User talk:Drmies/Archive 128

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

→

Archive 135

Grammar-checker editing?

I've run across a new editor, Broadwood-park, that is making many minor changes all rolled into a single edit, on many articles, all with the edit summary of "typos, punctuation, minor verbiage mods for clarity". Most of the changes are slight improvements, but a few are not improvements, or even plain mistakes, of the sort I suspect an automated grammar-checking application might make. I've left the editor a message about this (after first warning about repeated violation of MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:LQ).

My question: is cut-and-paste grammar-checker editing a known issue in WP? If so, is there a standard procedure to deal with it? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• I remember dealing with a "grammar checker" a couple of weeks or more, maybe a few months ago. I think they ended up getting blocked. This editor started and stopped--and you certainly get a kind of sock-y feeling, but running CU requires a bit more. Anyway, yes, such edits, if they're not all perfect and the user doesn't communicate, it's likely to end in a NOTHERE block. Maybe they won't be back, or maybe they will be back with a new name, in which case we certainly need to look more closely. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is probably also a violation of WP:MEATBOT. Gaelan 💬✏️ 21:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for that (wonderfully-named) link. I think it does indeed apply here, and have left them a warning to that effect. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Help! The editor continues, but I can't. I have just reverted more than half of this editor's last two dozen edits, likely taking me more than 10× the time the editor took to make them. What to do? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

I don't think that adding the official sources can be considered as spam for Yona of the Dawn. Also there are some other manga published by Hakusensha that use the same sources, as you can see here. --Pazio Paz (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks--they need to be removed from there as well. At the risk of overexplaining, a link for in this case a book to the publisher of that book's website, which links to the websites (like Amazon, Rakuten, 7Net), that's pretty much the definition of spam. I think you're overplaying the meaning of "official". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • OK, thank you for explaining me the reasons for the removal of the sources. If you want, you can find a giant list of Hakusensha sources in the magazines sections (Bessatsu Hana to Yume, LaLa, LaLa DX, Melody, Young Animal and Young Animal Arashi). I hope I have not been rude to you, I don't want to be banned, I add the old sources in good faith because I don't want to leave the page unsourced, that's all. Thank you for listening me, I hope we can get along and I wish you a good continuation :). --Pazio Paz (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah the thing is content needs secondary sourcing. In some cases we allow for primary sourcing, along the lines of what those articles had, but there are limits. For instance, if someone tweets "my birthday is today" we can add 4/20 to their biography, maybe. But we can't have an entire article filled with tweeted references. By the same token, what these articles had went well beyond an incidental primary source, and if there are buttons to click on where you can buy the stuff, that's just too much. So the burden, and this is why we are more than just a collection of facts, is always to find the proper sourcing to verify the things we have. And at some point I'll go through the list you provided, because they need cleanup. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Melody (magazine) only had an archived link to the publisher's website, apparently the section on that website for this magazine. That's fine, and not undue. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you again for the cleaning and for your diligence. --Pazio Paz (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

New message from Andrew nyr

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Andrew nyr's talk page.
Message added 01:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 01:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I am here . . .

Drmies, I am wondering if you or someone else here can do a quick assessment of an article I have been working on, Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the meat industry in the United States. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Children in BLP, RFC

Evening Drmies, I tried this with NeilN first only to find he has been AFK for a loooong time now. Trying you as I can see you had some discussion with him over going to RFC. Anyway going back some time ago there was a discussion on childrens names being included in BLP. Sorry for reaching back to 2014! Did the RFC take place as I cannot find it, or if policy was ever clarified? I ask this because I have reverted a few edits, made reference to BLP policy, then just to ensure I wasn't causing mayhem went off to find out more about it as I am aware of several reputable editors who do the removal based on policy. However I can't find a more definitive answer. I am now being reverted with reference to following RFC's which seem somewhat... errr... poorly attended, and outcomes seem un-linked to the actual policies (particularly WP:BLPNAME, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE etc) which could be easily resolved by a review of said policies?[1][2] The policy page itself has held its own discussions during the formulation of the policies themselves that seems more clear cut than the language they eventually used, but were ignored in 2014 and in subsequent RFC. [3][4] Anyway, if you are aware of a later BLP RFC can you let me know, if not I may end up starting a request to revisit of the policy to make it clearer. Koncorde (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, I still think HiLo48 had the stronger argument there. I'm surprised to find myself in disagreement with Cullen328; that doesn't happen often. The two you linked on article pages seem weak to me; the Brian Austin Green discussion was very short (and of course localized), and the Lyndsy Fonseca one, I'm not quite clear how GiantSnowman reached that conclusion. Part of the problem is also that the BLP's "have been widely published by reliable sources" is usually taken to read "if it was tweeted by someone". No, I am not aware of any other RfC. Yes, I think that a project-wide RfC would be a good thing, and I appreciate you for getting this going. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks Drmies. I actually don't care which side the coin falls on; just so long as the policy is clear and a point of order is established as I regularly see these kind of additions / deletions going through in batches. I actually agree with HiLo's POV (and a few others) who covered the idea of the policies stated, and these seem to gel with the intent of the 2009 wording / drafting. However there seems to have been a drift in perception over the last decade of course and with growing publishing of baby names and personal information via Instagram / Twitter and generally casual approach to personal data by some celebrities the policy has not kept up and needs clearer guidelines. This would hopefully improve on the current process of BRD, editors discretion, argue about it, and hold sequential RFC's on multiple talk pages. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, Drmies, it is good that we disagree occasionally because otherwise people might think that I am your sockpuppet or vice versa. I still think that Chelsea Clinton's child should be mentioned by name because the parents announced the name quite publicly, and I happen to consider the ancestors and descendents of U.S. presidents to be worthy of mention. But I do not care enough to fight about it. Personally, I do not think that a universal policy can be formulated, because there is a big difference between a child who is the grandchild of a governor/president and a senator/Secretary of State sourced to a widely distributed press statement by that family, and the grandchild of a D list celebrity cited to a birth announcement in a local weekly paper. And there are countless gradations between such extremes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm with you Cullen, in many ways. I see that JDDJS, despite the somewhat categorical and rhetorical "Until there is a new discussion though, the current consensus stands", wisely didn't revert this edit--but JDDJS, your sourcing in the Samantha Bee article is not much better (what is this??), and Samantha Bee is no president or governor, and no Chelsea Clinton. And I don't want to get into yet another fight, but at some point the BLP kicks in, and that always takes precedence over some local consensus. And there is another thing--like, what the hell are we? An encyclopedia, not a collection of factoids. Anyway. Koncorde, I look forward to what the next move might be. Thanks for the reminder. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks, will draft something and if you don't mind run it past yourself. I agree, with concerns a "single policy" may not cover all eventualities - but there has to be something better than a policy that nobody agrees with in any situation. Koncorde (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Re:Lyndsy Fonseca - I still think the close was good, and was made for the reasons I carefully explained in the close. GiantSnowman 05:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

Would you mind taking a look at this article – Conservation and restoration of metals. I ran across it fixing a reference error, and was gobsmacked at the excessive amount of resources and links in this article — further resources section → (181 books/publications) and external links → (a whopping 200). It requires some intervention in my opinion, and I'm just plain scared to tackle it. WP:TNT came to mind when I saw those sections. Thanks in advance. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, one thing you can do is to just start cutting. Mind you, it took a few editors a good long while to bring this down to, in the end, a redirect, but we learned a lot about "blue". Everlasting thanks to Joe407 and User:Pontificalibus. Or take squatting! Yeah, that does not even look like a Wikipedia article: I haven't looked at the history yet, but I bet it's one single article, a pet project. When you say "scared", I'm feeling you. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• JL Fenger, I see you've done some work on this article, and that you came here via an educational assignment. I assume you followed the style of the article as you found it; unfortunately, that article does not conform to many of our guidelines.

  Cetko, I appreciate the time and the energy you put in that article, but it is time that the article conform to our guidelines. Also, I need to tell you that you need to make sure that you are logged in when you edit. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your cuts. We wanted to drastically cut also. We are new at Wikipedia and were told not to delete anything in our assignment. So the outline was condensed and restructured and we worked around what was there. I will be redoing in the history section so please do not delete it until you see my finished product, thank you. I also apologize if I do not appear logged in. My logg in is automatic but my internet is sporadic and will kick me off without my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JL Fenger (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Isaidnoway, I started by cutting down that laundry list of video links and theses and whatnot. But look at the See also section: all those article need to be checked as well--see this. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look at all those articles in due time and do some more trimming. But my monitor on my desktop crapped out and now I've got to go stimulate the economy and get a new one, waiting for order pick-up text right now. Thanks for taking a look and taking the pruning shears to those articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your sacrifice. I just sacrificed at the motorcycle dealership. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"Palinarus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Palinarus. Since you had some involvement with the Palinarus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice editing

Thank for being bold with Ruth's Chris Steak House! I wanted to make many of those same changes but was reticent. Bangabandhu (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sure thing! It seemed pretty clear to me that there was a bunch of all-too promotional and very poorly sourced material in there. Srsly, don't be afraid to be bold. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Amparo Muñoz Comment

Hey @Drmies: that was not my intent. I was reverting back prior to when an individual was vandalizing the article. I did not realize Hut had already done this when he blocked the IP. That is my fault for not checking the revision history first. Thanks! --Galendalia (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Galendalia, I appreciate your note, and I see exactly what is going on: my apologies for jumping to that conclusion--there is something nefarious going on in that history and I'm looking into it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  No worries @Drmies:! Actually I am going to request protection as I am training for CVU and need to do one anyways for my class :) --Galendalia (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking for pointer to commons adminstrator

I'm not sure where else to ask this; I need to get in contact with an administrator on commons.wikipedia, to get a file deleted due to copyright problems. The uploader acknowledges the mistake, and the nomination for deletion hasn't seen any activity. Any idea where to start looking to get someone to do a speedy deletion? The file in question is Bonnie Hammer, and the deletion request is here. Is there an equivalent of WP:CP over on Commons that you would know of? Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 20:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• You might could try here... That's about as far as I go on Commons, and there's plenty of good people there to help out. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

• New partnership
• Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Tsunesaburo Makiguchi

Thank you for your response in which you addressed me and posted on BeccaTrans's talk page User_talk:BeccaTrans#Tsunesaburō_Makiguchi. Would it be advisable to post your response to the Tsunesaburo Makiguchi talk page Talk:Tsunesaburō_Makiguchi#"Sōka_Kyōiku_Gakkai"_section_title_and_content ? Tacktician (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Go for it: in fact I'm still dealing with that editor's socks, and just reverted and blocked another. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

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

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the pissing contest.

That was uncharacteristic of me. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you User:BD2412. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kookie Cookie Knows What's Best

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kookie Cookie Knows What's Best. I think you blocked him originally. {{u|wylie39}} {Talk} 01:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

2019 California stabbing attacks

This was the other one Simmo mentioned. It's obviously more of a major crime (4 deaths), but still extremely newsy. The lead paragraph is notable for what it chooses to emphasize about the perpetrator, which is not too surprising when you take a look at who initially wrote it and their obsessions. What do you think? (I wasn't going to send it to AfD right away in any case -- no deadline, and no point in winding Simmo up further.) --JBL (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah I can see that. It is a bit bigger, but I share your concerns. Oh yes, I had forgotten about the E.M.Gregory right-wing shit show--sheesh. Imagine how much time we wasted on that sock account, and their right-wing gun-toting anti-immigrant disruption. And how much we owe to Bbb23, who's blocked hundreds if not thousands of those POV pushers that can't have their way without abusing the system. OK, I'll nominate this. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Ha, well, that wasn't quite what I was trying to prompt, but sure, why not? Weirdly, it seems that the article went through AfD once before, but it doesn't show up as a second nom because it was renamed in between: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2019_California_stabbing_rampage. --JBL (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding revision on Dancing Pallbearers

Hello. I want you to know that the user changed "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" to "COVID-19 pandemic" because the target article has moved to its new name by community consensus. However, the user who changed it in Dancing Pallbearers page didn't explain in edit summary in the first place, assuming this is a potential disruptive edit. So I've reverted your revision it as this change was correct. Also you gave the user last warning for that.

