Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit waring/ content dispute by a User

[edit]

Hi dear,

This User has been warned not to remove content from the article which sufficiently sourced. Now she/he has changed her/his username and doing the exact same thing that was asked not to. Here [1] and here [2] and here they left me a message on my talk page "You have to listen to me"! [3] Can you see to it please?---Thanks, and have a nice day (Mona778 (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  • @MPS1992: Hi there, No, I didn't forget! Drmies and you are so endearing to me that it would be impossible for me to forget or ignore her recommendations! I am a little bit busy with my studies these days..., plus Drmies has only recommended did not request it! But she also as you know advised me to be careful about edit wars, therefore I decided to wait for the time being before editing again on that article. Have a great weekend (Mona778 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cruijffiaans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stream of consciousness. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of RS

[edit]

Hi Doc. Personal attacks and exclamation marks in edit summaries, in lieu of RS. Where? K-pop BLPs of course. Take care. Dr. K. 11:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the same editor is engaged in longterm edit-warring at that article; he reverted my DOB removal back in February 2016 imitating my edit-summary "QC", which stands for "Quality Control". Dr. K. 11:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What were you on about, dude?

[edit]
Good luck.

"Beyond my Ken is right - must be his lucky day. That weren't luck, that was wizdom and a lotta book larnin'. BMK (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, if I was for them, then they obviously weren't "superflouous" or "POV", pretty much by definition, as I can do no wrong - just ask my wife and kids. (Don't remember the incident, but I do tend to get caught up in my position, sometimes.)
    Hope you're all well down there. I'm recovering from having a cataract removed, and am now in the awkward situation that the surgery eye sees better without glasses, while the non-surgery eye (which had its cataract removed years ago) sees better with glasses, so I'm never quite sure which is going to work best, glasses or no glasses, and either way the image isn't quite gelling. Not enough to stop reading or working or doing my thing here, but enough to be intermittently annoying. I think it's making me cranky too. BMK (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cebr1979

[edit]

I think Cebr1979 should have been indeffed. He has already been blocked six times before now, showing that he is a repeat offender, and it is very likely we will have to deal with more of the same after the current block, should you choose to keep it at its current length, expire. He has proven to us time and time again that he can't change. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 03:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian roulette

[edit]

Could you drop by Talk:Vladimir Putin and start handing out blocks pretty much at random? VM and the Putinist editors are really getting into it. As you know warnings, gentle hints, etc. have absolutely no effect on these folks. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all the shouting it can be hard to tell who's who. I'm familiar with Marek from having seen him around (he has a great sense of humor when he's not being too serious). So he stands out simply because I recognize the name. There may even be a few brave souls from a more-or-less neutral perspective but it's hard to imagine anyone neutral sticking their head into that meat grinder. I wish VM could learn to just let things go sometimes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. But he's an Auburn fan, so what can one expect. I spent the last twenty minutes looking at that talk page and the recent edits, and there is plenty of reason to block three or four, maybe more editors--but I'm waffling, at least for now. There's not really much of a neutral perspective to be found among those editors, though in greatly varying degrees; the next stop, well, there's two: blocks for continuing assholery (a technical and accurate term, here pointing at personal attacks and edit warring) and topic bans for continued POV editing. I wish we had more editors there to actually edit. I know what I'd do with it: I'd have it at 120k in ten minutes. Maybe Sitush still has his hatchet around. Thanks Boris--and happy Easter, unless you're, like, not a Christian, or not a practicing Christian, or an orthodoxically practicing Christian, or whatever. You know what I mean. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Easter wishes. Same to you as well. And speaking of editing things down, I once suggested to our pastor that her entire sermon could be trimmed to just repeating John 3:16. Her response was something like "yeah, I know, but people expect me to talk for a while." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but why not just go in and rip out anything without a ref at the end of it? "It's the only way to be sure" That way, it can be rebuilt fro the foundations up. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't lack of references, it's lack of editorial judgment--and, on the talk page, lack of collegiality. Anything can be verified, no doubt; the problem is that frequently that means that everything should be in the article. Putin is president of Russia, Russia--as a nation, though one led in a somewhat specific and metonymical manner--did X or Y, which had consequences Z and Z', so therefore Z and Z' should be in the article--and the commentary of those who disagree that Z' was a consequence of X (or Y). Drmies (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree. People can write any nonsense by selectively quoting sources, and that is what happens on this page. One must know and understand the subject and use best sources to write something reasonable. That can be said about all pages, from Physics to Biology. That's why I did not edit subjects on US or Chinese politics, even though I read about it in newspapers. I do not really know them. In this example, the first most important question of his political biography is how and why Putin came to power in 1999-2000. This should be prominently described by sourcing to books, and not just to any books (there are way too many of them), but books by experts and specifically on this subject. Will users who are currently active on the page allow this to happen? No, they will not - based on their comments so far. That is the problem. The second most important question of his biography is what he has been able to accomplish so far - as a politician? Suppression of political freedoms in the country, wide-spread corruption, wars in Georgia and Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. Please add something if I forget. This all was described in books and research publications about him and his regime. Will users who are currently active on the page allow this to be prominently described? I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I once dipped my toe into that maelstrom of a talk page to express the opinion that the article ought to be a biography of a person, instead of a running commentary on everything that has happened in Russia during his time in high office. Of course, no one paid any attention, so I moved on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VM is making the discussion personal again. Just how am I supposed to react to this? If you look at past discussions, VM is always the first to personalize the discussion, and it's downhill from there. And because he keeps getting away with it, he keeps doing it. Athenean (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "tasteless remark" (which is what you called it) is not a personal insult as such, and the remark did not contain an insult directed at an individual - it was about what I see as an instinctive ongoing behavior amongst ALL administrators. I have already said on quite a few occasions (such as on the recent tag teaming allegation case that concerned VM) that administrators cannot address problems relating to edits concerning VM because it would open up a can of worms dating back to the EEML case. On none of those past occasions were those assertions considered personal attacks. Now, if you wanted to rewrite the rules and make criticism of certain Wikipedia procedures and decisions into a definition of a personal attack, it is up to you to consider if your sense of reasonableness will allow it. But it would be far better to do something to disprove my assertions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if you're talking to me or about me or both. I also don't know what you mean with this "instinctive" bit, and if you're suggesting that somehow I got something against Marek, whom I consider to be a great asset to Wikipedia, you're mistaken. I was not around for the EEML case, though I know of it--I don't know what Marek's role in that was and I don't care; as far as I'm concerned it's history. Note also that I have acted against a sockpuppet who was obviously not of Marek's party, handing out a bunch of blocks following a sockpuppet investigation. BTW, what Marek was doing was not criticizing procedures and decisions; he was criticizing what he considered to be a bad practice. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but one inadvertent result of your block seems to be that it has emboldened User:Athenean to a point where he feels it's okay to leave threats on my talk page like here. Even if he did have a problem with my comment (which was not sarcastic in the least bit, just... articulate) he could've very well left out the parts about "Which is very brave on your part" (which is, uh, sarcasm, ironically enough) or the clear threat "otherwise you will be posting denials here (WP:AE) instead of the article talkpage". I read that as saying "if you continue to disagree with me on the Putin article I will make your life on Wikipedia miserable". Since this is a result - although indirect - of your block, I would appreciate it if you told him to cut it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the kind of crap you have to put up with editing that topic area VM, you have my sympathies. Irondome (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ Drmies: VM is referring to this comment [4], which looks pretty sarcastic to me. Which is precisely the kind of thing we don't need in the tp and the reason the discussion has deteriorated to the point that it has. That's what needs to be cut out. Athenean (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm is when you say one thing but mean another. In that comment I meant every word I wrote. Literally. It appears you are merely trying to make my comment look like something which it wasn't, are trying to portray it as something "really bad" when in fact it's perfectly reasonable, and then using that as an excuse to issue unwarranted threats and create a chilling atmosphere in this topic area. My recent comments have discussed content exclusively, on the other hand you have ... "personalized" the discussion with comments such as these. You obviously should know better since this is the very thing you complained about not so long ago yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) And he's at it again [5]. Athenean (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing anything "again" or otherwise. Please stop making threats, implicit or explicit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, in your rationale for my block you quoted this comment of mine: "Oh, wait, that's right, we can only remove anything that can potentially make Putin look bad (like the fact that there was voter fraud) from the lede, but not anything that makes him look good". And you said "that's the kind of stuff I really can't let you get away with". Alright, fine. I understand (though don't agree).

