taking a look. For reference, I've started WP:COIN#Paid editing by User:Gibmul. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at this? Gibmul seems to be doing things backward by making major revisions to articles and then "proposing" the edit on the talk page asking others what they think, instead of vice versa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Since you and I both see problems they shouldn't be editing the article directly, it seems to me. Sorry, I also removed your tags. I strongly object to the phrasing in the lead, as I noted in an earlier edit summary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Don't worry about removing the COI tag. I was reluctant to do a full revert myself because I have been (apparently unsuccessfully) trying to engage this editor on their user talk and didn't want it to seem like a WP:BITEy knee-jerk reaction on my part; so, I added the tag to bring it to the attention of others. Anyway, I've made another attempt to try and explain things on the article's talk page, so maybe they will decide to use the talk page first from here on to discuss their proposed changes instead of simply declaring they've been made. I am also not sure how much a paid editor needs to disclose about their employer. Can they simply just say "Paid by Yoshiki's agent" or do they need to be more specific than that? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I think you and I can do better than that windows insert sandbox (help me out--I can't seem to find the right phrasing), and maybe we can make some money on the side. Some more money, haha. You hear that, Amit? I'm rolling in cash these days. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

184.0.142.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I see you've visited this person's talk before and you told him you'd cautioned another editor not to call him a troll. Per NOT SUICIDE, I find there is no other term to use. I've had enough of cleaning up his incredibly trivial and useless additions. I sure don't see any useful edits. Any chance you'd swing the mop? I just reverted again an addition of some trivial comparison he added at Charleston, West Virginia for at least the third time. I've also reverted similar additions at Annapolis, Maryland and numerous other editors have reverted equally trivial crap from numerous state articles. Enough is enough. I don't know or care whether we're looking at NOTTHERAPY, CIR or just NOTHERE, but this person is becoming a serious drain on community resources. John from Idegon (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • John, I haven't looked at this yet, but I typically employ "please don't call them a troll" to invoke AGF and to not let editors get carried away and thus fall into personal attack territory. As you hinted, AGF is not a suicide pact, and if you have no other words for such an editor, you simply don't have other words. I'll have a look. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, that editor. Yes, I tried and looked at their edits in a charitable light; I wasn't really disagreeing with the substance of 331dot's and other's edits. I thought progress was made but I guess not... Drmies (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, yes. BTW you saw I had blocked them before, right? I don't think I was aware that Oshwah had given them a month-long block afterward. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey hi howdy, Doc. The overwhelming love and respect you command around here amazes me. I seriously don't know how you do it. The "schlong" kiddies were enough to make me consider giving up, but I thought better of it. I really think you should make a user box for "Wikipedia Bitch" and add it to your user page. When the foolishness around this joint starts to get to me, all I have to do is look at your talk (or Oshwah's) and I feel much better. Hope you and the misses have a very wonderful Christmas, and thanks for relieving me from the duty of having to remove "Indianapolis has the highest number of hookers while having the least organ grinders of any US state capital". You're a prince (bitch). :). John from Idegon (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Our "bitchen" 250 lb gorilla taking a shot of bourbon (no longer 500 lb 'cause he forgot to run for ArbCom)
Ha, I'm going to take a shot of bourbon with that, if that is the properly bitchy thing to do. I'm afraid there was little hope for the IP editor at this time. You, I think, edit a lot of those geographical articles and I'm sure you're keeping an eye out for any possible socking. BTW fun fact, Grinder Organ will play in the White Rabbit in Indianapolis on Jan 10. The Indianapolis Museum of Art has a fine etching of an organ grinder after Ludwig Knaus. And you know, of course, that the Paramount Music Palace in Indianapolis had a "Mighty Wurlitzer". I don't know about the hookers: I think Judge Moore got the state of Alabama to filter out such internet searches. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, Jeez...trying to picture a 500lb gorilla drinking bourbon and being bitchy at the same time...ok - conflate the two and we have a new definition for "bitchen", or depending on one's perspective this would work, too. Atsme📞📧 15:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Joseph page

I don't need to be above your status. I figured why my post was deleted and Wikipedia confirmed my belief. I understand no references. I've looked since the TCM promo and there isn't one so far. I've thought about emailing TCM and the band. Or what else can be done? Some way that mention should be on their page. They didn't perform but still. Personally I feel I knew knew them before they were made famous by Fallon. And I know I'm bad at grammar.Jschantz86 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Jschantz86 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Jschantz86 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have an idea ...

Now archived by highly verbose editor on one of their own subpages. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

... let's not use rollback automated multi-edit reversion for indiscriminate bulk reversion removal of non-vandalism edits (e.g. this rollback reversal of 12 edits by ~6 editors spanning a period of 29 days with no explanation beyond a glib edit summary).

Drmies, as I see you're an experienced editor who has committed to taking on a responsibility for exemplifying Wikipedia best practices (i.e. as you've been editing for a fair stretch and have been carrying an admin's mop for multiple years) I'll skip looking up and citing specific 'WP:ACRONYM' shortcuts and presume you're already aware of relevant policy-&-guidelines regarding the use of rollback forms of automated bulk reversion (and reversion in general) and simply chose not to follow such in the instance linked above. If I've presumed in error and you're not in fact aware of such p-&-g ... I suppose then my concern would shift to questions as to why someone such as yourself—who has chosen to accept expanded powers and responsibilities within the community—has not become better versed in the tools and practices associated with the role they've accepted.