I think you should double-check if the page has been moved before you revert it and give the user warning. You may retract the warning from that user if you understand this.

Thank you for understanding. --Stylez995 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think you should maybe look a bit more carefully; on the other hand, I appreciate your advocacy of the IP editor. And I'll add that the IP editor was reported to WP:AIV for their disruptive edits, and I prevented them from being blocked by giving them a warning. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What kind of disruptive editing Frontier Place do?

What kind of disruptive editing did that user on the title do? Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Frontier Place

If you can’t click Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Reuben Bright

On 6 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Reuben Bright, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Edwin Arlington Robinson's 1897 poem "Reuben Bright", considered good teaching material for English classes, featured a "cow-killer converted" in a realistic, vernacular narrative? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reuben Bright. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Reuben Bright), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

RE: notice

Assumed good faith based on edit summary ext. Thought user removed infobox by accident during the edit, thanks for the ping! Ed6767 (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sure thing. It seemed pretty obvious to me that they were just hijacking an article to say something about themselves or a girlfriend. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User talk:191.243.149.13

Hi Drmies, you have range/21-blocked user 191.243.149.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but they continue abusing their own talk page. Could you perhaps amend the block to not being able to edit own talk please?

Also pinging Materialscientist re [5]. Thanks & cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies and Materialscientist: hm, perhaps this user talk page should be protected altogether? They just don't stop. - DVdm (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

DVdm, I chose semi-protection. Yeah, this person needs another hobby. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thx! - DVdm (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Charlton Miner Lewis

On 9 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charlton Miner Lewis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charlton Miner Lewis was a lawyer before becoming an English professor at Yale, and the first judge of the Yale Series of Younger Poets? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charlton Miner Lewis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Charlton Miner Lewis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion

User:2A02:C7F:D82C:5300:DD85:A3EB:6DA0:65CE is evading their block as User:2A02:C7F:D82C:5300:6D97:A0E1:AFA0:8A14. You might to change this to a range block. Interstellarity (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Warnings

Hey. I'm still getting better at vandalism fighting and I was wondering why this user warranted a 4im warning for one vandalizing edit. Is that standard? Just trying to learn. Hillelfrei ^talk 16:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Because it was such an obvious act. I don't see why anyone would need more than one warning for something like that. I generally skip level 1 anyway, since it's meaningless--if something is vandalism we don't have to be coy about it; Mandarax and I have been denouncing that level 1 warning as silly for years. If it includes BLP violations and obscenities, esp. racist, misogynist, homophobic stuff, I will block without warning. Now, YMMV, and some admins will want you to jump through all the hoops, but not me. We don't all agree on these procedures and that's fine. Thanks, and happy editing, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Drmies abusing administrative privileges.. MrClog (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A very belated apology

Hey Drmies, I'm just here to apologise for my conduct at User talk:Squeeps10/Archive 3#September 2019 (2). I know it's some 9 months late but I figured it was better late than never. Primefac brought it up when I requested AfCHS access and I realized how much of an ass I was. I'm sorry for that. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• No problem at all, User:Squeeps10, and thanks for the note. It is a problem with many of those articles that some of the people we know are notable don't get written up as much as some of the other people who have done a lot less--an article on Biff is a thousand times hard to write up nicely and properly as an article about some jerk on YouTube. BTW I found it interesting to read about this guy--anyone who makes a dumb bet like he did in 2015 and follows through, I respect that. I didn't know he was on a Babymetal song--I'll have to check that out. Primefac, this note was pleasing. Squeeps, take care of yourself, and thanks again, Drmies (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Yeah the bet was pretty interesting. A bunch of fans put him up in their houses and bought him food along the way too. He's a super nice guy. Take care of yourself too. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

RevDelete request

Hello Drmies, hope you are well and safe. Would it be possible to check out Special:Contributions/188.187.159.238 and see if any of those edits require revdeletion? Looks like those edits are being used to vandalize WP:TFA. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely: done. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Appreciate the fast response! -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

68.197.116.79

I thought I should let you know that the IP user mentioned you on my talk page after I asked you (and the others involved) on User talk:Nigel Abe to be respectful. Ezhao02 (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:POINT?

Hi,

I would appreciate if you could help me.

Peacemaker67 followed my edits and less than 24 hours after I created an article Danilo Stanisavljević they tagged with CN tag the only uncited assertion in this article, one less important assertion about a family member of Danilo.

I removed cn tag and quoted WP:POINT in edit line diff Do not insert a "Citation needed" tag to make a point, to "pay back" another editor, or because you "don't like" a subject, a particular article, or another editor, but they reverted me diff with explanation: reminder for you to cite the uncited material. Uncited material may be deleted by any editor.

I would appreciate your help with this issue. Not with the tag, of course. I perfectly well know that they are entiteled to use it. Please put your hand on your hearth and honestly determine if I was right to cite WP:POINT in this case, and if you think I probably was, please advise Peacemaker67 about your opinion. If I am wrong, I sincerely apologize to both of you. Thank you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know, Antidiskriminator. Nice article BTW. It all depends on whether you can prove that the other editor is actively following you to try and get under your skin; such things are very difficult to prove, of course, and I am not about to start investigating that for myself.

  As for their edit summary, " it's just a reminder for you to cite the uncited material. Uncited material may be deleted by any editor"--plenty editors will disagree with the last part, but no one will disagree with the first part. In addition, Peacemaker has a reputation for writing FA material; in fact, their resume is pretty damn impressive, and with an editor who writes so much good content it will be difficult to say "ah they don't care about quality they're just pestering you". So hand on heart, I just can't say that the cn tag was pointy--and if a quality editor puts a tag on one of my articles I will try my hardest to take away the reason for their discontent. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that you are not willing to investigate the issue. Do you know someone who might be willing to help with this issue and investigate it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Haha, "not willing to investigate the issue"--what I'm about to write you is not for you but for anyone who might come across this. a. Proving HOUNDING is the most difficult thing there is; it's incredibly time-consuming especially if the person complaining provides NO INFORMATION whatsoever, let alone evidence. b. This passive-aggressive phrasing makes me never want me to handle your personal requests again. c. You know damn well that the place to go for this is ANI, and I think you also know very well that it is unlikely that someone will pick this up. BUT NO SERIOUSLY let me go through Peacemaker's 20 million edits--how far do you want me to go back? One year? Two years? Goodbye. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I am aware of your opinion about me. That is exactly why I approached to you, in order to avoid being accused for WP:CANVASS. Anyone who might come across this can see my initial comment here and that your NO INFORMATION whatsoever statement is not completely correct. Nevertheless, thank you. I will respect your decision not to handle my requests again. This will be my last time I write to you. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You are a fine piece of work, aren't you. OK: anyone who sees this will see that indeed you provided not a shred of evidence that the editor would be biased against you, or would have followed your edits. The suggested conclusion here is that indeed you demonstrated bad faith by trying to leverage an administrator's opinion to gain the upper hand against an editor you are somehow in conflict with--a conflict caused by the other editor's concern with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Now, one wonders (since one plows through history) whether you figured that it would be a good idea to approach me NOT because of my uninvolved nature and my fair judgment, but because you came across an old arbitration case where I criticized Peacemaker67. In which case, the HOUND is obviously you. Don't bother answering. Peacemaker, if this ever goes any further, like AN/I or something, please ping me. I'm sooooo tired of this editor's passive-aggressive and aggressive comments. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me Drmies, this is starting to get back into the territory Antid was in when he was TBANed. Antid creates articles on Yugoslavia in WWII (one of my areas of speciality where I have an extensive watchlist and a couple of dozen FAs), and when he adds them to templates or links them in articles on my watchlist, I become aware of them. I then add the Milhist project template (which he never does, possibly to avoid scrutiny by an active Wikiproject), assess them and look at NPOV (which is often missing). If so, I tag them and make comments on the talk page. However, when challenged on sources or NPOV, Antid then usually refuses to respond substantively to queries (usually along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and claims I have hounded him from the article in question (see Drvar uprising and its talk page for a classic recent example of his behaviour). This is basic lack of accountability for their editing. We can't just have editors creating POV articles using Wikipedia's voice and have readers think they are a NPOV account of the subject, especially in a notoriously controversial area like the Balkans. If this goes to ANI again I will ping you, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've had some interaction with Antidiskriminator too. I have nominated Demonization of the Serbs for deletion. I really don't understand how an article titled The Demonization of the Serbs or the Satanization of the Serbs made its way in wikipedia. Just to be clear here, I'm asking whether it's within what is considered appropriate in any way (even if it is POV) to create such an article in wikipedia or if there's a speedy delete process for this kind of thing. I've never come across anything like this before and I honestly don't understand what process should be followed. I created an AfD about it but it felt really weird that I had to explain why an article about "Satanization of the Serbs by the western media" is not appropriate in wikipedia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"Spreading" versus "reporting"

Hi Doc. I hope you and yours are safe and well. I don't want to get involved in the Alex Jones article, as it is bitterly contested and I don't have time for the bickering. But can you possibly check this edit and let me know. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not the doctor here by any stretch of the imagination, but I would say that changing "spreading" to "reporting" significantly changes the meaning of that sentence. It makes it sound like Alex Joens was removed from the Google Play store for reporting about misinformation, rather than for repeating the misinformation as fact. "Reporting" makes it sound like Alex Jones is discussing misinformation that is being propagated by other people, whereas "spreading" makes it sound like he is the one doing the propagating, and it's the latter that got him kicked off of the Google Play Store, not the former. I think "spreading" is more correct. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In that sense, I agree. The only problem is "spreading" is too cute by half, since it is also applied to the virus itself, and it is rather polemical. I haven't thought of an equivalent neutral word, since your explanation, but I'm sure one can be found. Dr. K. 04:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely fair; there's probably a better word to find here. "Propagating"? "Disseminating"? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

These are great alternatives. Thank you, Writ Keeper. Dr. K. 04:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Tiri (footballer)

Time to take it up a notch, if you please (the page protection), getting a bit sick and tired even though article is on my watchlist...

Kind regards, thanks in advance. --Quite A Character (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Primefac was on the job. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Hah! Sniped the action and forgot to reply here. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Cheryl B. Schrader Article

Hi,

Thanks for reverting the vandalism in that article. About your "Overly Detailed" tag, could you be more specific about what in particular seemed overly detailed? Uranographer (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Uranographer, did you see this edit and others by User:Adavidb, which seem to counter this slew of additions? Drmies (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oh, Adavidb, now I see: Wright State University 2019 faculty strike. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

From one pedant to another...

Hi Drmies. What is your take on the use of quotation marks in articles?

At Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles there are over 150 pairs of quotation marks. My interpretation of MOS:QUOTEMARKS is that they should all, or mostly, be converted to single apostrophes, and not remain as double quote marks. Am I wrong? I recently asserted that they were also being wrongly deployed in the Plot section of The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon. In both cases, my view is that single apostrophes should surround 'unusual terms'. I'm happy to be shown to be wrong; I'm just keen to get a second opinion, or even a referral to a specialist! Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)  

• Nick, I'm totally US-English, the academic flavor, and we don't use single quotes at all. Here we use double quotes for "square quotes" also--so I am probably not the right editor to ask. The Rambling Man is a GA writer in the British English style, and I think Cassianto and his friends (I'm pretty sure they have FA-credits) are Brit-Eng as well; I'd ask some of them. I assume you saw the tiny edits I made in that article--I really find that lead hard to read, and the caption in the first image is so high in word count is worthy of being bagged. Thanks, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Haha, that's you in the Mont Blanc massif!!! Awesome. And all I have is a pine tree in my backyard, climbable to about fifteen feet right now. My boy climbed up today; I felt a bit bloated in my old harness. I'm so old I use an 8 for belaying, haha. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply - I'll have a word with one or other of them. (I'd always assumed TRM was N.American for some reason). I've since tweaked the first paragraph, rather matching what the LTA was proposing, in fact.