Now, compare my comment with a recent comment by Athenean here: [6]. Quote: "Undue? Why, because it's not critical of Putin? Funny how I've never seen you say "undue" for material that is critical.".

So let's see - I was blocked for saying that "we can only remove anything that can potentially make Putin look bad". Athenean is now saying "you only want to put in material that's critical of Putin" + sarcasm. And then the second sentence which VERY CLEARLY personalizes the discussion, addressing me personally and questioning my motives.

I don't see a difference here. If anything, Athenean's actions are worse because 1) he's been warned, 2) he's the one who came running over here, as can be seen above, to complain about, yet then turns around and does the exact same thing, 3) he's obviously witnessed my block (even came running to my talk page to make threats which references it) so he should have a clear understanding that this isn't going to be tolerated, 4) Athenean's comment is recent and completely unwarrented. At least my comment was in reference to a specific piece of content - his is just a gratuitous insult.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok, I removed it. My bad. Apologies. Athenean (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You left the "Why, because it's not critical of Putin?" which is still an assumption of bad faith AND it is the part that is eerily similar to the comment I just got blocked for.
I'd also appreciate it if in the future you STRUCK your comments rather than alter them, once somebody has replied to them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Athenean, Marek is absolutely correct: it is an assumption of bad faith; you're playing the man, not the ball--this sort of commentary brings down the entire discourse. I'm somewhat unwilling to block right now (I'm having a bad morning and right now I don't want to do things that make me more sad), plus you apologized--and Marek isn't the kind of person to go around asking for people to be blocked--but I want you to know that next time...well, you know. And if another admin sees this and decides they can't let it slide, so be it. Thank you. Marek, good to see you again. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which is why I removed my comment and apologized. Btw I did not strike my comment because no one replied to it, so there was no need to strike it, deletion worked just as well. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I am really surprised that Marek still edits this page. I tried to make a couple of edits after not editing this page for a couple of weeks, only to have these materials removed without talking in a matter of minutes [7]. Was that material well sourced? Did it deserve to be included? Anyone can judge by looking at this diff. How anyone suppose to edit this page? My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I would like to notice a misleading edit summary by the same contributor in his next revert [8]. He tells that I made these edit without discussion on article talk page. No, I recently started discussing exactly these issues on article TP [9], [10]. However, instead of responding to my comments, he just reverted my changes. And it is exactly same user who complained recently, without any success, on several administrative noticeboards. Fine, I am out of here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies: And now this [11]. A blanket revert of a number of edits, removal of sourced info, zero explanation, just an insulting edit-summary. How am I supposed to deal with this? Athenean (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I politely inform him on his talkpage, this is his response [12]. Athenean (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean. In this edit, you changed your comment [13] from "You could have come to me instead of going straight to Drmies, you know." to "my bad". I appreciate that. But I also understand that the reason you made that change is because you realized... how, ummmm... "contradictory" that sounded, seeing as how "going straight to Drmies" was EXACTLY what you did here and then here. And now you're doing it again, with regard to MVBW. You should really consider if running over here with complaints every time someone says something you don't like is really a good idea. You might want to consider in particular if it's a good idea to come running here with every single trivial thing that you don't like, while at the same time getting upset that your own behavior is brought up for scrutiny as well. That's pretty much the definition of "unclean hands", which usually leads to WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to discuss with mvbw first, but you saw the response I got. I don't consider a blanket revert a trivial little thing. And I am certainly not "upset" that my behavior is under scrutiny. Athenean (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is just getting more ridiculous. Now we have [14] obviously throw away fly by night single purpose accounts being used to circumvent 3RR (and/or provoke a 3RR violation so that someone more established can run to WP:3RR and shop for some blocks). Why isn't this article semi-protected? Has anything changed? No, it's the same ol' crap. Any edits which actually try to tone down the POV in the article get almost instantly reverted. If not by one of the "regulars" than by these new appear-out-of-nowhere accounts. The discussion on talk are more "civil". "Civil" in the sense that nobody will is willing to say what is obviously the case, because they might get blocked. Everyone is very very very politely stonewalling each other.