Thanks for your time and attention, --–A Fellow Editor– 12:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Hmm that's a lot of words. Do you wish to make an argument for the encyclopedic value of "Evergreen garnered national attention in 2017 for student protests that escalated to violent threats and public lawsuits" in the lead of an article, taking into account NOTNEWS and UNDUE and RECENTISM and the fact that the alt-right just eats this kind of stuff up? Drmies (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • And while you're at it, you may not have noticed that this edit, by a helpful IP, removed a bunch of BS based on video posted on a questionable website, but failed to remove all of it and thus suggested that the remaining content was verified in this article, which it wasn't? I don't want to be "glib" about anything, and you simply may not have realized that particular problem, but in the meantime refrain from this kind of silly rhetoric. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sigh ... I'm taking your preceding responses as an indication that you still haven't bothered to give each of the twelve edits individual consideration (even after your use of rollback as an indiscriminate bulk reversion tool has been called into question) ... 'Cause if you had so reexamined and considered, it ought to be blatantly obvious which I might have been personally inclined to object to (heck, even just looking at the individual edit listings in page history ought to bring such to light). Hint: It might be the ones whose removal breaks proper functioning of a redirect page. --–A Fellow Editor– 17:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Still not willing to invest a bit of 'due diligence' even after having been called out, eh? Not even so far as to look through the segment of page history entries (usernames with timestamps and edit summaries) encompassed by your 12 edit rollback reversion? Hint #2: Which one(s) might be seen as encompassing my actions? C'mon, man, you're sharper than this; didn't expect to have to 'spoon feed' someone of your experience. --–A Fellow Editor– 18:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's my recollection that Wikipedia's policies-&-guidelines suggest that bulk rollback reversion functions have primarily been put in place to deal with overt vandalism and that, wisely IMHO, p-&-g strongly discourages using bulk reversion tools as a shortcut-of-convenience to avoid putting forth effort that would otherwise be required of one to implement more considered changes—i.e. changes which make an attempt to retain the efforts of others in some manner. IIRC, WP p-&-g recommends editors avoid using automated reversion even for single, non-vandalism, edits – giving preference instead to manual adaptation when there's some part of another editor's offering that may be reasonably retained. Drmies, do you concur that this seems to be a fair summary of Wikipedia's stated best practices? Or do we now proceed to digging up 'WP:ACRONYM' links with quoted passages from policies, guidelines, and established essays to narrow it down further, one-way-or-the-other? --–A Fellow Editor– 18:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I apologize for turning my preceding entry into an 'either or' proposition rather than letting it rest on a straightforward question. In hindsight, after a break, I can sense how such phrasing was likely to be unproductive and I've struck-out the bit that now seems gratuitous.

... While on phrasing, FWIW, might "I have an idea: let's use reliable sources."[8] – placed on its own as a bulk reversion summary, without talkpage elaboration – have possibly conveyed an impression of tone reflected in the tack upon which I arrived here to your page (it came off to me as kinda' snarky and 'superior' when I encountered it)? Something to consider perhaps ...

Anyway, moving on, regarding:

It's my recollection that Wikipedia's policies-&-guidelines suggest that bulk rollback reversion functions have primarily been put in place to deal with overt vandalism and that, wisely IMHO, p-&-g strongly discourages using bulk reversion tools as a shortcut-of-convenience to avoid putting forth effort that would otherwise be required of one to implement more considered changes—i.e. changes which make an attempt to retain the efforts of others in some manner. IIRC, WP p-&-g recommends editors avoid using automated reversion even for single, non-vandalism, edits – giving preference instead to manual adaptation when there's some part of another editor's offering that may be reasonably retained.

[Additionally I think I've also come across some bits about accompanying edits making significant changes with relevant talkpage entries, weighted at times towards actually preceding them with such entries – in scale with plausible impressions-in-others of significance and/or controversiality.]

I really am interested in receiving your impression of my preceding 'best practices' summation. Off-the-cuff, do you concur? Do you feel I've made a fair/accurate summary of the en:Wikipedia community's stated position regarding reverts and rollback automated mass edit removal and suchlike relevant to the edit under discussion (de jure, if not de facto)? Or might you perhaps have some other contrasting impression you'd be willing to put forth for comparison? Where are you coming from, man? I confess to having arrived with some assumptions; however, I'm willing—and would appreciate the opportunity—to listen to you speak for yourself on this. --–A Fellow Editor– 21:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Hmm, perhaps as thoughtful considered and polite hasn't elicited a response let's try presenting the tenured gentry-man with his own words (I happened to scroll up after leaving my preceding inquiry) ...

“The least you could do is … respond instead of … snark …“
“… Hint: if you [mess] up, cop to it. If you make needless edits that piss people off, people who have contributed significantly to the project, stop making them and apologize. Your responses … rude and hostile … OK … more pissy and condescending, but really, you could have gone up since then, not down. … “
— User:Drmies

[ref 1][ref 2]
Thanks in advance for your time and attention, --–A Fellow Editor– 12:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "User talk:Thewolfchild: Difference between revisions; Revision as of 04:16, 1 December 2017". en.wikipedia.org. WMF. Retrieved 7 December 2017. § sorry but: the point was that I asked you a question. … The least you could do is fucking respond instead of fucking snark …
  2. ^ "User talk:Drmies: Difference between revisions; Revision as of 04:57, 1 December 2017". en.wikipedia.org. WMF. Retrieved 7 December 2017. *Well, I don't need your bullshit attitude … didn't want your bullshit … you never bothered … to apologize. It's your fuck-up, and your rude response … that brought me to your talk page. Hint: if you fuck up, cop to it. If you make needless edits that piss people off, people who have contributed significantly to the project, stop making them and apologize. Your responses are in fact rude and hostile--OK, your first one … was more pissy and condescending, but really, you could have gone up since then, not down. I've worked … for years, as have a bunch of others, and I don't understand what you think you were doing (you never [really] answered anyway). … grrr …

~~~~
alack and alas
how shall the vessel regard itself
with mouth aplenty
and no eyes to see
~~~~