I think getting up to about 15 feet is my own limit right now! I managed to damage/wear out my knee whilst on a hard day's scrambling with my daughter last year. It still hasn't fully recovered, and probably won't, according to the specialist. So, I'm hoping this little video of her in action isn't going to be my last climb! Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh that rock looks delicious--so solid. I was so used to climbing in that composite s**t in the Eifel, terrible. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

UTRS

Do you? You should. Don't kow the fun you are missing. Cheers, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, no, and I think I'm having enough fun already. What am I missing? Oh, was I called out for something? I did say "fuck you" to someone... But on the bright side, I did a few good deeds today, so it should all balance out. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

User:37.152.231.22 and probably many other names

Hi Drmies,

I've watched the incident at Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles with utter horror! Watching a bunch of editors pile in to an obviously gifted and prolific content improver because of civility problems brings back unhappy memories. It seems obvious to me that the IP didn't start the fight and in fact every edit they made seemed sensible (ignoring the reverts). While there has been plenty of condescension toward the IP, very little effort seems to have taken the time to explain the mistakes made by others. I'm trying to figure out what is going on here while I decide either to get involved or just stop watching. I'm wondering if everyone is playing dumb to avoid taking more official action? Sorry for bringing this to you, I know you were hardly involved (with this episode at least). I'm annoyed enough that I had to write something but can't really decide where is appropriate. All the best. TiB chat 19:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the latest series of reverts. The IP argues "correct grammar is not negotiable", and correctly changes what was a comma splice ("...a given list; the oldest and best-known being..."), but in the next paragraph introduces what most people would consider a comma error, in "They range from small hills, to the largest mountains." When one categorically denounces a long series of edits on grounds of grammar (really, style, for a large part) and then introduces a mistake, the entire argument becomes flawed. It is clear to me that many of the IP's edits are an improvement--what they do in this edit in the "Isolation" section is an improvement, and what they found and improved in the P600 section was awful. Both would be enough for me to not assign it GA status. But then they just have to go and say "rv vandalism" in an edit summary, and that pisses everyone off.

  Here's what you can do: rv to their version. You can join in that edit war, with your registered account and thrown your weight around, and argue on the talk page why you did what you did.

  But I see now on the talk page that it was as I suspected--"best known for". I have my opinions on that editor and their work, and on their means of engagement. I have defended them in various places over the last few years, and they have continued to just piss people off to the point where few people care to listen to them and take the time to objectively assess their edits. And I got tired of it also: it just wasn't worth the time and the energy. But I agree with you on the meat of the matter: their edits mostly improved the article. If only they... but let me not type what I meant so say. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• I made a few tiny edits just to make a point--that the current GA version is not perfect. I will show moral support if need be, but on my ranking of important things, finding a couple of big fat lag screw with an Allen head (!!!) ranks much higher. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • One can easily see from the article history that that particular error was in fact added to the article by User:Britishfinance, on 18 April 2020, in an edit which created this abomination:

    A popular designation is the Marilyns, with a prominence above 150 metres (492.1 ft), however, with no additional height threshold, Marilyns range from small 150-metre (490 ft) hills, to the largest mountains.

    The sensible response when finding an error in an article is to fix it. Leaving it there and falsely attributing it to someone else in an attempt to denigrate their work is not sensible. If article quality were of any interest to you at all, you would not do that. Cycladiko (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

    • Cycladiko, first of all, please see the link all the way at the top of this talk page. Second, I don't know who you are talking to; I wonder if you've read the above comments correctly. If indeed you are talking to me, and you come here to accuse me of falsely attributing something to someone and not fixing it, then I can't help but wonder who you are and why are you so rude. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, it's you. Create another sock if you like and take me to ANI, and see if you can get me blocked for saying "fuck you": fuck you. Berean Hunter, you may want to check this one--thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Confirmed, no other socks seen in range.
         — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
        • User:Berean Hunter, thank you--I always appreciate your help. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm not sure if I should thank you or be mad at you re the Ira Byock article. (LOL) I was in the middle of working on the article, but it was like wading through molasses. You shortened the article by half. Now I think I can work on it. Thanks. Normal Op (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm sorry--I should have realized you might not have been done. I'm just so used to chopping through these COI puff pieces--again, sorry, and feel free to do whatever you like. (What's funny is I was working with my daughter on her imaginary resume, a school assignment, and used that article as an example--and an example of how not to write a Wikipedia biography...) Drmies (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I like what you did,Drmies. I did make a few tweaks and improvements after your chop, but all is good. I wouldn't change a thing you did. Normal Op (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

New artist

Hi can you help me with the publication of a new artist I found online ? His name is Jonn Poker and here is the draft I found https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jonn_Poker?markasread=190085898&markasreadwiki=enwiki Knowledgenerd95 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• I can't do anything with that--is that mobile? Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mrs Edith Morrell

• Sscoulsdon, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this wall of text, but it sure sounds like original research. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the above impromptu post. A glance at the article on Research, particularly on Original Research, would indicate a fault in your hearing if the post sounds to you like that. I guess from a quick scan of your interests that English Criminal jurisprudence is not one of them, so the uncertainty you express is unsurprising. Perhaps we could agree that it wasn't written to appeal to you. Sscoulsdon (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Who taught you to write like that? Drmies (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the above second post above. I take it that you now accept the section mentioned is not original research, as the 26 reference from seven published sources would confirm. Sscoulsdon (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    • You can take it as such, but you'd be wrong. And please see Wikipedia:Indentation. BTW, what you are doing here is completely shitty of course, since you left out all the context--which is found here, Talk:Death_of_Edith_Alice_Morrell#"Murder,_can_you_prove_it?", and that's where I asked that question. You posted 10k of some sort of investigative prose narrative called "Murder, can you prove it?", that starts "These were the words that John Bodkin Adams was said to have uttered..." (was it a dark and stormy night?). Anyone who wants to know what original research looks like need only look at your second paragraph, "There is no basis for saying Mrs Morrell was murdered as there was no Inquest verdict to that effect and the only person accused of her murder, Dr. Adams, was found not guilty". Now, if you think that having references somewhere in there means it's not original research, you are wrong. That narrative reads like original research at first glance, but hey who knows, it might just be mostly WP:SYNTHESIS. Good day. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I can do no better that quote Wikipedia on Original Research: "Original research, also called primary research, is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review, or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary-source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge..." (emphasis added). Your saying that that having references doesn't means it's not original research is wrong does rather fly in the face of that, and I would add that it is based on summary, review, or synthesis of earlier publications, as in the definition of what isn't original research and also on secondary or tertiary source. You can say that day is night or up is down, but your opinion doesn't trump the clear words of the Wikipedia guidance.

In addition, using words like "shitty" hardly meets the Wikipedia criteria that users should treat each other with respect and civility and that you should respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree (see also your second post). Remember that Wikipedia:No personal attacks decries abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases, and "Who taught you to write like that" and "what you are doing here is completely shitty of course" would fall under this head and/or an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views.

You original post was misconceived, and I told you politely why; your second probably abusive and in no way responded to what I have said, so I politely asked you to retract your misconception; your third definitely abusive and states a biased opinion not supported by reference to the relevant sections of Wikipedia. Your ego may feel bruised, but I strongly suggest that you don't reply to this with anything other than an apology. Just think whether you are prepared to see your comments above reviewed by a neutral third party. Sscoulsdon (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oh you can do a lot better than that. I considered your suggestion but decided my time and mental energy is better spent petting the dog. Thank you. Now kindly don't return unless it's with a notification for some drama board. And what you were doing here, copying and pasting without context or permission, yeah that's what we call "shitty". Drmies (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We are told in successive verses of the Book of Proverbs:

Prov 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Prov 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I believe the correct exegesis is to not descend to your faecal level (although someone that says faeces talks faeces, and may think faces) but to point out your failings.

On 11th May your initial post of 1609 was made two minutes after closing the previous one at 1607: unless you have the reading ability of the Brutal in Zardoz,you could't possibly have read the section that you commented on, let alone read it with any understanding. Your second post of 1508 was after closing the previous one at 1503, so the attempt at justification in your third and attempt Parthian shot in your fourth ring very hollow. I can see from your log that you visits to many sites are equally brief and in many cases equally unhelpful.

I would be delighted not to visit you again, so stop posting untruthful and/or irrelevant comments and I won't need to follow the precept of Proverbs 26:5.Sscoulsdon (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sscoulsdon: You said that you can do no better than quote Wikipedia on Original Research, by which (it turns out) you meant the Wikipedia article entitled Original research. But, see, you can (and must) do better, because what you need to be quoting (after understanding it, of course) is the project's policy on WP:Original research. Drmies is a retired member of the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee and certainly knows what constitutes WP:OR, as do I.

The Adams and Morrell articles are, without question, two of the most egregiously inappropriate articles the project has, and that's saying a lot. Their awfulness defies description. They are mind-numbingly unreadable and indeed larded with obvious OR -- and if I had the sources I'm pretty sure I'd find plenty more that's not obvious. There's also more than a touch of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:ESSAY. You seem to have no concept at all of what an article should be like. The Morrell article even ends with a section headed Summary -- really, it's unbelievable. EEng 07:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

User:EEng, thank you--I appreciate your words. Yes, I've seen a lot of bad articles--some worse than these ones! Sitush and LadyofShalott will remember some of them. Anyway, I doubt that the editor will take you more seriously than they take me, which is a shame. Thanks again, and take care, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, neither of these posts produced an Alert on my user page. However, I have read them with all the interest they deserve.Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sscoulsdon--Last time: indent properly. Sscoulsdon, Sscoulsdon, Sscoulsdon. Drmies (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh how clever and cutting! Why, you're just like Oscar Wilde, if Oscar Wilde had been hackneyed and trite and an incompetent wordsmith! EEng 17:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Charming

That seemed like a nice person. I think I caught everything, let me know if I should have done anything differently. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:Girth Summit, thanks--yeah, it doesn't get much lower than that. I appreciate it. Berean Hunter probably knows more; I'm forwarding it to Trust and Safety. What's funny is that Wikipedia:Trust and Safety is a redirect to a Meta page that explains "workflows", whatever those are. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies, yeah, I've stumbled across that before when looking for contact details - not very helpful! I think WP:EMERGENCIES is the way they expect you to contact them. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Dammit, that's a redlink? WP:EMERGENCY. Think I'm gonna set up a redirect... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha, thanks--but does this ongoing (and stupid, of course) harassment count as an emergency? This is so obviously some *** ******* who will never get off the couch or get * ****--but others can use it to produce harm. I emailed ca; they have a file on it already, I'm sure. BTW a bunch of these jerks have started imitating each other; they were all the same already anyway in important ways, and now they've become interchangeable. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I assumed it would get to the right team though. I assumed that functionaries got issued with big red bakelite telephones that go straight through to T&S? Seriously, if there's anything I can do in terms of keeping an eye on certain filters, let me know - that was deeply unpleasant. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not over: Ponyo just blocked another, posting on a talk page of a blocked range. It's all proxies of course. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, might you help me with another admin.?

Hi, I’ve gotten your name from the top of the Recently Active Admin list. A fellow admin has at least twice talked about possibly blocking me.

Most recently, they’ve said “repetitive provocations” and “breaches of our sourcing policies and guidelines.”

Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 —> Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ”

Say they’re not involved, but certainly seem involved to me.

And then going backward in time order:

User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter —> MEDRS

Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 —> Discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints

And this is all for Talk pages. Yes, I’ve made the case for several minority positions, so be it. On the main page for:

Coronavirus disease 2019

I’ve made a number of solid edits ever since at least April 8, and edits which I’m proud of. And I wish to keep making solid edits, including on other pages pertaining to COVID-19 which I’ve also done.