There's no way that problems like these will get resolved by just going after "behavioral issue". The problem is content issues and as long as editors can engage in WP:CRUSH this is going to just continue and continue and continue and continue... Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Way back when I was an avid SWLer lots of people enjoyed listening to Radio Tirana because they thought the ham-fisted propagandizing was hilarious. After the Hoxha era people talked to the broadcasting personnel and they had no idea their efforts were so inept. They genuinely thought they were persuading people. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being an admin is not easy Im sure, so I avoided this page to reduce hassle. Report. I got it down to 160 K, briefly. Did some slash and burn. Tried to be NPOV, wasn't so hard. But then they started adding again. Anything can be refed, and often was. Now its bloating. SaintAviator lets talk 00:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The part that is false in the above claim is "Tried to be NPOV". No, you used the "let's trim the article down" as an excuse to POV the article. And that's not just my observation, but has been noted by several people on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AWw ouch. Maybe its Hoxha syndrome (see above). People think their stuff is great. But in reality theres just too much stuff. SaintAviator lets talk 02:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here is Athenean using that block as an intimidation tactic again. I'm sorry Drmies, but throwing out a single block, with no follow through is just incentivizing battleground behavior by editors like Athenean. It doesn't solve anything it makes it worse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

Hi. Taking your advice, I did a DYK nom for Karmasin and 4 related articles, at Template:Did you know nominations/Franz Karmasin. --Soman (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that … ?

[edit]

… meanness is a personal quality whose classical form, discussed by many from Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas, characterizes it as a a vice of "lowness", but whose modern form deals more with cruelty. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt I am missing the context of this conversation, but: Not necessarily (or just) a "vice". "Mean" = low or lowborn. "Why lies He in such mean estate / Where ox and ass are feeding?" goes the Christmas hymn "What Child Is This?", written in 1865. Softlavender (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear tell that he was a barrister, Senior Moderator at Dublin University, and author of War on Modernism, The Tree of Knowledge: An Exposure of our Erroneous Education and Satanic Science, Salvation by science? or, Devilization in war and in peace, The Last Enemy, and a number of others. I also hear that the reaction to The Last Enemy triggered his resignation from All Nations Bible College, London in 1936. But this could all be rumour. Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're wearing special Google ears, no doubt. Drmies (talk)

I.P Ignoring WP:INFOBOXFLAG

[edit]
User 98.167.180.218 talk) is repeatedly putting flags in infoboxes, despite being reverted and messages left on I.P T/P. I wonder if you could have a quick word with them via a message? Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closing request

[edit]

An RfC at Talk:English Democrats was closed by Fountains-of-Paris who appears to be a "new user" with some apparent editing problems per your note to him. His close seems not to weigh policy at all, and to treat the RfC as a simple vote. My base count is 5 or 6 (depending on your reading) for "far right" and 4 for "right wing." in addition sources were given which specifically state that the group is not "far right and the sources originally used for "far right" did not support use of the term. As a disinterested observer, might you please examine the policy requirements for labelling a group "far right" as opposed to "right wing" as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice? Collect (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Fountains-of-Paris should not be closing RfCs period. He is a novice editor with extremely little clue and with many many problems in terms of his continued disruptiveness. I don't know how he insinuated himself into closing RfCs but I imagine it is an offshoot of his having opened three RfCs on the exact same subject within 80 days (see Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach). Someone needs to tell him to stand down from closing any RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K-pop edit warring

[edit]

User:RockstarJ079306 has been reverting almost every edit I make on IMFACT (band) and IMFACT discography, completely ignoring the MOS and template documentation. For example, I had merged the two pages and moved the band page to Imfact. I explained my edits in edit summaries etc, but it didn't make a difference. I have a feeling they will continue to edit war if I revert again, so maybe you can do something? (The band may not even be notable, and there are no reliable sources posted.) Random86 (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Random86: If a page-blanking and redirect is reverted, technically speaking your only recourse is an official WP:MERGEPROP or WP:AfD, because the revert counts as contesting an undiscussed deletion/merge. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, that is true, but that's only one part of what Random suggested. As it happened, there was socking going on and I blocked the account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curr surname, Kerr surname, Gaelic ciar (dark), Norse kjrr (marsh dweller)

[edit]

Wandering very far afield indeed, noting your edit for the surname "Curr" ... which led me down a strange path ...