––A Fellow Editor– 00:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you certainly do have mouth aplenty, A Fellow Editor! Anyone can see that looking at this thread. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes Softlavender, I do. And FWIW, when I placed the illustrated poem I did notice that it offered me an opportunity to self-reflect as well. But regardless, thanks for drawing my attention back to it again. Perhaps yourself and others may find it useful at some point as well. ––A Fellow Editor– 12:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
A Fellow Editor, Drmies didn't use rollback, which is a technical feature that rolls back all edits by one editor without leaving a real edit summary. He used Twinkle's reversion tool and left an edit summary that accurately described what he was doing. That is perfectly normal. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Just noting that it is still WP:ROLLBACK under the policy It is also possible to use rollback with an explanatory edit summary and that I don't think it should be used casually, but in this case it does appear unsourced changes were made. Some other things were also rollbacked like filling in bare refs, which is not ideal, but I think it is pretty normal that experienced editors will reach for rollback if they see a lot of changes, some of which are dubious/unsourced. Seraphim System (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
That is a see also section for tools beside the standard rollback feature. The policy on using it only for vandalism only applies to the MediaWiki standard rollback permission/tool. Reversion using an edit summary does not count as "rollback" under the policy, and that is made clear by this sentence When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning. Reversion that includes an edit summary is covered by the edit warring policy, not the rollback policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, WP:ROLLBACK is specifically undo[ing] (revert[ing]) the last user's consecutive edits on a given page with a single mouse click. What Drmies did was use WP:TWINKLE to revert to a specific version of the article (while of course leaving an edit summary). Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Well the policy says it is a rollback. Its not a "standard rollback" and Tony is correct, it can be used in situations other then clear vandalism. It doesn't implicate the policy in terms of standard rollback limitations, but other policies are in effect. Its misuse can be a proble, because it often undoes constructive edits along with problematic ones. The issue the editor is raising here seems to be that constructive edits were undone along with changes that are unsourced. To avoid this, I would simply suggest that in the future you make sure all edits are sourced, as many editors will justifiably rollback when they see unsourced changes. Seraphim System (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
No, the "policy" does not "say" it is WP:ROLLBACK. Not sure what WP:POLICY you are talking about; you need to name and quote the "policy". I have already quoted to you exactly what WP:ROLLBACK specifically is. You seem to be confusing it with edit-summaried WP:TWINKLE reversions. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I did quote the policy above which in plain English says that rollbacks with edit summaries can be made using various tools and scripts. If this is incorrect, then the language in WP:ROLLBACK should be changed after a community discussion. However, in plain English, I don't see any problem with using the word rollback - you still have to be careful, but it will likely undo constructive changes and make discussion more difficult. If the rollback is likely to be challenged, it is a bad idea, because you will be asked to justify the reversion of constructive edits. Personally, I would not use it on a regular editor, unless the edits were really wild. You can do what you want, but if it is more likely to escalate a situation then build a consensus, its use is hard to justify. However, back to the matter at hand, if you are adding unsourced content you don't have a leg to stand on. Seraphim System (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
There's been some discussion about the various indirect uses of rollback, and I am all for clarification: I've criticized plenty editors who (on Recent Changes Patrol) simply hit revert, without explanation. BTW I wasn't aware that I did it via Twinkle--I seem to remember that I used "restore previous version" before I installed Twinkle, but I could be wrong. Not that it matters much here. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
(orange butt icon Buttinsky) Drmies, your TP is beginning to look more like AE. Atsme📞📧 03:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System, WP:ROLLBACK isn't a policy, it's an editing feature; and you did not quote anything relevant to Drmies' edit. Rollback, however it is done (either via rollback rights, Twinkle, or admin rights), is specifically "undo[ing] (revert[ing]) the last user's consecutive edits on a given page with a single mouse click" (emphasis mine). That is demonstrably not what Drmies did; he reverted to a prior version of the article [9] (while providing an edit summary), and that did not violate any "policy". Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a helpful tag which shows when rollback is used. For example, the "(Tag: Rollback)" in diff means rollback was used. By contrast, the diff in question did not use rollback and the edit summary "let's use reliable sources" happens to be an accurate summation of policy and a perfect reason to revert. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining, I had not noticed that feature of Twinkle before but now I understand why it was not a rollback. Seraphim System (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Hopefully this adjustment will help clear away some semantic mire. Seems my colloquial use of the term "rollback"[10][11] as a way to refer to a class of methodologies and effects (i.e. as a synonym for 'automated bulk edit reversion', a restoration of a previous state) opened up room for confusion with a more narrow specific en:Wikipedia technical use of the term to refer to a specific Wikimedia software tool (and its use). Sorry 'bout that y'all, ––A Fellow Editor– 12:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Subsection break to ease thread navigation

User:A Fellow Editor, thank you for your comments. Please don't make anymore on this talk page, unless it is to summon me to a dramah board. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You're getting a rap sheet a mile long. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Sigh. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo-talk about you

A snowman I found at a local bar

Since you have been no-pinged there and not alerted, FYI User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Beyond_reproach? seems to be about you. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: See above. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, lovely. Didn't see that. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday (a couple of hours ago) I found a tiny little snow man at a local bar. Maybe it will cheer you up. It worked for me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • What can I say. Over there in Barrytown they do things very strange. At least they found time to edit an article also, with some fancy needlepoint. I wish I could do smart things like that, but when I had computer education in high school we filled out stacks of single-command bubble card to construct some sort of basic code. You know, with all the money I get FROM INTEL FOR THAT EDITING OF THEIR ARTICLES ABOUT MYSTERIOUS CRYSTALS I could take a class, I suppose Drmies (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That is a funny snowman--thank you! Drmies (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
All my computer training was done on a PDP-11 at uni, in the seventies. Just sayin. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Did you sit in the classroom filling out bubble sheets that were sent off to some center somewhere and came back two weeks later with a big red mark cause you made a tiny error in one of the bubbles on one of the sheets? I think I got one thing to run correctly--it probably added 1 to 2 or something like that. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
{{talk page oligarch}} Oi Drmies, 'give me some of your filthy lucre and then'
>20 GOTO 10
>SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I got the "speculaas" part, but the rest of your message is just too complex for processing. Did you actually use a #2 pencil? Drmies (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
He wants you to give him money, and to keep repeating that action. In BASIC "10 GOTO 10" is an infinite loop (yes we used line numbers in those days while programming. Don't ask me why). My computer training was me sitting in my moms basement banging my head against the wall until I understood XSLT and achieved enlightenment. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
...and I didn't even mention spicy biscuits!!! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The Dutch committed genocide in order to have spicy biscuits. We take our speculaas very seriously. If we see the word "speculates" then our mouths start to water. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Beware of scallops--das nasty!

Must admit...having one's intestines embedded in one's gonad is a pretty shitty deal, but having eyes all around your body makes up for it. Atsme📞📧 19:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

  • OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wake me up when it’s over!

Don’t Mix Your Meds
Maxine says: ‘’Getting old is so hard at times. Yesterday I got Preparation H mixed up with Poli-Grip. Now, I talk like an asshole. ...but my gums don't itch.’’