If could take a look and possibly help my situation, I’d certainly appreciate it. Thank you for your consideration. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well, what I see is RexxS warning you on a serious matter (few things are more serious than MEDRS). Given the seriousness of the subject matter, and given the real-life problems that can result from not adhering to the policies and guidelines, there are both general and discretionary sanctions possible there. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that RexxS is somehow INVOLVED in a way that would cloud his judgment or his objectivity. If I were you I would not belabor the point. I'm sure you have done lots of good work, but this is not something I would pursue. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Incident on WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. I saw your comment there. Funny thing was, I was trying to be nice, tweaking and rewriting the article, when a quicker solution would be to slap A7/G11 on the article. The obvious solution, really, is to possibly AfD the Youngblood article but certainly make that non-notable biography into a redirect to the band--but here is yet another person trying to milk it for all it's worth. What's also funny is that that is really the exact same thing that's happening in K-pop right now, with lists of "songwriting credits" being inserted into articles on every bit singer, as in Talk:Chaeyoung#Drmies'_edits. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

One question

Hello, I would like to ask you is there a point here (per Wiki guidlines) or is it just one man's perspective? [6] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking. OK, I see now what edit y'all are fighting over; this one. NPOV is not established by having "pros and cons"--in this case that wouldn't even make sense. The criticism is that Handke (I can't believe he's 77; I remember him young and handsome) was all too friendly to a violent and murderous regime, and the "pro" is that he's a great writer. Those aren't on the same level. If anyone needs a pro, it's right there: he got a Nobel prize for literature, that's pro enough. Now, Santasa99 was not very careful with writing this stuff up; phrases like "confirmed general public and media mood surrounding both Handke's award and opinions and attitude toward Bosnian genocide denial" are essentially OR and really editorial POV commentary, but Khirurg's and your revert are too categorical. I have to say that Jingiby's edit is quite adroit, and I think that was well done. If I may, two other things: a. it is maybe not so evident to outsiders just how controversial this Nobel Prize was, and I'm still putting that mildly--it was a fucking shock, and the Nobel committee harmed itself in very serious ways; and b. this is not a very good article: it should be better. Good luck with it! Drmies (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

He was young once, alright, but handsome - you don't mean like this :-) ? Joke aside, that line/paragraph of mine looks awkward and bulky from here (even as OR and/or editorializing, when taken out of context), or it could just be a bad paraphrasing on my part - I don't know if you followed the ref link on that line, but something of that sort is said in sourced text by German novelist Martin Walser - he said: "Handke is just being completely dismissed, in every respect morally, politically and professionally. It's all part of the war mood which I find a bit frightening."

Now, I have this same (or very similar) paragraph included into another article, which is just recently promoted to GA, while being thoroughly probed, examined left and right, and extensively discussed among several good-to-native English speaking experienced senior editors. It passed, but I wouldn’t want it to remain if it’s possible to have a better (para)phrase, so, I would appreciate if you could check that line once more, in context of what is said in the source article, and I would (this time) really appreciate if you could give some suggestions - ultimately, I would like to push that article further up on the quality scale, hopefully to A and FA class. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not clear what line/ref you are addressing specifically. The article is a whole is in such bad shape anyway, it's hard to figure out what needs to go where. We have this awkward "Views" section, which already makes little sense, and of course his actual career is totally underdeveloped. What really matters in regard to views is his position re:Serbia, for which he was roundly denounced at various times--that needs to be thematized in the structure of the article. I mean, I can see a couple of things to tweak in that section, but there are much bigger fish to fry in that article. As for his looks--I grew up in the 80s, and he sure didn't look like that then, haha. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday I tried to edit the Handke article a bit, separating the sections in more conventional way, but development of a section concerning his views and activities vis-à-vis support for wartime Serbia and Milosevic, and the international response to the Nobel Prize, is almost impossible. I also thought that Jingiby did good, relatively, but I tend to agree with OyMosby, who thinks that some short quotes/paraphrasing of these reactions should be included nevertheless, as they are significant, and as you concluded above, and I would go on to say that they are most important issue surrounding Handke as a character and as an author at this point.

The line - it's the line you used in your comment to point to my overly editorialized (which I admit is true, especially looking out of context through your comment) input in Handke article - I wrote: "confirmed general public and media mood surrounding both Handke's award and opinions and attitude toward Bosnian genocide denial", and looking like this, striped bare of context, it is editorializing. But, in sourced text German novelist Martin Walser says: "Handke is just being completely dismissed, in every respect morally, politically and professionally. It's all part of the war mood which I find a bit frightening." So, I tried to paraphrase that into one-liner, I think without using direct quote. In another article, Bosnian genocide denial, which I mentioned as GA above, this line is also used but with direct quote in addition. So, I worry that maybe, regardless of direct quote, my paraphrase isn't that good (although, few editors who vetted and extensively discussed GA promotion were all good-to-native English speaking experienced senior editors), so, while we are at it, I wouldn't mind your suggestion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem with "Walser confirmed the general mood" is that it asserts, in Wikipedia's voice, that there is a general mood and it's negative, and you cannot state that so objectively. What you can say to open such a paragraph/section is something like "There was widespread dissent/controversy/consternation/condemnation/whatever when Handke was awarded the Nobel prize, because of his stance on Serbia. For instance, German novelist Walser argued that Handke had lost all respect among fellow writers, and was 'being completely dismissed, in every respect morally, politically and professionally'". Now I agree that some quotes are fine--you just need to pick them carefully, from the most important people. Quoting (and certainly listing) Sontag and Finkielkraut might be more powerful. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, your idea is better. I need to change this on "Bosnian genocide denial" piece, using exactly this method - shortening quote, and inserting (para)phrasing intro at the sentence beginning and discarding independent clause. Take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

My reverts

Thanks for pointing out my incorrect revert of OrganicAgSuzJToryB's edit to Mariannette Miller-Meeks. I think part of the reason I reverted it was because it appeared to be well-sourced and had been reverted before, but now I realize that I did not look close enough. I should have assumed good faith. Thanks again! --GalaxyDog^talk 20:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:GalaxyDog, I saw the last of the reverts, and was pretty close to indef-blocking the editor, so this was also a reminder to myself. Thanks; I appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Catherine Czerkawska

Between you and me, we gave it a good trim. I know her BBC stuff is notable, but so much of her writing is self published it's hard to tell if she's a notable author. Part of why I stripped the lengthy bibliography. THoughts? StarM 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah those lists are crazy long, aren't they. And I hate it when they are so poorly written up--no bibliographic information, and no secondary sources. I try to write up articles where every book title has a review as a note. So I looked, sort of randomly, at "The Devil and Mary Lamont" (god, even that entry was incorrectly formatted--let me clean that up real quick--ha, if you click on "Edit" you'll see why it's so fucked up), and it turns out that there is stuff worth saying about it. So what we have is just another awful article on a notable person where now that I looked at that book, Edinburgh History of Scottish Literature: Modern Transformations, I can't discard any of the titles. See, I'm not sure what you looked at that was self-published, but if it's a play, that's fine--as long as it is performed, and the performances are notable, for instance. Someone just needs to love on that article. I might do some of that, and maybe you can do some too, haha.

  Oh, now that I look over the entirety of your edit--yeah, that had to go, and I see what you mean. Good edit. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

oh the formatting. I think it was copy/pasted from somewhere hence the format mess. Not copyvio, but that she supplies the same bio info to festival sites and other literary resumes and kablooey. I actually contemplated keeping the list and knocking out the paragraphs, but found prose easier to source. Her BBC work is notable and some of her later books have some good coverage, there's just a lot there and some isn't clear. I was hoping to be able to source Dundee shortlist, but no luck. I'll keep at it. StarM 01:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right about the formatting. I added a few words and that one source. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, with some TLC and some plowing through the news archives this can be a nice little article, on an author of some note. There's a few things on JSTOR which I'll get to in a moment. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah that was a nice tag team. Glad I found it in one of the backlogs. I think it was the too many ELs one as I've been working through that lately. Love when you find an unloved article that is really a nice "add" to the encyclopedia these days. You had some scholarly sources that I didn't turn up, so glad it showed in your watchlist too - or however you found it. StarM 15:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Jacy Reese Anthis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bodole (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Aw boohoo. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodole (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm thinking I should get a discount there as a frequent visitor. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I hate to belabor the discussion but I think that should encourage you to reflect on your behavior. You seem to have good intentions but the way you go about making changes can be disruptive and harmful to the community, especially "inexperienced" editors like myself. Bodole (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    • That's funny, my wife often tells me the same thing. Anyway, for an "inexperienced" editor you're awfully adept at telling me what's acceptable and what's not in this project. And I don't want you here on my talk page: you are being a bit of a bore, you insult my intelligence and experience, and now you're dragging me off to the court of popular opinion again. What I want to tell you is something that actually won't get me blocked (I've been around long enough to know that), but my wife would tsk tsk me for it, and we can't have that. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hamamat Montia

Thanks for looking at this. It was outside my usual interests and wasn't sure where to raise it. The original diff is still visible where the contentious material was added Lyndaship (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• You're right--thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

sigh...

You and I have spent a considerable amount of time cleaning up the garbage at Sam Heydt and it doesn't appear to be much better from 2018 wrt actual notability. Artists are definitely not my forte in terms of notability but searching doesn't reveal the coverage I'd expect (and personally require) for someone with all the claims being made in her article. Thoughts on AFDing? Praxidicae (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your Coupon Book

	AN/I Coupons
	I don't speak Russian, but I'm pretty these say "buy one BOOMERANG, get one 50% off." creffett (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, boomerang throw you. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Kosner

Hey @Drmies: thanks for your close on Kosner. Not an easy call but I think you summarized the whole issue very well, and I agree with your reasoning. -Darouet (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'll thank you for the first comment, and I appreciate the note. I am not sure how else this could have been closed. The BLP is sacrosanct for me. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

PediaPress new AfD

Hi, I see that you voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PediaPress. This is to advise you that the article is up for AfD once again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, that was ELEVEN YEARS AGO!!! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

IP Block

Hi @Drmies, I checked the block log and saw that you blocked this IP from editing for 3 months in 2015. They seem to be back at it now. [1][2] xRENEGADEx 21:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks--not likely the same person, but I blocked them. Ha, that block was in 2015; I didn't realize I was an admin already then, just dropping three-month long IP blocks and being "abusive". Drmies (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. xRENEGADEx 22:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XRENEGADEx (talk • contribs)

Kosner close

I may only agree to about 50%, but thanks anyway. I wonder if we should make some sort of shortcut, like WP:JEWTAGGING, to it for easy future reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I thank you too, very much. I was beginning to think that would never go away, and I can't see any reason to go around the circle one more time. Should have been closed a long time ago. Maybe this will prompt a much needed RFC. Thanks again Drmies. Zaereth (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You say "Maybe this will prompt a much needed RFC." Do you mean an RfC to consider removing the "Jewish" designation from articles such as Boesky, Madoff, Berkowitz, and Epstein? The subject of the article obviously did not primarily want "Jewish" removed from their biography. The subject of the article wanted Wikipedia to adopt the "commonsensical standard" they find at the New York Times (concerning a wide variety of identities). The subject of the article obviously does not care that they are known to be Jewish at Wikipedia or anywhere else. If that were not the case they would not be writing in Commentary (magazine) that they are proud to be Jewish. The title of their article is "Jew-Tagging @Wikipedia". They are talking about Wikipedia. They aren't talking primarily about their own article. Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about an RFC to sort out all that tornado of comments spiraling out of control. I really don't know much about Jew tagging, and have no clue who these people are or why they are relevant to this discussion. I grew up in a world far removed from anything like that, where racism was some strange concept they taught us about in history class and religion is something you just don't discuss with other people, but I can tell you are very passionate about the subject in general. That's ok, but isn't it possible that passion can cloud objectivity? Maybe just a little? Just a wee bit? At any rate, you all need to have this discussion in a format where a consensus can more easily be determined, because that's all but impossible to do with what we have at BLPN.