Seems the names are connected for sure (each listing the other as a variant spelling), but the ON version seems out of place. Collins is cited - but not available readily to confirm any Norse derivation of the name. Sims 1862 sides with "marsh" but gives no reason at all for this attribution, and certainly not ON.

"Cur" ("Curré") dog seems far-fetched, but cited by Reaney. Especially since the Norman "curé" for a priest, thence "Curie" etc. seems more plausible (none of the sources give anything more than surmise for any derivations) <g>. Ditto "caer".

In any event (boring cloudy day) it appears Clan Kerr does not exist as a clan, and has never existed as a clan. the sources for it as a clan per se appear more aimed at selling "Kerr coats of arms" and the like than anything else, and I fear the "Curr" name which is cited as of English origin is in the same boat at best. Guess I will avoid rocking the boat, but I fear the "Clan" article is based, ultimately, on a commercial site.<g> Collect (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. I'm not venturing into Scottish territory--the Indian castes have given me enough trouble already. I'm sure Sitush has a handbook on clans and names in his shed. As for Curr, or whatever it was I wrote up, that was really quick, and from the hip. It's really not territory I'm very familiar with and I don't know what the accepted sources and handbooks are, so any time you have a better idea, by all means redo it. Curr gets no hit in that Sims book at all? Odd. Do we have a names Wikiproject? Drmies (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of - WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy seems as dead as Marley. The name origin problem only dates back less than 200 years when folks really got into genealogy and people wanted to know where the surnames came from -- most of the results were surmise (or surmies <g>) at best, and current scholars attach little credence to the books published back then but WP:RS does not know that. Collect (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate articles

[edit]

Hi Drmies. I'm not sure what to do about BBC One pre-1969 idents and BBC One Pre-1969 Idents. These seem to be the same article with the only difference being the style of capitalization used in the respective titles. It looks like the former was created back in 2011 and the later in 2015. The newer version seems to have been created as a redirect which was them turned into an article (probably copy and pasted) by an IP. The newer version has been edited a few times since then and the same edits do not seem to have been made to the older version. Any suggestions on how best to proceed? Would it be appropriate to tag the 2015 for speedy deletion per WP:A10? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, since you said 2015, probably not. It depends on how many edits there are. I'll have a look. Yes, these kinds of cases are often terrifically irritating. (I suppose I'll learn what an "ident" is along the way.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I chose a different path--I simply reverted to the redirect, since the half dozen or so edits were not substantive, not verified, and in general not helpful (with apologies to those editors). Thanks Marchjuly, Drmies (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy response. I only stumbled across this by accident while checking the licensing of some non-free images. Is there a particular noticeboard where this kind of thing is typically discussed or is the best course of action just to be bold and revert back to the redirect or tag per WP:A10? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I get the weirdest requests, so why not, and some of the audience members of ANI 2.0 are wont to take action too. If it's an admin matter, and this really could have been, you can try AN--see, if there was a substantive editing history on both (this happens all too frequently) they should have gotten their histories merged, so that's really an administrative matter. But in this case boldness is just fine. I wouldn't tag because the redirect was already there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. Thanks again for your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Dear Drmies,

Thank you for the kindness in demeanor you displayed during the deletion debates you started for:

(1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise and

(2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Land of Gorch.

I embarked on Quality improvement projects for them, and successfully took both articles to Good Article quality.

Thanks for your motivation and professionalism, throughout.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clapping dude, SuperHamster, he's cute ! :) — Cirt (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had a hard time seeing what was happening in there--had to enlarge it. He's kind of got elephant feet slamming against each other. But he's smiling, and that's always good in a happy place. Nice to see you're still around, Cirt--the dinosaurs are rapidly becoming extinct, including yours truly. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you around too, Drmies, you are right -- sometimes it does seem like a bit of a ghost town around here. Well, at the very least, a bit less active than it used to be, certainly. — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siya Ke Ram

[edit]

Hi again Drmies. I wonder if you wouldn't mind me making another sort of "weird" request. Three separate IP have been trying to add the same information to Siya Ke Ram. Once yesterday and twice today. Each IP has only made a single edit, but I think they are probably the same person. I've tried to encourage them through edit sums to discuss things on the article's talk page, but that doesn't seem to be getting through. These are probably just good-faith attempts made by an editor not too familiar with Wikipedia. Anyway, I have a feeling that this is probably going to continue for a while, but is also probably not serious enough for page protection. I reverted each time, but might have gone a revert too far. Any suggestions on how best to proceed from here on if the content keeps on being re-added? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without getting into the nitty-gritty of it, you could conceivably cite "unverified information" and even warn for that. It's a bit questionable since not everyone thinks cast members ought to always be verified, but you may also argue it's a BLP violation--I have argued that in the past in exceptional cases. Like, if you add a name to a list containing KKK members or something like that, that's obviously a BLP violation. This is not like that, but in principle the argument can be made. And if you have strong suspicions of socking you can state that--and in that case you can argue you are reverting vandalism/disruption. Now, you have a talk page discussion but only two participants and no obvious consensus, but even then you can argue that talk page discussion is ongoing and that some edits are just disruptive. Perhaps you see the difference with what's discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jerry121_reported_by_User:P199_.28Result:_Both_blocked.29.