Drmies, no matter how hard you try, you can’t hide Santa from the kids. They can see you’ve healed enough to be on the computer, and they know how Amazon works. Atsme📞📧 14:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Payroll

Don't worry Drmies, apparently I'm on the payroll too. Oddly enough, the funds haven't made it to the bank account yet, but Reddit says so, so I must be corrupt. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Yep, that's how it goes. HR asked me if I took money. I said if I did, I wouldn't be working for this joint. (Yeah, he filed a complaint with my employer: the a-hole is taking harassment to a whole new level.) Drmies (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I wondered if you'd seen that, Tony Baloney :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am clearly on the payroll for a firm I've declined AfC drafts for, pruned biographies, and argued with over the meaning of the word advertisement. I just don't see why the wire hasn't come in yet.</sarcasm> Drmies, sorry you've had to deal with this shit :( know that I attempted to write you in on the secure poll, but for some reason it wouldn't let me. Perhaps that is all for the better given that they've taken this to real life. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's pretty low. But it's just one guy, mouthing off, and even on Reddit he's getting laughed at (haven't looked at any recent threads). There's only one guy who's egging him on, that DarkenedKnight character--I forgot who he is, but it's another indef-blocked Wikipedian who can't seem to get a date. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A Fellow Editor/Archive/Drmies talk, December 2017

I created this with Twinkle, so not sure if it pinged you as I intended.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Tekno Miles

Hi. I noticed your edits on the above stated page. You added structure and neatness to the page, however you took out some valuable information. I will be adding some of them back, you can kindly check out the page later to lend your guidance, thanks Aghachi7 (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Aghachi7. My guess is that Drmies may be asleep at this time, so I will offer an answer which he is free to correct upon awakening. Any "valuable information" that you intend on "adding back" must be supported by a reference to a reliable source. Please do not add unreferenced content to the encyclopedia, since verifiability is a core content policy, and is not negotiable. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I have only made changes to a few countries' articles at this point

I have only made changes to a few countries' articles as of this post on your talk page, as you can probably see. Michihiro Yumoto Soga (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to wish you....

...a Happy Holiday season. Are you glad that your term on The Committee is coming to an end? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just saw that you had surgery. I hope it all went well and you're happy with your recovery. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Shit, someone just brought me to EWN, so now it's gonna look like I posted here to pre-canvass you. Damn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sigh...

insert eye rolling emoji here CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation

Not in my house!

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

We are specifically contacting you for your ideas because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on en Wikipedia. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. You can post to the discussion in the language that you are most comfortable expressing your ideas.


Other ways that you can help

  • Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
  • If you know of current or previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sad

Is there a procedure to deal with stuff like this? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Closest procedure I know of is revdel and oversight. It is sad, but Wikipedia is not the place for them to seek help, and definitely not the place for them to post personal information. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much. It's not the case here, but if there were threats or other concerns of bodily harm then emergency should be emailed as well. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I had to do that once. That sucked. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Writ! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
No problem, QP. Thanks for drawing it to our attention. :) psst: you gotta oversight this diff too Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
But I don't wanna! Primefac (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Here, to cheer us all up a bit [12] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Revdel Request

I reverted an unsourced edit listing the residence address of a BLP here. Would you be so kind as to revdel the edit by the IP? Many thanks and Vrolijk Kerstfeest! Geoff | Who, me? 22:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The location mentioned -- described in the edit as an "area" -- is an entire market town with tens of thousands of other residents. Not that I know much about what needs to be revdeleted or not, but just thought I would mention it. MPS1992 (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Lazy Drmies will be shirking any and all on-wiki duties until next week (this is real)

Hey all, Drmies contacted me to say that he fell off his horse while going to the polls in Alabama yesterday, and has now decided to take some time off to spend with the ostrich on his userpage. </joke>

More seriously, Drmies has undergone surgery on his shoulder, and it turns out that such a procedure makes it just a bit difficult to type stuff. He's planning to be back on or around this coming Monday to resume his reign of tyranny. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no - we warned him to stay out of WalMart - his shoulder must've hit the floor first. A little time off should be good for him...as they say, time wounds all heels. ^_^ Seriously, take care, Drmies. Don't push the healing process. Atsme📞📧 22:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought Drmies was discovered to be a big bag of pecans.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Really, take as much time off as you think you need. And let visions of little ArbCom' ers screaming in frustration dance in your head as you nod off to sleep. I don't think anything untoward is likely to happen in your absence, he said grinning evilly. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
And talking of screaming ArbCom'ers, enjoy the sand, I say! Just rock out, why dontcha. - "Up sand creek without a ballot paper" 123 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Rest and take it easy, Drmies, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No fancy template,

DrM, but just to wish you fijne kerstdagen en een pretige nieuwjaar 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Drmies: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

A carrot for you!

Happy New Year Drmies.
They said make your own barnstar...

All best wishes. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Explain

Hi. I noticed you reverted the edits I made on one "Tekno Miles" page. The edit contained citations which clearly the page (and especially that section of the article) needed because it was written boldly. Well guess what, after you deleted the citations, the "citation needed" tag has added back on the page. Kindly place back the citations Aghachi7 (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Aghachi7:, I think what's wanted is citations that are not download links. MPS1992 (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018!
Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Drmies!!


Hi Drmies, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There """""Appears"""""" to be a certain amount of paid editing going on. Do you have some time on hand to look through some articles? EU Business School for example, the history log need a critical eye, as well as the contribution of a one "AuditGuy". There are also some other articles I am a bit suspicious about. Ty Elektricity (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

With multiple 20KB reverts it's nigh impossible to figure out what the hell is going on over there. Auditguy edits lots of articles on Swiss business schools (mostly unaccredited ones?) and I don't see any evidence that he's a paid editor. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh! I was just on that article after I saw something on your (Elektricity's) talk page. It's kind of a mess there--I propose we simply put Yngvadottir on payroll. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

HH!

Happy Holidays! Happy New Year!
Thinking of you and wishing you good health and happiness. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

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.Doug Weller talk 07:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Please reply asap or ping me. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Drmies, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
—MBL Talk 05:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas!!!

My very best wishes, Drmies for this holiday season. May your heart be filled with happiness during this special time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Holiday

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.72bikers (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!
Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ad Orientem (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

Martinevans123 (Santa's Drop-in Centre) ... sends you ...


... warmest seasonal wishes for ...... Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Oi, Doc Mice... Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you have a good run in 2018!!