That's all I'm saying. Make your best case, let everyone else make theirs, and let the ball roll where it may. There is no point in arguing with people whose minds you'll never change. (It's not a case of last one to get a word in wins. You get one good shot, maybe two, to convince the rest of us whose minds can be changed, or all those who haven't made up their minds yet, and the rest is mostly wasted breath.) All I'm saying is the RFC format is a much better way to determine an actual consensus. I'm not going to restart this discussion on poor Drmies' page. Start an RFC on whatever's got you so worked up, but then accept whatever result comes from it, and whatever it is, pat yourself on the back for trying your best. I won't be there, because those are things that just don't interest me beyond their psychological/neuropsychological implications. Zaereth (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You can start whatever RfC you like, Bus stop, where you can extrapolate all you like; the RfC was on a much more narrow question. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies—you write "Jewishness" is a category that is difficult to identify. Not even remotely correct and certainly not the case in this instance. They are Jewish. Nobody is questioning that they are Jewish. They are a nonobservant Jew. Reliable sources support that they are Jewish and they are saying they are proudly Jewish. They could have said they don't consider themselves Jewish and the designation would have been immediately and uncontestedly removed. Bus stop (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

But of course they did not say they don't consider themselves Jewish. They said the opposite. They said they considered themselves proudly Jewish. Are you addressing that in this close? Bus stop (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I really have no interest in pursuing this with you here, in case you hadn't noticed. If you want to challenge my close, that's fine, but take it elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be grateful for an RfC that could generate some simple, comprehensible paragraph of policy. The lack of a clear standard creates unnecessary bitterness and bad feeling, e.g. at Katie Bouman. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that all of these matters can easily be captured in a simple paragraph. Imagine, and let's pretend we're all Americans here, in the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, only people who claim to be colorblind will disregard the color of the victims and the (alleged) killers. And back in the old days every single newspaper article, and every novelist and short story writer, would mark a colored person or character as colored, white being a default. Now when should we mark, in Wikipedia articles or elsewhere, whether someone was colored or not? I think reasonable people would agree that it depends on the circumstances--but what those circumstances might be and how they dictate things is not easy. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maria Fearing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anniston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Current Event

Hi, Drmies. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_8303&action=history, as some entries here could be used to bypass filters. Thanks, Randompointofview (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC).

• Randompointofview, I'm not quite sure what you mean, what edits or filters you're talking about, or what I am supposed to do about it. I really don't know the first thing about filters, except that 1050 means instant block. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• I meant to ask you to redact (using RevDel or similar) some of the entries from a LTA that is known for bypassing filters such as 1050 by reusing URLs of previous edits that later get reverted. Due to this, many edits from this LTA have already been redacted from the public records. This is the LTA related to that filter. You might need to see the second page of the history. I chose not to directly mention RevDel on my first request due to concerns about the LTA searching for this. Thank you, Randompointofview (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC).
  • Gotcha. But if you're going to speak in code, might as well email me and speak clearly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Akbar

I'm about to put it under ECP (for IPA). For very good reasons. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Done. I haven't reverted though. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Connie Glynn

Dear Drmies, i agree with you on the info "was diagnosed with Addison's" - but on the next info on her ptsd, the link is a report and interview with her, so i don't understand why you also deleted this info. I'm - by the way - the person, who translated the article for the German wikipedia and i saw all the vandalism on the english page and asked for protecting it, which worked fine. To me it feels as if we might be erasing too much info - especially if she herself delivered it. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• If info is delivered by the person themselves, all the more reason to not include it: if we simply copied what some notable person said about themselves, imagine how much we would be typing here. (Obviously Ahecht disagrees, merrily sourcing things to the subject's own YouTube channel: Ahecht, if these things are important, surely reliable sources would have reported on them.) And I do not think that this link amounts to much; I do not think that TenEighty, "a celebration of internet culture", is so great at investigative journalism. If they publish this interview with her, it does not mean that the information is verified--it only means that we can probably trust that she said it, not that it's correct or that it's that important. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The sentence I restored was supported by citations to teneightymagazine and unitedbypop. The original sentence included a reference to her YouTube channel, which I kept in conjunction with the secondary source per WP:BLPPRIMARY, but I specifically chose to restore that sentence because of the availability of third-party citations. While I agree that neither of those sources would hold up in a notability discussion, they're fine from a verifiability standpoint. I have no problem with you removing the Addison's and PTSD parts, but I felt that a mention of her changing her online name and persona were crucial to understanding the article -- as the article stood before I edited it, a reader would see no mention of "Noodlerella" in the article but most of the references being about "Noodlerella", and would read about this person's "pink" persona while finding that none of the videos that exist match that description. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 15:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Ahecht, thank you; I appreciate the note. If you find stronger sources than those two websites that would be great: TenEighty has no information on any editorial board or policy, and United By Pop is an online community kind of site which, and I say this after reading it over, is really worse than I thought. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I still find to erase her PTSD a kind of cencorship - especially as i get the impression that it is an issue of the bookselling company that they don't want this info to be on the internet and i also get the impression that Connie Glynn herself is trying to get this info off the internet as she seems to focus on her career as a serious writer. I don't think that we should support this, for me it really looks very much like a PR-manipulation! Of course I accecpt your decision, but i don't think it's the right thing to do to erase her PTSD, sorry. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but I'm not "erasing her PTSD"--let's not confuse reality with what's being said about someone on a website. I have no idea what this has to do with a bookselling company, and I assure you that I am not paid by a bookselling company, or by the subject, whom I don't know from Eve. WP:V is the first thing that matters here, and WP:RS the second. Again, imagine repeating everything that the subject said about themselves. Or, not everything! so which things should we mention and which things should we leave out? That's well beyond editorial judgment--that's original research and POV judgment. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Had to mention you there, in passing, but nothing to worry about. ——Serial ^# 13:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

NFINIT

Hi Drmies, pls have again a closer look at NFINIT as soon as you find some time... almost the same edits as the COI User by a totally new one... seems to be COI/Advert again. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• CommanderWaterford, I'm wondering if you shouldn't just take this to AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mail call

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Now you have two emails from me. The second is much shorter - very much shorter :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sent you another one. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——Serial ^# 09:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, we have rules for those? Drmies (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  I want one, then. I have an interest in recently deceased people, pictured on the Main page yesterday Dmitri Smirnov, composer and Wikipedian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  I have an interest in recently deceased people too, but I find it creeps people out when I talk about it. EEng 15:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  Multiple personality alert! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  Since I did not want to refactor Gerda's edit I will leave this link Dmitri Smirnov (composer) for those who - like me - went to the dab page first. Regards to all. MarnetteD|Talk 16:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Drmies, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Nine Years of Adminship!

Wishing Drmies a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Chris troutman, that is very kind of you. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Quick question

Regarding this case, is there a reason not to block the /64? It looks to be them all the way back to Feb 2020.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's only one reason, Ponyo, and that is my ignorance. Please go for it! Thanks...! I gotta go: I need to learn how to glaze windows, which is much more useful than glazing cupcakes. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not as tasty though.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: 澳門政府部門基礎資訊

Its suppose to be an infobox, I forgot the brackets. -_- User:Keith chau yet —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• You know this is the English wiki, right? Drmies (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keith chau yet, I just saw Template:Pension Fund(Macao). I have the feeling you don't really know what you are doing... Drmies (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I know, I just forgot to change the Name, I'm suppose to name it Pension Fund (Macao)Keith chau yet (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Pension_Fund_(Macao) Plz help me check, why is it not converting into wikitext? Keith chau yet (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • What is "it"? what are you trying to do? I'm not a template expert, by the way. Maybe you should ask at WP:VILLAGE PUMP. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

HArdy ha-ha blocks

What i wanna know is how they evade their blocks and create new user accounts. Cheers, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

New User:Sunny bharat/User:Kumarjatji Sock

Same style of edit summaries (Kumarjatji, Segabrand), same area of edits and mostly the same articles, and most importantly same style of complaining. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• I see it, but I think it's time to start an SPI and get some paperwork on it; I'm saying this also because there's one that I am not so sure of. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Just did. Thanks for the advice. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I hate to bother you but the suspected sock has now taken to because he/she doesn't like the name despite WP:COMMONNAME being explained. This was also a Pschhonkar habit. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

134.41.81.80

So the guy is blocked, all his contribution hidden, but the one on my talk page. --Nyook ^✉ 18:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi Drmies, can I know: How will I prevent some users from messaging my talk page?--Manwë986 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello?--Manwë986 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hello. You can ask them not to post on your talk page. Others are still allowed to post notifications, when they drag you to ANI for instance, but they are not allowed to post "regular" stuff anymore. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Is this about Jeanette Aw#Filmography and other works, and your, eh, dispute with Robertsky? You two should discuss this on the talk page, and if you do I will weigh in and say that the information you keep re-adding is superfluous, excessive, and distracting. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: It is an unfortunate artefact in almost all the BLP articles in Category:Singaporean television actresses and Category:Singaporean male television actors which a few of us well-meaning editors are trying to get rid of. robertsky (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I like to note first that I am in favor of Robertsky's design as commented over at the Singapore project and if you like to weigh in, you are welcome to leave a comment there as well! Thanks! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's already settled, Drmies. Thank you.--Manwë986 (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

TPA revocation

Hey Drmies, hope you are well. Would it be possible to revoke TPA for FirstSecondThirdMaybeForth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Star-crossed lovers question

I notice you were adamantly against the modern examples of that trope. May I ask why? You say "bad sourcing" but in pretty much all cases these were romantic couples where death intervened. It seems a little arbitrary to demand a scholar somewhere deem them so. And in many cases those entries had been debated and passed muster before because they did have an authoritative source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearghast (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• First of all, secondary sourcing is required. Second, there is no good reason to give a list of examples. Imagine going to Beer and adding all the examples in fiction or reality where beer was drunk. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Now that sounds like a great idea! [7] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Gråbergs Gråa Sång, that I can live with, and sourcing wouldn't be a problem. I wonder if Fearghast is interested in adding all humans to Human. What they could do, of course, is pick up on some of the real notable ones and use the secondary literature on them to write up the article--but simply listing a bunch of names is probably more rewarding. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Grammer problem

Please blame the phone and an edit conflict for any indenting problems. What was thr grammar issue though? If that was just a polite way for asking for Diffs please let me know and I will add them. They are of course all on wiki.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I moved it down and added commas. Sorry my degree is in electrical engineering not writing :).AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Forget it. The second time I added it it, my whole comment turned into "givacy". I think that is a sign to stay away from ANI for awhile :). Have a nice night.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Columbia University is a smelly sock drawer

I know that CUs can't go on fishing expeditions but I'll wager a large sum of money that there are many sockpuppets continually cycling through Columbia University and its Talk page extending back many years. ElKevbo (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Imposter sock

Hi Drmies, regarding the tags on this page: User:STAY AT HOME FOR THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, it turns out that they are not a sock of STAY AT HOME FOR THE NHS, but rather a now-confirmed sock of Shingling334. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334. I wasn't sure if I should fix the tags myself, so I thought I'd let you know... --IamNotU (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• I see that Zzuuzz is already on top of it. God that person is pathetic. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz confirmed the identities in the SPI, but didn't change the sock's tag you had put on the user page. I would have fixed it myself but I got yelled at once by Bbb23 for changing socks while not an admin. I just went ahead and fixed it anyway though, because it feels like an ignore-all-rules day today... --IamNotU (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Harassment

Over the past couple of days, User:Veggies and User:Ed6767 have been harassing me on Mark Wahlberg, Talk:Mark Wahlberg, and User talk:PM800, including edit summaries. - PM800 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

PM800, would this be better suited for admin noticeboard? I'm sorry you feel that I have "harassed" you - but this diff is the only time I have ever said anything regarding you. I have no clue why you're dragging me into this. I would've preferred if you were upset with my comments, that you replied to my talk page comment so I could clarify.