    In other words, I wouldn't worry so much about it right now; just be clear and complete in your edit summaries. And consider placing escalating warnings on those IP talk pages--yes, different levels on different pages. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait--are you suspecting Divya Thaakur of editing while logged out? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your informative response and the links. The situation seems to have resolved itself a bit. As for Divya Thaaku "editing while logging", I guess that's always a possibility. I did consider it, but if that's the case then I think it's probably an innocent mistake. There was some sockpuppetry and copyvios happening late last year, but things seem to have settled down since then and I don't think this is related (at least not yet). Anyway, I added "failed citations" to some of the individuals on the list and will attempt to continue discussing things on the article talk page. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Shepherd English School

[edit]

As you say, this will show up on DRV. I feel this is a perverse closure decision given the enormous precedent for keeping all verified secondary schools. There are certain categories of articles that are kept no matter whether they are felt to pass GNG or not. They include recognised settlements, railway stations, members of legislatures...and, yes, secondary schools. This is established by long consensus and referring to OUTCOMES is merely shorthand for pointing this out. It does not mean that these arguments are any less valid. Given that, I feel it should have been closed as no consensus. I would therefore ask you to close it as such or reopen it, otherwise I shall take it to DRV. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Necrothesp, I can't really do "felt to pass GNG or not". I know there is long consensus on something (I've been around this place for a while too, though not as long as you have), but whether that something means "we'll accept even without proof that something passes the GNG", that is something that you seem to be sure about, but I'm not. Now, DRV is one thing, but it's not as important as the broader discussion. I'm not interested very much in a particular DRV discussion on this subject; if you get it overturned, power to you: I have no dog in this fight. The broader discussion is much more important, and I think it is much less clear-cut than you think; I think "settlement" for instance is subject to interpretation, and so it is with members of legislatures (city councils don't count--or what does "legislature" mean?). So good luck with it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Legislature is actually quite clearly defined in WP:POLITICIAN. It doesn't include city councils. They are down to interpretation. But that's by the by. Okay, I'll take it to DRV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha, it's more complicated than that, since it is not always clear what "local" means. In the UK you may have something similar to the Dutch water boards, I don't know--look at Water_board_(Netherlands)#Governance, where stuff is more complicated than city council elections or whatever. (Your ADA seems quite different.) At any rate, NPOLITICIAN is a guideline, not an essay, and that's a significant difference. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Good Shepherd English School

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Good Shepherd English School. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks! Posting a Wikipedia edit can be really tricky for new users.Can you please send me a copy of my deleted edit. I'd like to make it a draft. Please and thanks again! Myiah Niandra Ford 03:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello Myiah, that edit is still there--click on the "History" tab, above the text. What your edit needs is first of all some rephrasing, maybe, to sound more neutral, but what it needs most is objective, reliable sourcing, as outline in our policy for reliable sources, WP:RS. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

1-What is the ANI for?

2-If, I would have referred a user as a swear word instead of his username and used phrases as "burning bottom" and "beaten to the punch" then? --Greek Legend (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The" ANI? Frequently users use "ANI" as a noun, like "I started an ANI against you". Is that what you mean? Or do you mean the whole noticeboard? In that case, ANI is not for explaining to the community that someone used a bad word. You don't need an admin to tell someone they should clean up their act; I think you wanted an admin to say "oh, yeah, let me block the SOB", but that's not going to happen, not over one word. And "burning bottom"--I have no idea what to do with that since there is no context. Is this during a conversation about farting? Or did someone get spanked and forgot the -- what is that, the escape word? No, the Safeword, that's it. "Beaten to the punch" means that someone was faster than someone else. I'm serious: if you want admin intervention, that is, if you want an admin to block someone, you are going to have to do much better than this. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those phrases were used by FALCC in another unclosed ANI post which is still visible. And as you said that no one can be blocked for one word(I will remember this). And I hope all editors new or old, will be treated on par in English Wikipedia. I mean no one will get blocked for one bad word. Only warnings! Thanks. Greek Legend (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not so--but no one is going to be blocked for one bad word. Establishing a pattern of cussing, that's a different matter. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Greek Legend: But, you should not use this as an excuse to use "one bad word" against another editor as this will be considered WP:POINTY and WP:POINTY can lead to a block, just remember this. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, have you found the new Greek Legend yet? I'm sure he's out there... Drmies (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He posted a message on my talk and Mike V listing accounts which CheckUser did not detect. So i thought we will get them blocked when they became problem. He also promised that he will come back more sophisticated so he cannot be detected. There were also abusive accounts created to insult me and FreeatlastChitchat which i believe was him but i will work on this more diligently later because i am currently working on another disruptive sock which has been fooling the community for a long time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies' protection of Chronology of Jesus

[edit]

Hi Drmies. You have protected the article Chronology of Jesus and the reason you give is "Persistent disruptive editing: IP editing against apparent consensus following ANI thread". I am not sure what this means (I am relatively new to Wikipedia). You seem to have been prompted by user GBRV who says "The discussion was at Talk:Census of Quirinius. An anonymous user can't just undo this agreement."

However I have just checked the Census of Quirinius Talk page, and there is no discussion suggesting large-scale scale deletions in the Chronology of Jesus article, and indeed no mention of the article "Chronology of Jesus" at all (I have searched in the Talk archives as well).

I am concerned someone is trying to vandalise the Chronology of Jesus article by repeatedly undertaking large-scale deletions without discussion and is pretending there was an agreement on this. I may be wrong though, so am keen on your advice.