  • HA! How did you know I was going to try and lose thirty pounds? Maybe not with running, though... Take it easy Martin, and I hope Santa brought you some good stuff. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Drmies: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 Merry Christmas! 23:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Panzer Ace

Please refrain from removing the opposing viewpoints of the Panzer Aces. I have tagged the article for Bia and undue weight. These tags will only be removed once the article is shown to express all viewpoints. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  • You sound like a child that didn't get a lollipop. Your very first sentence already doesn't make sense--no wonder you can't tell a dime novel from an academic publication. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd ask that you refrain from making personal attacks here, we are all volunteers here on wikipedia, I'm just trying to get a well written article up that isn't pushing just one viewpoint. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks) As I've stated, you removed both sources that establish the opposing viewpoints. Both sources are RS, if you think they aren't please prove it. George Forty is a leading expert on tanks, writing over 70 books, with personal experience with tanks, the military. While you say he is an amatuer, he was the curator of the tank museum and The TIMES said he was a "Leading Authority" on tanks. With this established, I would ask that you reinsert his viewpoints. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Hi again - I'm seeking further opinions on whether your removal of George Forty's references is warranted, based on your view that he is only an amateur. Please feel free to contribute - the previous consensus was that he was ok to be used, with you the only one advocating that he is an amateur, if no one pops up to support this, his references will be reinserted. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As I hoped I explained more fully on the talk page, it is really time to drop this abuse of the word "viewpoint". Forty is not an academic or a historian; he cannot have valid "viewpoints" on academic matters, such as the appropriateness of the term "Panzer ace". His expertise is different. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • His expertise is "museum studies". The difference between Forty and Zaloga is that the latter has a Certificate in International Affairs from Krakow and is thus entitled to have a valid viewpoint on academic matters. Next week on WP, is Carter Page an RS given that he has a PhD? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Save Sibelius

User:Chrisdevelop has asked for a deletion review of Save Sibelius. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 18:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently, the consensus is to erase the article, and Merge its content to a location other than its own page. There were two votes to Merge with Sibelius Software and one for Sibelius (software), one for Speedy Deletion, and one for Keep. Given that the number of votes is so small, and recent discussion on the Deletion Review page suggests that it is acceptable to repatriate the content to the 'Derek Williams (musician)' page currently in the Chrisdevelop Sandbox, this will be carried out within the next 12 hours, unless there is further feedback requesting a different outcome. The consequence of this will be to reassert the content as contributing to the notability of the subject (Derek Williams) currently on the Chrisdevelop page, and to remove it from 'Save Sibelius' campaign, which will presumably be erased by an Administrator.

The fact that there are two pages (Sibelius Software and Sibelius (software)) so similarly named ought of itself to be the subject of discussion. The Sibelius (software) page could be renamed "Sibelius (scorewriter)" for greater clarity.

So far there has been no feedback on the viability of the Sandbox article.

Chrisdevelop (talk)

  • Drmies There are several pages running this discussion, but none is happening on Sibelius Software at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sibelius_Software, which is where the directive at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Save_Sibelius%27_campaign is pointing. There has been some discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Save_Sibelius, and the comments there indicate that there is no problem to repatriate the content to its previous location in the Chrisdevelop Sandbox, in the article 'Derek Williams (musician)' currently in preparation, with the most recent comment proposing that the deletion review be relisted. The original reason for exporting several of the paragraphs (including Save Sibelius) was to reduce the size of the 'Derek Williams (musician)' article, so that it isn't speedily deleted when submitted for review. As the Save Sibelius article has a role in establishing the notability of the subject, it would serve a more useful purpose back in that article than in either of the Sibelius Software pages, where brief mention is already made of the user activism. On this last point, either one of these two almost identically named articles (Sibelius Software and Sibelius (software)) should be renamed to avoid confusion, or they should be merged. While there was brief discussion on merging the Sibelius Software pages earlier on, as has happened with the Save Sibelius article, minimal input has so far been forthcoming, despite relisting.

To summarise: 1. On which page should the discussion on the merge target be taking place? 2. Is there agreement to rename Sibelius (software) to 'Sibelius (scorewriter)' Chrisdevelop (talk)

Done, thanks!

Chrisdevelop (talk)

Our Israeli friends

What is wrong with the term "...our Israeli friends..."? I meant this comment in reference to the Israeli/neocon term "self-hating Jew" which is what they call any Jewish person who dares criticize Israel- like Woody Allen or Norman Finkelstein. I meant to characterize Sonke Neitzel as the same sort of person in reference to Germany. IMO his work is very hard on WW2 German soldiers- unfairly so. Thus my use of the term.Makumbe (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  • If you have to ask...well, your comparisons are really strange (as is your use of "/": Israelis are neocons?). Yeah, those poor German soldiers, who suffered so much; I assume you didn't read this. Some, I hear, were fine people. Anyway, Neitzel is a certified historian, with a real education and a real position in the field, who directs the Institute of Military History at the U of Potsdam. He edits a journal and has published a bunch of books. One cannot be more certified than that, really. He is also covered by the BLP, which should prevent editors from making shitty comments about him, esp. those with a decisively antisemitic flavor. That shouldn't be hard to do. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If you have to ask if neocons or many Israelis use the term "self-hating Jew" then I guess you don't get out much. Your interpretation of it as antisemitic just shows where you are coming from- the term simply refers to people who criticize their country or race or religion. I use this term somewhat ironically about Mr. Neitzel because he is the talking head of choice on The History Channel or American Heroes Channel to denigrate and explain how bad the Wehrmacht was in WW2. As far as the BLP policy- I would say you violated far more Wikipedia policies by implying I'm a Nazi and using foul language. Using the BLP threat to cudgel me into submission has worked- I'll not go back to editing Panzer Ace soon.Makumbe (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't give a good goddamn if you edit that article or not--you violated the BLP (on the talk page, not in the article, as far as I know) and I warned you not to do so again. Also, it's Dr. Neitzel. Again, your very first sentence just reveals the stunning depth of your ignorance. Note that I never said or implied you're a Nazi--the real Nazis are dead. You seem to be a sympathizer, which in some ways is worse cause you should know better. I'm not sure what you're implying about me (where do I come from?), and I really don't give a damn about that either, since it's neither here nor there. If your ignorance impedes your neutrality and objectivity, as it seems to do, you shouldn't be editing here. Now go away so you can pretend in some other place that you got bullied by some big bad administrator with his MEAN MEAN cudgel who didn't like Nazis. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't got mail

...because my messages to you keep bouncing. If you have an alternative address, could you write me from it, please? Bishonen | talk 10:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