I personally never harassed you in edit summaries either. On the talk page, my summaries have mainly been empty or reply-link ones, and in mainspace, I've made no comments past content either. If you can ping me with some diffs you see as "harassment" on my part, I can clarify. Thanks! Ed6767 talk! 00:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No one is "harassing" you. Stop being so melodramatic. At worst, all you've received is a mild ribbing for your obstinate, counter-to-consensus-building edits. Grow up. -- Veggies (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

PM800, if you call this "harassment", you are not going to get much traction here or at ANI. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Veggies, did you really use my edit to tell PM800 to "suck it down" lol? What does "suck it down" mean? What is the antecedent for "it"? What were you urging PM800 to "suck down", and what is my role, or my edit's role, in all of that? This isn't much in the way of harassment, but it is kind of dickish. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it was dickish, sure. I admit it. (It's a Duke Nukem 3D reference, btw). But this was after his repeated attempts to circumvent the ongoing discussion on the talk page by fiat and introduce inflammatory, non-POV material onto a BLP article. -- Veggies (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That was left-handed! Drmies (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

especially on the Vulcan mind meld. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi fellow Chinese government official running a paraganda campaign.

suspected pair of ganders, possibly plotting a campaign

That we are Chinese government officials running a Nazi Boogieman Paraganda(paranoid propaganda) campaign.? It's such a deep secret no one even told us![8] I'm tempted to put the whole thing on my user page! While I'm here, do you know anything about the Walkaway campaign? Doug Weller talk 09:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hey Boogieman--"walkaway"? You're talking about that Republican astroturf campaign that never caught on? Drmies (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This one.[9] Doug Weller talk 15:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

never doubt the geese - in India they are much more efficient than any other form of early warning system... JarrahTree 15:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm so confused! Is it the Commies, the Nazis or the Soul Train Dancers who are now in charge? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope it is the latter Geoff ;-) DW you mention WP:RGW in one of your posts on that talk page. In a case like this I think it should be renamed to "Wrong Great Rights." Any chance we can post that unblock diatribe to WP:BJAODN? Regards to all. MarnetteD|Talk 19:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly worth memorialising. Doug Weller talk 19:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please ask

Please go to the talk page before renaming an article I created; I am very specific in this. Right now I'm on mobile but will try to explain. City articles do not need the exact same terminology. This was established partly during the creation of COVID articles; 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Ohio did not need to match 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic because the outbreak didn't exist in Ohio in 2019. Same thing with this case. Most of the protests so far have been violent/riots. Ommission of this in the article title is misleading, incorrect, and making it seem much more mild than it actually is. ɱ (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources in the area mention riots significantly, in their naming of it as well. ɱ (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Most of the protests so far have been violent/riots"--are you serious? I don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. It's all a bit strange: the article mentions picketing and "shouting" first as tactics. Are those riotous? Elsewhere, there has been agreement that not all protests were riots and that "protest" was a good general term to use, even if there was riotous behavior; this is why George Floyd protests is called "George Floyd protests". Drmies (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been watching nearly every minute of the protests; there are countless violent acts, significant parts of nearly every protest-type event in the city. As said, the agreement that nationally it's mostly not riots does not apply to a specific city's incidents. ɱ (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've also read all the sources cited, have you? As an outsider, please do not pretend to understand the current situation in the city. There have been as many riots as protests. ɱ (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Plus why are you arguing it here? I'm so far the main contributor; meaning it's controversial enough to warrant the RM. Please revert your hurried edits and respond in the RM. ɱ (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's very clear I was deliberate in naming it that way before writing the midsize article. Why would you not respect it with the RM, instead opting to just go with your own opinion of the correct title? ɱ (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"I'm so far the main contributor; meaning it's controversial enough..." is a non sequitur. Are you done venting? Don't answer that. "As an outsider"--sheesh. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Reminds me of sitting outside the Pentagon decades ago protesting a “conflict” in SE Asia. Someone had a radio. We listened to MacNamara saying that “no tear gas has been used”, as we tried to wipe the clouds of stinging gas from our eyes. To some, every protest is a riot. MLK said: “A riot is the language of the unheard.” Showing my age now.. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah. Well, pepper spray was apparently used here, which (to the creator's credit) was in there. Hey, does the milk trick help? And did you see the images of cops removing and destroying a stash of milk and water jugs? I have never seen so much footage of police brutality in two or three days since the Civil Rights movement and maybe those demos you were part of--and my friend Cullen328, I imagine. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Missed this tp thread. @Objective3000: I was at Selma with King and tear gassed in Washington. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Doug Weller: Demonstrations so often feel pointless. Like the worldwide demos before Iraq war II that everyone knew wouldn’t matter. And, so many, many demonstrations against racism and police brutality. Or women’s rights, which is a different manner of racism, in my simple mind. One can look back at small victories, like La Amistad couple hundred years back; but few life changing moments in history. OTOH, there are seminal moments. We may have one. That’s what makes it feel worthwhile. Even though it seems they must require an horrific scene. Grecian and Elizabethan tragedies are about personal defects and how they affect those around them. (The good doctor can correct me here.) This is about problems that affect billions of people. Will they be forgotten, yet again? O3000 (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • And to some, when all you have is a Hammer, everything looks like a Nail. O3000 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

ANd deep freid okra. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

Two of the greatest American things are ice cream and that expression. And jazz. Hot wings. Hellman's mayo. (Though Lessieur is better.) Drmies (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Geef Mij Maar Nasi Goreng. Made it last weekend. O3000 (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Met een gebakken ei? Drmies (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I put quartered hard boiled eggs on the side. And, nothing beats homemade mayo, particularly when you use it in tartar sauce. Just doesn't keep. O3000 (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, since I was pinged here, I have to admit that I am not opposed to using the word "riot" in an article title, since I wrote 1970 Memorial Park riot, and that happens to be the only article I've worked on where I mentioned myself in the body of the article. By the way, I was arrested quite violently and brutally in the draft board incident mentioned in the article, but didn't have access to any reliable sources proving that. Now, I will go read the current article in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that naming consistency for the sub-articles is important while we are in the midst of this crisis, and once we have analytical coverage from secondary academic sources, we can revisit the issue of the article titles. So, I support Drmies and El-C at this time. Decisions influenced by intense emotion are often incorrect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

• Library Card Platform
• New partnerships
  • ProQuest
  • Springer Nature
  • BioOne
  • CEEOL
  • IWA Publishing
  • ICE Publishing
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

YUVA Unstoppable

Hi Drmies: I saw you replaced the tags on an article Yuva Unstoppable. There are a couple of dedicated editors who keep removing them without any changes. Do you see anything fishy here? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI I cleaned it up as best I could. The recent accounts and edits make me think of hosiery. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

hey these guys working on Yuva Unstoppable are more like UPE unstoppable. They just refbombed it with 40 or so references. Any ideas?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, Bbb23 to the rescue again. I checked one of them, I think, last week or so, but at the time found nothing. Drmies (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Urgent Action Needed regarding the 'WP:EW and possible Sock connection

They were repeatedly requested to go according to the consensus, as it didnt favor their views they are repeatedly removing WP:RS and adding original research contents. Zekelayla was the active vandal but after I seeked AIV now User:Joel B. Lewis is taking the turn. Check their revision histories in the George Floyd protests. [10] and [11]. User:Joel B. Lewis in particular has removed almost the entire death section [12] and all WP:RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, please block this incompetent: they're repeatedly inserting material directly contradicted by sources, accusing others of vandalism, inappropriately reverting other users on their own talk pages, etc. (If it makes your life easier to also block me for edit-warring at the same time, I do not object.) --JBL (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There have been a repeated request by you to reach a consensus, but that you wouldnt as it doesnt go on your favor and you desperately want to push your original research rather that WP:RS supported by the vast majority of editors. If I am the disruptive editor here let me be blocked, but if it is you then it is well deserved. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, you have a really cool username, and I have a set of speakers named for you. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been meaning to mention that. Reminds me of my dad's hi-fi. EEng 19:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the audio note, as luck would have it I just got my order in from Sahel Sounds, and they sent me vinyl, though I ordered CDs. 78.26 would find that not just amusing but also right, I'm sure. (It was the debut album by the Les Filles de Illighadad, which I bought once already and managed to lose, an album by Mdou Moctar, and this rarity.) Drmies (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh wait, Northern Africa on vinyl? Drool. If i make an order, and they send CDs instead of vinyl, wanna trade? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I emailed them, and offered to send them a reasonable amount of money if they also send the CDs, so I don't have to pack up and return the albums. I'll keep you posted, haha. Listening to this right now--it opens with a ballad and at almost four minutes in he hits it with some hard dabke. Woohoo Omar Souleyman! Drmies (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

One thing I've been enjoying about being shut in (aside from edit warring with people who don't understand WP:OR) is following random musical suggestions -- these are great. (The previous thing I stumbled across this way and enjoyed was these guys.) --JBL (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'll tell my daughter--she's a ukelele player. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

she's a ukelele player Fabulous :) --JBL (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: Dilbagg now blocked for edit warring by Cryptic, which means Cryptic gets the check for $2.50 (the amount is low because it was so obvious). Cryptic, I was going to place a block like that and say something smart like "and the next admin should maybe block you from the topic area", because I think that's where we are headed. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you noticed [13]? Beyond bizarre. (Usually behavior associated with gaming some sort of edit count-based restrictions, but the pace seems too slow for that to be the explanation.) --JBL (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Haha, imagine a world without police, but with food and documentaries. Terrifying for some, I'm sure. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:United States unhelpful commentary

Talk:United_States#Issues_with_the_lede

This kind of snark in response to good-faith suggestions for improvement to a highly important, highly visible article is rude, unhelpful, and unbecoming of an admin. It drives editors away from the project. Please retract. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 14:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Your "good-faith suggestion" made a mockery of my actual edit. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • How on earth is that the case? −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 14:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not doing your labor for you. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Great, see you at ANI then. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 14:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
        • No you won't. And don't come back here. I find your emoji, which looks like you're flipping a bird, to be offensive, and it makes me sad. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see why this needs to escalate to ANI. There's an article talk page discussion that should proceed to focus on content. El_C 15:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree, El C--and I'm sorry, but I got kind of angry when someone pisses all over the initial good-faith edits that were made. It's foolish, because I almost completely agree with the content of their argument--but sheesh. So they come up with some fake complaint; I suppose I should not have come up with one myself, and yet I see a bird in that cactus, haha. Multivalent! Drmies (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• The ANI report has been closed as premature. This is not yet an intractable dispute. El_C 15:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• To be fair, El C, there isn't really a dispute pertaining to content. Cactus Jack thinks I'm an asshole, and while that is probably mutual, they're also claiming I'm exhibiting behavior unbecoming of an admin. Well. Anyway, thanks. BTW I was prompted to make those edits by that comment on the talk page--pretty sad that I, we, all of us never took action on that lead before. (I'm not sure I ever looked at that article, but that's no excuse I suppose.) Drmies (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like CactusJack is leaving the project over this. So, unfortunate outcome, regardless of anything. El_C 15:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• What. Well. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsolicited opinion, if ANI and quitting the project are someone's tools for dealing with conflict, staying on as a productive editor seems unlikely. 16:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s a stressful time for everyone, and it’s easy to spend too much time on this site right now. Hopefully he’ll calm down, take a break and come back as CactusJack2 or something. P-K3 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Revdel needed

You may also want to remove the automated edit summary here as you have hidden the username from the preceding edit. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Already removed as I presume the page watcher Zzuuzz saw this. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Avi Gopee

Please look at this with an eye to G4 and salt. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• It was previously deleted (twice) via G13, not after a deletion discussion, so G4 doesn't apply. One of the problems I have with draft space is that things can just linger and linger. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I see that now. I assumed the previous G4 was proper. My bad. Gotta wonder about the creator a bit though. John from Idegon (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ppssst...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avi Gopee.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, so G4 is fine if the draft is substantially the same? John from Idegon (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The draft is substantially different in that it has substantially less information than the one that was AfD'ed. It still fails to address the notability concerns raised in the AfD that led to the deletion, so someone could still WP:IAR G4 it. I've salted Avi Gopee, so an approved draft will be needed for it ever to see article space.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Shoot. That was me? OH NOW I SEE--I went through the history of the draft, not of the actual article. My mistake. Thanks Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. My invoice is in the mail.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I already Venmo'ed you a bunch of money, to the Cayman account. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
          • No no no! I said send it to the Caiman account! it's much more secure and only costs a finger or two per deposit.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks to you both. I hear you're gonna take your act on the road. Best of luck. John from Idegon (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You know, we're here all week. Don't forget the happy hour specials. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Bragging on my wife

Kingdom(Hearts)Come just discovered a copyvio that stood for fifteen years! (I did a big revdel on Kindercore Vinyl.) LadyofShalott 02:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Awesome! I think I know of that plant. I like vinyl fine, of course, though not as much as 78.26. I'd have told you that I got Les Filles de Illighadad on vinyl, if I hadn't been blocked on Facebook, haha. Two more days! And happy marriage, of course! Drmies (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! That record looks really cool. How'd you end up in FB jail this time? LadyofShalott 02:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