(talk page watcher) The overlong and excessive material was not deleted, it was correctly moved by Wdford to articles devoted to the subject, in this edit: [15]. Those spin-off articles are now clearly linked from that section in the Chronology of Jesus article. If you would like to make an edit request, you may do so on Talk:Chronology of Jesus. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Softlavendar. You are side-stepping my question: where is the alleged agreement/discussion on the Talk:Census of Quirinius page? Perhaps I am too stupid to find it, but I am concerned that GBRV is making it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.54 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it doesn't matter. You were edit warring against legitimate, valid, and easily understood edits by an experienced editor which cleaned up an overlong section. Contrary to your repeated claims, nothing was vandalized or deleted -- it has merely been better organized. If you object to the current organization, take that up on the article's talk page, by starting a thread on it. Remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what Softlavender says, I suppose. If you are being reverted by a number of seasoned editors, then the edit history alone suffices to show that one is edit warring. This is really something you should take up on the article talk page. Mind you, I chose the least invasive method of stopping edit warring--I didn't block you, for instance. Engage in talk page discussion, and fruitful conversation may lead to unprotection. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering Drmies. I have meanwhile taken your advice and requested justification for the massive deletions on the Talk page for Chronology of Jesus. Please take a look if you have time, because I do think you are being misled by Softlavender and GBRV into thinking that my reversions were vandalism. In fact I was simply trying to protect the article from those large deletions which are nowhere justified in any discussion as far as I and others can see. If you unblock the page, the triumvirate wdford/Softlavender/GBRV will be under more pressure to be honest and to reach a sensible compromise before deleting chunks out of articles and then quickly seeking your protection.
Update: unfortunately Softlavender has now collapsed the relevant discussion section on Talk:Chronology of Jesus. I trust you will find it, uncollapse it and read it anyway. And is there anything that can be done about Softlavender's behaviour? Talking with her has not helped, on the contrary it seems to have made her behaviour more extreme.
  • Well, I don't think I said "vandalism"--my catchphrase for such circumstances is "disruptive editing" or something like that. I don't know about GBRV, but Softlavender is probably already on some terrorist watchlist. Now, I personally wouldn't have collapsed that discussion and I think "rant" is overstating the case. I also think GBRV--and I suggested this earlier--is seriously overplaying the "you don't have an account" card.

    I also think that the Talk:Census_of_Quirinius#Reviving_discussion is less than clear (and JudeccaXIII makes a valid point), and if I were a real admin, being pointed there wouldn't be any help at all. What I like to see in such cases is a clear consensus on the talk page that the content you were fighting over is indeed redundant/unwanted/whatever they think it is. Wdford makes an argument in that now-collapsed discussion, but you don't seem to address the actual issues, and that's kind of a non-starter. So, I see Wdford stating a case, you're not arguing against it (not really), GBRV agrees with Wdford, and Softlavender makes a quick remark also agreeing with Wdford. In other words, there is at least some consensus (against your edits), and I don't see how there's any misleading going on. Talk page. RfC. Stay on topic. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that wdford and GBRV are disingenuous but more rational than our charming "terrorist". In the collapsed discussion, I feel I have tried to put forward a minimalist compromise solution, (putting back two or three sentences, a couple of references and a picture) but have been rejected, as you can see. So I will lie low and hope the storm blows over. If I talk with wdford/GBRV and the likes of Softlavender it might provoke her into further disruptive behaviour. Thanks for listening, please make a mental note of those jokers for next time they make massive deletions and request protection, and goodbye.
IP, you are welcome to start a thread about improving the article. You are not welcome to edit-war against consensus or repeatedly demand on the talk page that experienced editors justify their edits. If you have an idea or request or edit that you feel will improve the article, start a thread (or even an WP:RFC) to that effect on the talk page, and other editors will respond to your suggestion/request. Softlavender (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

for your intervention at "Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016". IMO your interpretation of the activity there was accurate.CFredkin (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Also, I love the pic of the ostrich on your user page. It made me smile.CFredkin (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Not a) DYK

[edit]

I've no real basis to swim upstream at DYK, but if I did, I'd wonder if you knew that Dutch cartographer Pieter Goos anticipated Tommy James by three centuries when he named a newly mapped island in the eastern Indian Ocean. (I just thought it was time for a small celebration of the heritage amid all the serious business, don't you know?) Geoff | Who, me? 17:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Luke Page

[edit]