LOL

Hmm...postcard to the WMF in San Francisco was a brilliant idea ! We ought to mention that over here.By the way, I have slightly re-factored(??) your advice.Acronyms are always confusing:).And wishing you and your loved ones a pleasant 2018:)Winged BladesGodric 06:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Your email is still borked

Bouncing back. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Very strange, Doug (and User:Bishonen). You guys have gmail; my employer's email is frequently messed up. I emailed ITS to ask what they know. Have you tried my arb address? Or you can give me a call! Oh, that would be hilarious! Drmies (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Hilarious to you, maybe. Anyway, it's the middle of the night here, and I think I'm losing momentum. I just tried your usual address again. I don't have your arbcom address. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC).
  • My gmail goes through to Drmies. Maybe Alabama state email servers like me better for some reason? TonyBallioni (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Aw Bish, I'm sorry--did you finally email me to propose and make an honest Wikipedian out of me? I emailed you and Doug; I hope that came through. I'll try emailing you from my highly secret arb address too, though that means I'll have to sign into it and *sigh* read my arbmail. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Selena y Los Dinos

The information of the death of Selena should be on there too, can you help me to add it by making the resume you think is good there ? thanks.TheBellaTwins1445

  • No. The lead mentions her death, and she is wikilinked. There is no reason whatsoever to include the account of her murder. You can wiklink it, maybe, in the lead, but that's all that is needed. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Well. My question was semi-rhetorical and not meant to provoke anyone to a cry of existential angst. But thanks for doing my homework on the refs. Oh, and you should just get a Gmail account for wiki and be done with it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Hmm, maybe semi-existential, given that we live in the post-truth era. I have a Gmail account for my Arb business; I suppose I could link that. As a soon-to-be ex-Arb, there won't be so many emails to that account anymore. In the meantime, one of our sysops at work was doing overtime and fixed the problem: it was (again) a spam filter... Yay, more email! Drmies (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You beat me to it ;-)

Thanks for redacting that BLP issue :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing user problem

There is an IP only editor who keeps editing List of deaths in rock and roll, namely adding individuals who do not have a Wikipedia article (ie. not-notable). This is despite the editing note within the article and repeated, and I mean repeated, requests from fellow editors to desist. The editor does not engage in any discussion and simply ploughs on regardless. I feel a term in the cooler may be the only alternative left open. Could you have a look please. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

As a current or past contributor to a USCG article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! COASTIE I am (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Marzipan for you!

Yummies from Softlavender

In case Santa inexplicably forgets.

Drmies, thanks for the laughs, your admin/ArbCom service, and your devotion to Wikipedia and its principles.

May you and yours have a wonderful, joy-filled Christmas. Softlavender (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  • That is very kind of you, Softlavender: all the best to you and yours. Santa did bring me some stuff--OH MY GOD HES TURNING ME INTO AN AMERICAN----------I got a new Alabama shirt, a Daisy Red Rider, and a bottle of bourbon....! What's next? A Ted Nugent album? Drmies (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can find this on a boxing day sale

Oh yeah, you don't have boxing day. Anyway new article at Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls, I am sure the kids will love it (if you don't already have it). I will have to see if I can find it locally. I am too lazy to do DYK these days, but feel free. It could also use some expansion and my writing needs fixing, if you are so inclined. The author articles look like they could use some work too... Without the committee to commit to in the new year, what else have you to do? Also pingign Keilana as this is right up her alley too. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not Kansas, it's Canada's Texas, and yes I am that busy! Thanks Moishe, at least there is one person I can count on :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 21:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

List of Shropshire deserted villages and lost places

On your header subject of sinking deeper into despair, the long-inactive David Carrington (talk · contribs) produced List of Shropshire deserted villages and lost places some years ago. Although there are a very few specific sources, and there is an entire section trying to explain where the info comes from, I'm tempted to send it to AfD as original research and, well, a pretty hopeless mess. An alternative would be to trim it to just those entries for which specific sources exists (excluding the original research seemingly based on comparing maps). What do you think? - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just slap a {{prod}} on it and either it will prompt someone to come up with some actual sources, or I'll disappear it in a week. That's an absolutely blatant piece of pure original research, and not necessarily even accurate—something disappearing between one edition of a map and the next is just as likely to be the mapmaker correcting an error as it is to be the place being destroyed. There are ways to write "lost archeological heritage" articles, but this is clearly not it, and reducing it down to just those entries that are sourced will be actively misleading. ‑ Iridescent 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Lost Pits in Durham (County) anybody? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't want to agree with Iridescent on a procedure here but that makes sense. Really, Wikipedia ought to be the place where this kind of information is found, but yeah, the sourcing is just way too problematic. I don't agree that a mapmaker's error is "just as likely", but that doesn't mean that the method here is prone to error. Still, the whole thing is a treasure trove for historians, geographers, archeologists... Drmies (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

When you get a moment...

...please take a look at this edit history. You closed this RfC as Merge a few years back but the article has not enjoyed stability, apparently from what appears to be tendentiously motivated disruption. It keeps showing up in our NPP feed as a result, so I went ahead and AfD'd it. Atsme📞📧 18:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ping...as in wine a toast? Not yet, but thank you for the reminder. Atsme📞📧 21:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Suppress abusive edit

Could you please suppress this abusive edit? I asked another oversighter for help but he didn't reply. Thanks. --Xzinger (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
for protecting Arvind Kejriwal from abusive vandal. Xzinger (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018. —Donner60 (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

YGM

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.