He found another, The Vinyl Factory, which actually got through AfC with copyvios. LadyofShalott 20:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing reverted

Hello, Drmies. Yesterday I made several constructive edits adding multiple secondary sources to the Horace Mann article, all which were confusingly reverted. The other editor refuses to engage on the talk page. Please take a look and see if they should be restored. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think I see two--besides a NYT article, there's this--but I don't see quite clearly how the information in the article is derived from/verified by that book. For instance, the "independence" in 1940, that's not in that book, as far as I can tell... In other words, it strikes me as a useful source but it doesn't verify the current content. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There are two references to 1940 in that paragraph, but you're right the independence one should remain with the HM reference. But it is a valuable secondary source that verifies other information there. I found an article that verifies the Dorr information, I updated info from the National Center for Education Statistics, and I also added a reference to some of the athletics information, which had an unverified section tag. Instead of just removing chunks of the article that are completely appropriate, I was trying to actually be constructive, address concerns, update information, and add more relevant citations. And I was going to continue doing so. But if my edits are going to continue to be reverted, why should I or anyone else bother? -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) In this situation, it can be helpful to break the edit down into its separate parts, as well as raising each of them on the talk page for discussion. So, write something like "Here are the things I propose to change: [bulleted list]. Please indicate which of these are acceptable and which are objectionable" or whatever. --JBL (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Right. What I might do, for starters, is just focus on that one paragraph and get that right. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
        • User:Drmies and User:Joel B. Lewis, all my individual edits as you recommended were again reverted by the editor with a hostile edit summary and my talk page comments were not addressed. Would you please review? They were fully constructive secondary sources that I added. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
          • It does not seem to me that you did what I suggested, namely raising each of them on the talk page for discussion. So I have no new advice to give you. Most of your edit looks unobjectionable to me, and if you propose them separately then you will probably be able to reach consensus pretty quickly that some of them are fine. --JBL (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you watching this?

[14]. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, I'm writing a lesson on Anne Bradstreet. Boy that screed rings hollow. As with so many of these socks, you just want to tell them to stop being a complete dick for a few minutes, and then we can talk. Of course there is serious underrepresentation in article space and among editors, but if you want to play on this website you have to know the rules. I haven't met User:Pathawi, but they seem to be doing good work. I found it interesting that Bbb did the lion's share of the work on the Middayexpress SPIs, but did not find a lot of socking in the last year or more--there is no link between the two, right? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm not sure although I have blocked some socks myself. I'd taken the article off my watchlist but this has led me to put it back. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Chiming in where I wasn't invited, but the User:Hoaeter-affiliated socks seem to have held the opposing view of those affiliated with Middayexpress. I think the current pattern goes back to User:Habesha Union, if not User:EthiopianHabesha (who would have overlapped (again, on opposing sides) with Middayexpress). It's not just the article at this point, but also related pages such as templates and categories. I'm not sure what to do about it all that would be more productive than shaking my fists in the air. (I'm certain there are bigger problems elsewhere on Wikipedia than this.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• You know I kind of liked Midday. At least he wasn't dumb. Wrong, yes. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Olive branch

With hindsight I now see that I massively overreacted to your comments on Talk:United States. I'd been awake more than 24 hours, and I was severely stressed due to some personal stuff, but that's not an excuse; I should have had the sense to log off Wikipedia and wait until I was in a better state of mind. I'm ready to leave that in the past and move on in working on improving the United States article. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 01:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• CactusJack, you're a magnificent editor, from what I can tell, and I thank you for your note and your return. Take care. I was hoping to hear from you at some point. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Help a fella out?

I've been working toward unblocking this user. Bbb23 was a declining admin and advised the SO three months ago.. He has not responded to my pings. I have no wish to aggravate him further. I cannot proceed without him after a recent unblock debacle especially. What would you suggest? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know about any debacle, but if you don't hear from the blocking admin, well, I suppose you should proceed. But maybe that's a thing you can post about on AN. I was thinking this was a CU matter, but it's not. BTW why should this user be considered for early release? I know they've done good work, and I'm not really actually familiar with the block or its circumstances, but I suppose it was serious enough. Maybe AN is a good venue: let the community decide. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I decided to ask them to wait. NRP prompted me to pull my finger out. They took it encouragingly well. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 04:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

wikt:Bruv

It's British. What will those Transpondians come up with next? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 04:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Really? Wow...das cray. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Gettin' old. Can't keep up with the new slang. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 04:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

War redeclared on Talk:American Revolutionary War

Two groups of editors have flooded the article's talk page with a endless cycle of editor accusations and counter-accusations, drowning out any suggestion of actually improving the article. I tried to point out how disruptive this "us vs. them" cycle is, and got the response "Yeah, and it's their fault!" immediately followed by "no, it's yours!".

My question: is there any kind of standard remedy for this kind of thing, like protecting the talk page for a while? I mean, anything besides just standing back and watching the talk page burn while those involved throw either gas or petrol on it, depending on which side they've joined. All the editors seem valued and experienced, and certainly have better ways to contribute than this, and, of course, meanwhile the article itself isn't getting improved. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Loki's hoof - that is a disaster of a talk page. I wouldn't even know where to begin, although there was a tiny part of me that was tempted to ban everyone who was using excessive markup on the talk page... --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Nuke the entire talk page from orbit. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I was going with "block em all and let Jimbo sort them out". Drmies (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey what a mess. I tried to read over some material but there is too much of it. Some people are really going too far (Dilidor's comments are over the top), and some people like their formatting way too much (with bold, underline, etc.). Is every single edit a subject of discussion there? Is there really a hoax? Is XavierGreen really the big disruptor? Etc. No, I don't really know what to do about any of that--except to chop up the controversy into individual RfCs... Drmies (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And sometimes I wonder...."Why don't I edit domestic articles?", then I read "BritClique" and "digital thuggery"... and I go back to editing dead French nobles.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing dead French nobles seems a morbid hobby. Maybe you could branch out and edit articles about them? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Granted, though it beats editing American political articles any day! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that part was pretty exciting. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll attempt to quickly explain my (tenuous) understanding of the basis of the talk page war, as this is hard to discern from the participants, who long ago left off discussing the underlying issues to focus solely on "victory".

The two sides might be described as American-centric (side A) and British-centric (side B). Side A thinks the article should focus more on the 13 colonies, while side B thinks the article should focus more on Europe and elsewhere, as once Britain lost a battle or two in America, rival European powers -- France Spain and the Netherlands -- took this as an opportunity to take Britain down a peg or two, expanding this into almost a world war, which continued for a while after American independence was recognized by Britain.

No editor disagrees on the events themselves, so it's just a matter of balance, right? But with the sides bitterly entrenched, every potential article edit is evaluated solely on the black-or-white basis how it might be even slightly advantageous for "us" or "them" (something like third world countries caught up in the Cold War; if you're not capitalist, you're communist -- there's no middle ground). In this environment, no wording of any RfC would be accepted as "neutral" by both sides.

We constantly urge editors to use the talk page for disputes, but I'd have to urge the opposite in this one case. That's why I asked about protecting the talk page for a bit. It seems contrary to all our normal methods, but this is a contrary talk page -- maybe an "anti-talk page", or even a "shout-page". Sigh.

I've a new idea: Of all the drama boards, 3RR seems to actually function pretty well. How about a "3 bold/italic/caps edits and you're out" rule? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ooh! We could call it "3 shouts you're out"! --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm that includes that thing where people cite in green? Well, I really don't know what to say, and the discussions there are so esoteric (for me) that I can't make heads or tails of it. It's like listening to a Tinariwen song when you don't know Tamasheq. Well, it's not great deserts blues either. 3O is probably not helpful here--which leaves only ArbCom? Or you wait for them all to grow old and die? Or...you just give up on this one, even though it's important and is frequently visited? Drmies (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Great Ghu! he plays guitar like Santana methinks. Maybe Clapton.Oddly compelling. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Glad you dig it. If we're going to be liking guitar, there's this--and of course Bombino, who is an f***ing god, and my favorite song is "Tamasheq" (look up Tamasheq...). But the REAL compelling stuff is Les Filles de Illighadad, like here. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Er, why can't the Brits stay on their own side of the Pond? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear god... that's a talk page in need of an RfC (or three dozen of them) if I've ever seen one. Problem is, I doubt anyone outside of the small group of editors already on that talk page has the desire to familiarize themselves with the endless minutiae being argued over -- and for good reason. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 04:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I need some help...

... as I do not understand what is happening.

I have AfD-ed NoMachine (reasoning: Looks like an advertisement (re-)created by an editor who confesses his COI. Most sources are company sources.) but for some strange reason there is no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoMachine as that redirects to Talk:NoMachine. I am left clueless here. HELP! The Banner talk 11:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think there might be a problem with a double redirect; the article was definitely up for deletion in times when the process was still called VfD....see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NoMachine...go to said page, which is redirected to the talk-page. A solution might be to rename it to an AfD2. Lectonar (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a first AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoMachine, which has also been redirected to the article talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your advice. The Banner talk 12:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Antonyo Awards

The Antonyo Awards are in their first year that are meant to celebrate black achievements, but they have been accepted and publicized by major musical theatre outlets such as Playbill, Broadway.com, and BroadwayWorld and almost every major black Broadway celebrity, showing their validity. I think that if Braodway.com Audience Choice Awards have a space in Wikipedia, the Antonyo Awards do too. One user deleted the Antonyo Awards from many, many pages despite all having references from credible theatre news outlets. This is racism and silencing black voices. So please let me revert these edits and allow black theatre members to get the appreciation and recognition they deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggied875 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Convention is that awards are listed if they are proven notable; the easiest way to do that is to write the article for them. That's not a lot of work, if indeed they are verifiably notable. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• (talk page stalker) @Maggied875: Feel free to add your inputs here, Draft:Antonyo Awards. – robertsky (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I made one, is it 'notable' yet? The Antonyo Awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggied875 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nice work. The thing is, we can't tell of course it will stick, but for now you've done what you needed to do. I'm wondering, with a bit of tinkering we might could get this on the front page, in the DYK section. Beyond My Ken, you know Broadway better than me, how about it? Drmies (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Flying duck

Heard you didn't have a flying duck, so. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein)

I miss the ostrich :( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I miss you, and Sitush, and Child of Midnight, and Kelapstick, and Bongomatic, and Sitush... I miss Wadewitz. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for indefinitely semi protecting my user talkpage. The harassment was really out of control this time. IanDBeacon (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's pretty sad. Thanks. I hope it doesn't get to you too much. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

UTRS #31238

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31238 (Lazy-restless) Do you UTRS. If, not, you should! All the cool admins are doing it, and besides, this appeal might have merit. Cheers, --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

PS. If you click the link, you will get a message saying you are not authorized. Then you will get an email saying you are. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I saw--very exciting interface. I thought it was emails, but this looks like some kind of messaging system? Yeah, sure--I mean, keeping WP:LEASH in mind. I'm not totally convinced, but I'm fine with it I guess. Is MER-C on board? Drmies (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not on UTRS. Either way, the editor hasn't addressed their copyright violations so the appeal should be denied. MER-C 17:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:George Washington and slavery

No talkspace isn't a forum, or not a very good one anyway. Policies change here and I just learned I could not make this entry without login which I could have done a while back. When I said change I meant it in the context of that article and the changes under discussion, viz. change in fundamental social relations. If these are determined by the prevailing social basis in question, then it wasn't quite right to say they were unchanged since in fact thay have radically intensified. It's certainly true that the public life of the United States and the parts of the world under its influence are radically different from what it was at the start of the 1960s. The current police brutality frisson which becomes insensibly a race frisson distracts from that change, which while not fundamental is considerable and not just in the south. In some sense however, I think it's the case that things are really very much the same, in most of the black and the non-college white communities for example but not only there. Examples of social change that really are fundamental: France 1789, Russia 1917, the United States in 1861 or 1933. The change that occurred in the 1960's is not IMO any more fundamental than that that occurred in the 1920s and there has never been so fundamental a change as occurred in Russia or France including the nation state formation struggle with the British empire. Change which is an intensification of a prior state, I'm disregarding.