I believe this page needs a thorough review from multiple admins. It is biased in favor of Dr. Luke and (in my mind) it has some serious issues. Mainly it appears to be minimizing any references to the sexual assault allegations and framed in such a way as to cast doubt on Kesha's account. Many comments from people in the Talk page lead me to believe those editing it are agenda driven. The content of the lawsuit section does not match current reporting at all.TripleVenom (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I just watchlisted this. Hey TripleVenom, this is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator, so we do not aim to match current reporting. There's also a policy WP:BLP which needs reading in this case. MPS1992 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • TripleVenom, it's not really up to admins to decide on bias and stuff like that. Talk page discussion should determine what's what. I do not believe, not without solid evidence, that there is "agenda-driven" editing going on there, as if it's a bunch of haters or whatever determining what's in and out. First and foremost is a. what is printed in reliable sources and b. what about our WP:BLP. Having said that, there are various tools that can help. WP:RFC is one of them, and I urge you to have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (I should point out that "third-party review" does not require the involvement of administrators; the thread on ANI, asking for admin intervention, was started because of your edit warring). Edit warring is not a good way to change the article: you came this close to being blocked, even blocked indefinitely, as a quick read from the ANI thread reveals. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the motivation is, but reading the article, especially the lawsuit section, it appears to be making every effort to diminish the claims Kesha makes, while casting her in a highly unfavorable light (and this just doesn't match what is being reported----it takes aspects of the case and doesn't balance them with other aspects). To me this just appears to not be inline with neutral POV at all because the section is weighted in a way that makes Dr. Luke appear almost like a victim of a crazy woman (and the sexual assault allegations, which are the major topic being reported on by papers of record, is wedged in between a bunch of other claims). I just don't see how the article is neutral at all. And I suspect a lot of it has to do with biases of contributors (again, review some of the comments on the talk page). As I explained to Evergreen, I have no interest in the subject on its own. I am not a Kesha fan or much concerned about the topic. But when I read the article, because my background is in encyclopedias, it really struck me as biased and in a way that is kind of sinister (because it weights the presentation of information to direct the reader to an obvious conclusion, while ignoring the chief concern of the person who has accused him of rape). On other pages where people are accused of rape, it appears in the header to the section. However it isn't just about the header. The body of the text has serious issues. I think these issues are not obvious to people steeped in the culture that has emerged on wikipedia. But to outsiders, I believe it is not only obvious, but egregious. TripleVenom (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I see no evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, you're suggesting that everyone else is wrong and biased, though what that bias is is unclear. I do not think editors here gather around in anti-Kesha cabals. Now, let's move this to the talk page please; thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never suggested people are conspiring in cabals. But I do think they are allowing their biases to enter into the article. Just because I am the minority view in this case, that does not mean my view is incorrect, nor should it mean my view gets less consideration than others. It is perfectly plausible that people who are interested in Dr. Luke, and favorably predisposed to the man, are largely the ones editing his page and that this is affecting the tilt of that section. All I am asking for is the header accurately reflect the allegations that have been made and how those allegations have been reported in mainstream and reliable sources. Right now an allegation of rape has been framed as "Lawsuit with Kesha". This strikes me as highly inaccurate and misleading. Perhaps it shouldn't focus soley on the rape allegation but something like "Lawsuit and Sexual Assault Allegation" seems much more accurate to me, and I am completely at a loss to explain why anyone would object to that. Then when I read the section itself, it is clearly tilted in favor of Dr. Luke and gives little attention at all to the sexual assault allegations (in fact it seems to be weighted toward depicting Kesha as a crazy person who has contradicted herself, suffers from emotional issues, and is unreliable). That is not objective, that is not neutral and that is not encyclopedic. All I am asking is admins and editors take an honest look at that section and compare it with how the story has played out over the last six months. TripleVenom (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't what I did. I said never said the bias was part of a concerted effort. Please to not put words in my mouth. I said the bias was a product of the culture that had developed on wikipedia and a natural result of people who are interested and favorably disposed to a personality being the ones most likely to edit that person's page. I forgot my password to the VernacularTombstone account, so I just started this one instead. I think a private message would have been more appropriate for handling that if you thought there were any issues. TripleVenom (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know...

[edit]

That IP you just blocked? It's back already under a new IP 156.12.7.142, providing the same edit types. livelikemusic talk! 02:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myles long gone

[edit]
When things go wrong and will not come right,
Though you do the best you can,
When life looks black as the hour of night,
A PINT OF PLAIN IS YOUR ONLY MAN

Vedas page

[edit]

What about Ms. Sarah Welch's content? Certainly her content also lacks consensus. Yet she reinserted her content citing you. VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

Hi Drmies: A recent edit you performed at AfD has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America1000 23:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meanness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Crabb. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fun at Donald Trump

[edit]

So, someone created this article about Trump (which doesn't seem the least-bit encyclopedic to me), and then they (or someone else) proposed that it be merged with Donald Trump and stuck a merge tag at the top of Trump's BLP. Of course this has the effect of driving traffic from Trump's BLP to the mockumentary article. Can you please take a look and let me know if my concern is unfounded? Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Apparently the editor who created the mock article was subsequently banned for being a sock. Meanwhile their work lives on and gets top billing at Donald Trump.CFredkin (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Removed tag from main article. I think our internal processes can handle everything else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for engaging.CFredkin (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the reason not every fart is notable was written. And if one notices the date it was written, last presidential election... dun dun duh! --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed a godless anti-metaphysician. Thanks all, and thanks K for waving your stick around. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this User's request for a rollback the funniest ever in any Wikipedia projects!

[edit]

Hi there,

Just look at the reasons he gave to obtain a rollback rights! Regards [16] (Mona778 (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

You are not following proper Dispute Resolution Protocol

[edit]

If you would like to discuss this edit, please let me know. If not, I will formally submit for a third party to take place in this.

Tour de Trump

[edit]