Jim1138 (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppets for Louisiana-Lafayette

Hey Drmies, I along a couple of others have very high suspicions of at least seven (7) accounts that could very well be socks. Would you mind checking them if I list them here or would you rather me take it to WP:SPI? I haven't done one at SPI (that I can remember) and have always gone straight to the administrators... Thanks, Corky 20:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

lol I bet that "someone" is! I was gonna let you know B3 got it since you had been gone a couple of days... and I wasn't sure how long you'd be gone for! Thanks for helping look, I'm sure I've missed something in there. Corky 18:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

My sandbox

Hey, I think you deleted my sandbox. I was making fake infoboxes then, and I realize now that that was against this site's regulations. Is there any chance of me getting all the text back, because I need it for some projects I'm working on. I don't intend to make any more infoboxes on there. Baconheimian (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Baconheimian, Drmies will let you know about the deletion when they're back on line; what projects are / were you working on? Take care, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Assuming it's User:Baconheimian/sandbox under discussion, there's absolutely no possibility it will be restored, since I can't imagine a more blatant breach of Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. Serial Number 54129, it was a huge stack of fake infoboxes for such things as "George V, Emperor of the American Empire", Eisenhower's nuclear attack on China in 1951, "Yucatan Republican Airlines", "Oliver North, 46th Vice President of the United States", the nuclear attack on the US Capitol by the Black Panthers in 1978 and around 80kb more of similar garbage. ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you Iridescent- I did wonder ("projects" was sufficiently vague enough / undefined to suggest some sort of WP:NOT!). On a lighter note, that certainly sounds a more interesting sort of history than any dusty tome, eh :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for not responding. Yes that is the page I am referring to. I was making an alternate history universe at the time. I am still working on fleshing out that universe (or hope to), just not using infoboxes. Baconheimian (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand the regulations now, and I do not want the page restored, I would just like a copy of the source of the page. Baconheimian (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Kaleideum

Hi Drmies, The editor adding content to the Kaleideum article works for the museum. I added a note on her talk page, but I don't think that she is paying any attention, and she has added more information since your (and my) edits. I don't have much experience with this. Do we just wait her out or request that the page be temporarily blocked? Leschnei (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dutch euro article

I really don't care to get into an edit war over something so minor, but how on earth do we now need references to show something is important when it is clearly on topic and from a governmental source. If you are so set on deleting content then I'll leave you to it but it is a little crazy declaring public opinion on the article matter to not personally matter to you.- J.Logan: 18:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • If you don't want to get into an edit war over something for which you have no secondary sources, it's probably a good idea not to get into that edit war. The governmental source is primary; you seem to believe that because the government published something it should be in a Wikipedia article? Not so. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with the Linda Sarsour / Kaepernick RFC?

Happy holidays, Drmies, by which I mean tomorrow's game. I'm wondering if one of your admin stalkers who's not currently tailgating would be able to check out Talk:Linda_Sarsour#RfC:_Kaepernick,_NFL_protest. I tried my hand at closing the discussion, but I didn't notice that the article is full protected. If you don't object to what I suggested - and I certainly won't argue with you if you do object - could you please implement the close?

And while I have you on the line, Drmies... what is your view of assigning homework for Tuesday's class? I don't teach in Alabama or Georgia, but our boarding school certainly has a large number of fans of each. I've assigned a problem set, but a shorter one than usual. Am I going to burn in hell?

Thanks! Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Well, l'enfer c'est l'autre, and your homework won't change that much. Place I teach at isn't all that football crazy, and for us it's the first week of the semester so I don't have to make any kind of decision. I'd go a bit easy on them--if they're football fans, and Southern, it's...how do I say this gently, it's pretty much all we got. A shorter problem than usual is very fair and I thank you for it. And I thought, speaking of problems, we were doing alright, and then it turns out Jennings was seriously injured, had surgery, and won't be playing; he was my MVP. I'll go have a look at Sarsour/Kaepernick, and I'll confess to having watched a bit of NFL yesterday (mostly to see Derrick Henry and Julio Jones). I wonder of Tide rolls watches the NFL. Thanks, and HNY and RTR, Drmies (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, did it--I didn't object or not object, cause that's not my role to play. I'm looking at the discussion and I can't help but wonder why some of these right-wingers want this kind of detail in that kind of article--for them I suppose it's guilt by association. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated. I know your role isn't to object or not object... but I would appreciate a nudge if I misinterpreted the consensus, or if I didn't explain clearly. I mean, I personally lean toward leaving out details like this until at least a year after the event - if we're still talking about it a year later, it might be encyclopediaical. But it seemed like those who weighed in leaned toward the one sentence, so that's how I closed. And I never considered that it was the right wing who would want such statements in - naive Moishe thought that it was the *left* who might want to trumpet every last cause to which she lent her name. I guess it shows my preconceptions, in that I personally think it laudable to support Colin K. Both from a social justice standpoint and from a football standpoint. Note to self and Andy Reid: when you're up by three touchdowns, don't abandon the running game. Good luck tomorrow night. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Jackson’s Magnolia

Jackson has a magnolia? He truly is an important figure in the WH, isn't he. Sadly yes. But it's rotten to the core and to be cut down.[13] Have a pleasant new year. (I’m still dating my checks 1999.) O3000 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:QubixQdotta

QubixQdotta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

After having his edits to Aryan Brotherhood ([14],[15],[16], [17]) reverted by two editors (myself and Grayfell: [18],[19],[20], [21]) for being POV, QubixQdotta decided to get POINTy instead of discussing on the talk page, as he was advised to do. [22] According to his edit summaries:

Okay, looks like its field day for reverting back to non-sourced crap. I'll add my own non-sourced content, except this is actually true. Something real that you don't hear on the news...hopefully you guys will become more educated.[23]

Finishing the job. Reverting more unsourced material. [24]

and continued to revert without discussion [25],[26].

You blocked this editor in September 2017 for disruptive editing directly connected to a dispute over this same article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

BMK, there is nothing on Talk:Aryan Brotherhood about this dispute, from either side. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
BMK, you break Wikipedia guidelines when its convenient for you. And you've reverted my reliably sourced information back to some unsourced content made by some IP amateur. You opportunistically break guidelines yourself and point the finger at other people. What more to say? I don't know...you're beyond reasonable at this point. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This diff says enough. And this.EvergreenFir (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've collapsed the off-track part of the discussion. User:QubixQdotta, you were indeed edit warring (and so were you, BMK, though you stopped), and what you are talking about on the talk page simply does not pertain to the question of sourcing for this or that qualification. It is argued that you are using sourcing that discuss a different organization (and that seems hard to deny), and that your questioning the neo-Nazi appellation is unjustified--that latter part can warrant some discussion, but only source-based and as it pertains to the subject. And please stop reverting there. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply

You alarmed for a moment there lol. Happy New Year to you as well. Rusted AutoParts 18:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting annoying your school librarian

The American Library Association took down the webpage containing their most recent version of the Guide to Reference and I lost the copy I downloaded well before I was finished with it. Any chance you might be able to ask the library at work if they have a copy or know of a copy and email it to me? John Carter (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Good people on both sides!