On the matter of fact, I in fact do think it is an anachronism to say that Geo Washington was a racist and probably just false for a reasonable definition. After all a substantial portion pushing for such a declaration don't believe race is anything more than a social construct, which in time will in fact be if it so defined as different from the physiological basis of ancestry. Lycurgus (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Race being a social construct doesn't mean that there's no racists. Racists believe, incorrectly, that race is a basis to determine moral, intellectual, and other qualities. Anyway, fun fact, George Washington lived in the same time and place as the Quakers, and guess what. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of them (the Quakers (or other Christian sects)) owned slaves too? ( History_of_the_Quakers#The abolition of slavery ). Lycurgus (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    • We're not on Facebook, but we're approaching that level. Yes, and then most of them changed their minds. Or did you just read the first paragraph. And is it an anachronism to say Washington was a racist because everyone was? And doesn't that mean that "everyone" includes White people only? Don't you think that the victims of legalized slavery/institutional racism might have, ahem, had a slightly different view? Drmies (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't use Facebook, except for dev purpose. It's an anachronism because it's the post hoc application of a term generations before a time in which a social consciousness existed that would allow it to make sense. An no all of the slave owners weren't white. I imagine the number of free black slaveowners was at least as large as the number of Quaker ones, but want to end this here so not providing a ref for it. Lycurgus (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
      • You are extraordinary good at totally missing the point. One wonders if people during the era of phlogiston could be accurately described as "breathing". Drmies (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Lycurgus, I think you've known for a while that you were able to edit while logged out, including on that talk page. I need you to stop doing that, because it's disruptive and blockable. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on the B/O Templates

Glad that you noticed the templates on Institutional racism. I don't usually answer but you made me aware of how my POV may have affected my answer to having tags placed that make the article seem contested, when we did contest it 5 years ago quite extensively, as I recall some of the fights resulted in time-outs. I wanted to call the editor out for what I see as a white-wash, but that term has been shelved as it is seen as combative. Using verbosity and non-neutral POV as leverage to make an article on what are valid complaints of people of color against the 'system' is a tired trope from intellectuals who want to provide 'cover'- but not violate WP rules against such actions. If an editor adds to an article or raises valid questions about grammar, I'm stepping back and lurking in the shadows. This was a whistle that I had to call out, I was just waiting for someone else to do so first so I couldn't be accused of claiming ownership. In the end, If I ignore the larger attempts to de-legitimize the argument I originally made, and no one else does, the argument can then be made to delete the article. Thanks for seeing the greater picture... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way?

Is there a way to stop this Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 00:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, it's some dude without much of a life. He's been doing this for years, still hasn't grown out of it. It's like when you have a bunch of dogs living on your street, and they shit on your sidewalk, and you just have to live with it... Drmies (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Didn't realize N*zi was a swear word... Primefac (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

About Draft:Victor Ramraj and ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature

Hi Drmies,

• Draft:Victor Ramraj has been listed for deletion under the WP:G13 criterion. I would dearly like to contest the deletion, but it would appear to me that text of the article has copied and pasted from the sources in that draft.
• I can see that there has never been an article or draft for this JHU journal

Your thoughts about these matters?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well Fastily deleted it--you could have just deleted the deletion tag, at least for the while: anyone with some good faith will accept that. Why don't you just copy the part that's not stolen, put it in a new draft and add whatever is necessary, and make a note in your first edit summary attributing (some of the) content to that user who wrote the draft? Drmies (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• arial doesn't have an article? Hmm. They're old enough, well-known enough, indexed enough: please write it up. Odd they're not indexed in JSTOR--that's JSTOR's mistake. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Talk page stalker comment - I don't see anything in the deleted draft that raised copyvio concerns. It looks like a bunch of quotes in quotation templates with attribution, so it wouldn't fly as an article in that shape, but the individual quotes are not substantial enough to go beyond what is permissible. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Thx BD! Drmies (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks all. Oh, my undergraduate days... the best thirteen and a half years of my life. Pete AU (BA, BA (hons), Grad.Dip.Ed, LLB, Grad.Dip.Legal Practice and so on) --Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Shirt58: you can request restoration of the draft at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It shouldn't be a problem. BD2412 T 02:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you allowed to say that?

Is it okay for you to put "fuck you" in a block notice? I was surprised to see that and I'm wondering if I misunderstood something. Who's Nate? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see he's a known blocked user, but I still thought we had some standards around here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It's probably not OK, but I've blocked this asshole so often that I'm sick of him. You can denounce me on ANI if you like. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not following the spirit of WP:DENY, but I can't really blame you Drmies, that guy seems like a pain. Go make a cup of something hot/refreshing, and keep up the hard work :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ideally, yes. But dealing with long term harassment from LTA's is a less than ideal situation. I have been able to remain mostly calm over the years, but I have been sorely tested recently as the LTA's have started to notice me too. It can be quite unnerving. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I am starting to hate these LTAs. And this moron who goes PUNCHES YOU IN THE HEAD FUCK OFF FUCK OFF, what else can you say but "fuck off"? Really, what we should be able to say is "the WMF has taken out a court order against you". Drmies (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth: Being polite to these types of editors is inapproporiate as far as I'm concerned. Once it gets to that point, by all means tell them to fuck off, tell them whatever you want. It definitely won't offend me. Coming down hard on the assholes is the only way to deal with these situations. SolarFlash^Discussion 20:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. (rant omitted). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

In general it's best to stay calm. But admins are not inhuman and sometimes we have to put up with a lot of fecal matter. I vaguely recall a particularly pernicious and low brow vandal who after blocking for about the 6th time in a 30 minute period, I may have suggested that they try something that I have been told is anatomically impossible. It's also possible I may have used slightly different language. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha, yes. Captain Eek, I forgot you're an admin--woohoo! Good for you. Please meet Nate Speed, who hasn't had a date since at least 2007, and how could he, with those manners. Ad Orientem, I don't usually cuss at these a-holes, but this one is special. With others, there's other approaches, and let's hope that the FBI is finally taking this harassment seriously. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

How does one draw the FBI's attention to such edits? Asking for a fiend. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha, old Nate was now PUNCHING via email. Deeprfriedokra, this happened because the WMF got involved. Your friend might want to contact User:Kalliope (WMF). Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@SolarFlash: But then how would I ever deploy my Joachim Steubenesque sardonic wit? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hi, recently you blocked a couple of accounts and some IPs for socking, original discussion found here.

There seem to be a couple of new IPs evading the block, as they're attempting the make the same identical edit to the same article. The IPs are Special:Contributions/107.77.226.186 and Special:Contributions/107.77.226.129. Quiet Riot is the article again being targeted. Best regards. SolarFlash^Discussion 19:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, that hair metal nonsense? I'll have a look. Meanwhile, maybe it's worthwhile starting an WP:SPI, if there isn't one already. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I'll keep an eye on it for now, maybe they've finally lost interest. SolarFlash^Discussion 23:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Please reopen Dixie Chicks for moving

Protecting Dixie Chicks without moving its contents to The Chicks goes against consensus.--BaseFree (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am not sure you understand how this works. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• (talk page watcher) @BaseFree: Admins protect a page to stop disruption and to allow consensus to emerge. Once consensus is reached, the page can be moved to the version supported by consensus. At this point, I don't think there is a consensus, at least not on the talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

BaseFree, consensus was reached to keep "Dixie Chicks". The fact you don't like the outcome is neither here nor there. Cassianto^Talk 06:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Actually Cassianto, that's not what has happened. The RM was procedurally closed, as it was to move "The Chicks"→"Dixie Chicks". Since it is already at that title, and move protected, the RM was closed as moot. If any editor wants, they could open a new RM for Dixie Chicks→The Chicks (band). (Not that I'd advise it. COMMONNAME clearly applies) John from Idegon (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  John from Idegon, I see, thanks. Cassianto^Talk 08:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's a whole bunch of unnecessary stuff. Someone moved it to the new, correct name, someone moved it back for no good reason at all, someone closed down a discussion that was leaning hard toward moving it back to the correct name, saying that, ahem, it was the opposite. And now we have a new move discussion--*lesigh*--which will be a landslide. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies, couldn't agree more. You definitely did the right thing protecting the page during the discussion to save a move war but the "procedural close" of a discussion that was clearly heading towards consensus to move to their new name was somewhat bewildering. No doubt the new one will be SNOW closed soon but the non-admin closure a few hours after the discussion was reopened was a little frustrating. Glen 13:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks--yes, I did not understand that close at all. But it will all come out in the wash. We're big Dixie Chicks fan here at Casa Drmies, and we're all still getting used to the name. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you allowed to say that? Part 2

Talk:The_1619_Project#Issue_of_Hannah-Jones's_negative_statements_about_white_people_are_relevant has the comment "clutched their pearls and removed 'crock of BS' and 'drive-by editors dumping', but had nothing of substance to add." Considering your experience, could you say why this wording is allowable? I'm just reading WP:PERSONALATTACKS "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated... personal attacks may lead to sanctions... Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together." The news reminds me of the need for bystanders to intervene against attacks. I see a similar discussion above from 3 days ago about a blocked user, though WP:PERSONALATTACKS says "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user." Numbersinstitute (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if I should entertain you or just hit rollback. "Drive-by editor" is someone who has done nothing for the article, but just comes by and tag bombs or drops random, inappropriate material. By all means look User:Stcalvert's resume and then assess their edit, which is clearly intended to criticize one of the founding figures of the project--a critique from an opinion piece in an unreliable and unabashedly right-wing joint, about something she wrote a whopping 25 years ago, and completely unrelated to the 1619 project. If that person wants to try and stick that in the article on the person, they can try, but in this article there is no place for it. Their rationale, "it is possible that her feelings may have biased the material in the project", what else is that but a crock of bullshit? Note I have said nothing about the person, only things about their actions. Are we done now? Or did you want to complain some more and defend someone who is the subject of criminal investigations for years and years of harassment, vandalism, and doxxing, someone who *gasp* was told to "fuck off"? Is that really a person you want to refer to as a "blocked user"? Really? Would you like for me to forward you some of the emails that person sends? I wonder if you could handle that if you already think "crock of BS" is a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Redaction

Would you consider this redaction edit to have been appropriate given the circumstances, or was it going overboard? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wait--didn't I just redact that also? Or partly? There was a particularly garbled sentence that I redacted only partly. Did you redact and someone undid it? I agree with that redaction of yours. I'm sure you saw that User:ProudOfYourMan is blocked as a sock; a previous incarnation, SJMccarthy, was trolling around some other talk pages. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  I redacted it 48 hours ago, but was reverted by another experienced editor for "going a bit overboard." I decided not to challenge that, but appreciate getting a second opinion here that confirms I should have trusted my instincts. On turning out that the offending editor was just a trolling sock, that certainly rings true; thanks for putting a stop to that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  Aha, I see. EEng, I disagree with this edit; my mileage varies, I guess! AzureCitizen, I just don't have time for that kind of foolishness. I never would have looked closer at that editor if they hadn't been committing these blatant violations seemingly prompted by a racist agenda. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well then I did a service by leaving it there for you to see. EEng 01:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's like every other editor I block turns out to be a sock. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Input on an Afd discussion for a page you've saved from a speedy delete?

You saved this page from a speedy delete a good eleven years ago, could I get your input on it's Afd page? Cheers

• Ha, I think there isn't much I can do there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI

I saw after I left the DS notice but I alerted this editor whom you've previously warned about List of sex symbols after I removed half dozen entries that were sourced to garbage or had a contradicting source. Praxidicae (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• That whole stupid article is a f***ing disaster anyway. I'll have a look--maybe it's time for a block for disruptive editing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Administrator changes

Malcolmxl5

John • TheCoffee • Tim!

Creffett → GeneralNotability

DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes

Bbb23

Interface administrator changes

TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks button abuse

They've been doing it to me too. Cassianto^Talk 12:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock blocked, Cass. Shout if any more come out of the woodwork. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, thanks Harry, will do. Cassianto^Talk 13:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Harry, I don't understand what I was looking at--I thought thank spam showed up in CU, but it offered nothing whatsoever. Anyway, thanks--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)