"There is a problem in general in Western history either professional or of the History Channel sort in giving the WW2 German military any credit because they were BAD BAD Nazis." [27]

So if there are BAD BAD Nazis are there GOOD GOOD Nazis? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we need to look at the term "Nazi" in a more nuanced way. First of all, it really hurts someone's feelings if they get called a "Nazi", like it's a bad word. Second, it diminishes the remarkable technological, moral, and fashion improvements... no I can't finish that sentence, sorry. Yeah. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Not every member of the National Socialist party was necessarily directly involved in the misconduct for which the party is best known today, although most probably broadly supported the sanitized version of the atrocities some of them might have heard. Wernher von Braun might in the eyes of some qualify as having been a marginally good Nazi. And some who joined during the war for patriotic purposes may not have been much worse than a lot of similar people in other countries. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • John, I think you're still wearing your rosy Xmas glasses... But the basic thrust of the person who made that comment was that the German military was somehow underappreciated, which is certainly complete bullshit. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Awww but those poor nazis..always being vilified and such. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, the German military did make numerous tactical and technological innovations for which they deserve acknowledgment. But... yeah. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I just don't know of any person, book, TV program, study, website, academic program, serial, newspaper, magazine, DVD, video game, chat room, blog, board, radio show, cartoon, comic, play (tragedy, comedy, historical, etc.) that makes light of their technological and tactical strengths. I presume the person who made the statement that opens this section does--or, and this is my suspicion, they are deluding themselves and hope to delude others. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
How true! Also "Hitler's meals were delicious..." Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The daily mail really burying the lede...'The Russians then came to Berlin and got me, too,' Woelk said. 'They took me to a doctor's apartment and raped me for 14 consecutive days. That's why I could never have children. They destroyed everything.' Erm DM is this not a more important topic than what Hitler ate?! You written a sentence on something truly heroundos, yet half an article to his desire for asparagus and Peppers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
"Krauts are people too, you know." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The example given is (perhaps) along the lines of 'good' and 'active' being in inverse proportion to each other. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I've oft heard it said that "the only good Nazi is a Wikipedia Nazi". (I mean those uniforms are quite chic, aren't they??) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The same editor of the "BAD BAD Nazi" comment also describes Germany's leading military historian Sönke Neitzel as a "self-hater", who has made "a tidy living for himself" by criticising the Wehrmacht: [28]. I found this attack on the integrity of a professional historian to be pretty shocking. But yeah, the biggest problem that Wikipedia is facing today is that the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS are not getting enough credit for their accomplishments :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Coffman, I thought you were exaggerating, but then they made this comment--I find that staggeringly dumb. Haha, TonyBallioni, that comes on the heels of my looking up some references to the Canadian liberators... "Incompetent and slow", etc. Seriously, if this guy is typical of MILHIST (The ed17, tell me it isn't true?), there are problems there--not just that someone is glorifying the Nazis, but that it obviously impedes their point of view. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There were indeed good Nazis -- actually there were probably a great many of them, just that one had particular talents and steadfastness -- just as there seems to be the odd problematic MILHIST member. Neither label is a definition of the whole person, nor allows one to generalize from a single individual to everyone else in a particular group. MPS1992 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, over at Commons...

Speaking of good people, I present this imagery, courtesy of Commons user Ruffneck88, who specialises in colourising (glamoursing?) Nazi-era images (captions mine):

The ubiquotous Panzer "knight", now in colour!
Such fine uniforms! From Stroop Report.
Yes, please. We definitely need more of this.

I'm thinking of starting a thread at the Commons admin noticeboard regarding these images. They appear to violate COM:EDUSE and WP:WEBHOST, but my first foray into drawing attention to them have not been successful. Any tips? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons is the place where the fight tooth and nail to include porn with no educational use as art (though they did delete the softcore porn image of the naked woman in the bath tub with fruit loops that was the 2nd search result for "Fruit loops" for the longest time, despite one of their admins voting with a keep rationale of "we don't care what en.wp thinks".) These are arguably educational, so I doubt you'd have much luck there. /rant on how Commons makes no sense. TonyBallioni (talk)
My concern with these images is less the supposed glamorizing than the colorizing. I find it misleading to colorize black and white photos in any sort of historical usage, especially long after the fact. I don't particularly find any of these images as being particularly full of propaganda value (except perhaps the last one) but neither would I use any of them either in anything I was illustrating. They are rather bland images as a whole. Your milage may vary. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah

I don't know what mojo you drew upon, Professor, but it worked. Congratulations. Roll Tide Tiderolls 05:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You guys can't fool me. Did Drmies's college ballet company win the pas de deux competition again?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Bbb, you know I don't like to wax philosophical but it was a thing of beauty. Saban made a magnificent half-time decision that completely flipped the game around. Great sportmanship was shown, it was exciting, yeah, it was really spectacular. Bama frequently gets criticized for playing boring, but I don't think this game bored many of those who watched. Now if you'll pardon me, I have a bitch of a hangover, and I'm off to class in a few... Drmies (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There are more deserving people than me, MONGO, but I appreciate it. Haven't checked on your situation yet and I gotta run to class, but take care. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Cristina Vee

Do you thing a page protection of Cristina Vee should occur? Both AnimeDisneylover95 and MizukaS have been engaging in an edit war for a while. Thanks for your opinion, House1090 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, is that usually when you would grant the request? Thanks, House1090 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, no, maybe, hard to say--these two are disputing and they're all over the place, so I am not quite sure what to do and whether protection would help. I did not respond to or remove the report since another admin may feel differently, and at any rate I was baffled to find someone fighting over content verified only by a tweet from the subject. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I concur, thanks for your opinion! I'll keep an eye on the page regardless LOL. House1090 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For answering my question and sharing your opinion with me in regards to the Cristina Vee dispute. Much appreciated! House1090 (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Frank Schneider1972

Hi, looks like Finley is back! Just Chilling (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Panzer Ace article mediation

Hi Drmies, thanks for all your input with the article so far. As we are going nowhere, I have put in a request for an outside opinion to look at it. If you would like to have your say in the mediation, go to the bottom and select agree to the mediation (I don't know if the system notified you automatically of this, so letting people know). The request for mediation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Panzer_Ace#Issues_to_be_mediated. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_112&oldid=1161094483"