Tried to open a discussion with you about this per the dispute resolution guidelines, but another user felt the need to remove my request for opening a dialogue. Since that happened, I requested intevention per through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request Johnjohnston (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, someone will probably suggest to you that you need to address the case on the talk page, and maybe comment on your comments in that first edit summary which were clearly wrong. That the Tour de Trump turned into the Tour DuPont is a fact, for instance. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you know since you reverted the edits, I did try and talk with you about it, however another user felt it was their duty to remove my comment on your talk page, which was when I gave up on talking with you about it. I don't blame you for this at all, however I felt there was no recourse if others were going to prevent me from discussing it with you. Johnjohnston (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You warned me and that was reverted. And you removed my last comment from the article talk page, which was foolish. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added the same warning you added to my talk page to yours, which I admit was childish. My reversion of the article talk page was actually an honest mistake, but I doubt you'll believe that to be the case, I thought I was reverting the edit on the actual article. The other user remove my request for what I termed an "informal dispute request", which you can see from your talk page history. Johnjohnston (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I can believe that--there's a lot of Ts in those names. Tour de Trump, Talk:Tour de Trump. But I warned you for that edit, not for the article revert, and I did so in part because you seemed to be trying to pull a fast one with your user page. Anyway, address the topic on the talk page. It is not impossible that TdT deserves its own article, but it needs to be rewritten. It's also possible that the content in the TDP article needs to be rewritten or whatever. But reverting is not the answer, and your first edit summary was a mistake, as was that comment about Trump. Now, I left a few references on the talk page. If you want to rewrite the article from scratch that's fine. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • You reverted an edit I had already reverted on my user page. I was trying to add info boxes by copying and pasting and didn't realize they included a link to the user I had copied them from. The revision history will show this. I added my comment to the talk page, so we can continue that discussion there. In full honestly, you'll see I don't necessarily believe it deserves it's own article, it just has a lot more information than the article you merged it with. Johnjohnston (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnjohnston I apologise for my sarcastic reponse on my T/P. My frustration was caused by an e/c it caused while I was posting a message about an ANI to a colleague. Irondome (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I was really annoyed by it at the time, since I was trying to actually settle a disagreement by talking it out and you just removed it with no consideration, but I'm fine with it now and I accept your apology. I also apologize for being rude/sarcastic on your page in response. Johnjohnston (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. Talk page. Let's improve an article, but later--watching 12 Monkeys. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davenbelle sock

[edit]

Please see here regarding a block you just made.

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davenbelle

Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought it was the sock who just signed that. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anna 12 Monkeys (TV Series)! Simon. Irondome (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No no no the movie. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. That's the one where Brad Pitt is completely bananas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh Irondome (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's terrifying. One of the best I've seen in years. But I really liked Brazil too. I don't want to like dystopian movies though. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Terry Gilliam is dead good Irondome (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is very reminiscent of The Fisher King too. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you lend a hand?

[edit]

Truly, I'm about to blow a gasket over trying to get something relatively simple accomplished, and have wasted time now at three noticeboards. And by the way, hello and I hope you're well. Cheers from 99. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bias and all that

[edit]

You wrote " sure that the guidelines are based on things that are inherently biased" on ANI -- which suggests you would advocate abandoning sourcing on reliable sources to meet some PC stuff? Speaking of sports and bias you're always going on about those boring Alabama and Auburn teams and yet no mention of UConn about to win its fourth NCAA basketball title in a row? NE Ent 01:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I'm suggesting that we don't just think about "professionally". Also..."PC stuff", that's a phrase now taken over by the Trumpians, Ent. I'm not even watching the "other" game, which is going on right now. I'm watching MSNBC: apparently Trump made $14,222 from The Apprentice. I've never seen that show: did I miss anything? Drmies (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I'm watching MSNBC" - That's how we know you're biased.--v/r - TP 02:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • WOOHOO TPARIS IN DA HOUSE! Tell you what, I watched some Shep Smith this afternoon, and he is not bad. I don't like the whole "Vlad Putin" thing (I don't have a sense of humor when it comes to the news), but I liked his diction and phrasing, and the ten minutes or so that I saw, he sounded like a real newsperson. Right now this guy Hannity is on Fox--brr. Oh, it's Donald Trump again. OMG he's got a new tan! OK, Hannity can play his audience pretty good; well done. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it's halftime. Seems to be an exciting game. If you care for either of these teams. I was thinking about that the other day and I'm a lousy sports fan: if Alabama isn't in it, I don't care. That it had to be Ohio State last time, when we have two colleagues who graduated from there, that was painful. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out the Dubs, dude. Or the Giants in the last decade. Or the Niners in the last third of a century. Or the A's in the 70s and a few times since. That's real performance, no matter the success of your Alabama college teams. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of Ohio ... it's not the Trumphites has taken over PC, it's that Trump has tapped into the crowd fed up with PC who haven't quite grasped (in my opinion) he's not exactly Presidential matter ... anyway, brokered convention, Kasich easily beats Clinton in the general. Kasich / Sanders , not sure at this point. NE Ent 13:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Kasich is going to successfully woo the women of America, not once they find out what he's done in Ohio. But "fed up with PC" suggests that PC means you can't call women fat pigs or Mexicans rapists. That's not "PC"--that's common courtesy, good manners. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify?

[edit]

A user just removed a lot of well sourced information from a page [17] without any sign of WP:consensus, and he tells that you endorse such removals [18], [19]. Do you really endorse them? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, it's really not my part to endorse anything except for judicious pruning and good behavior. No, I can't take credit for that, and I'm neutral on the issue. Thanks, and good luck with it--I know this is quite difficult and possibly agonizingly slow, and I appreciate continued good will. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! But this user continue telling that he does everything as you suggested [20], [21]. I am not sure if that's all right. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SaintAviator, hey, please don't me as an endorsement for specific content edits. That's not my role, and I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to have a very specific opinion anyway. Yes, I am in favor of pruning, and yes I am in favor of removing content that in my opinion isn't biographical, but that doesn't mean I get to stamp stuff with my approval; my "approval" is really limited to BLP violations and stuff like that. You make these edits at your own risk--and I wish you and all of y'all good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I guess I was trying to get others onboard, MVBW being the main reverter. UGgh possibly agonizingly slow is right SaintAviator lets talk 05:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of BLP policy in relation to Panama papers and other events, I think it is very clear with respect to public figures [22]. That is what we should follow.My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a two-paragraph section on NPR that, it seems to me, does a nice job of summarizing and balancing: [23]. As long as we're reporting the news, we might as well follow a good example. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is good summary - I agree. But the current version of our page Panama papers provides a much better, informative and in-depth description of this subject. I think it should be generally this way for WP pages.My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Own?

[edit]

I said "please" on an article talk, and got two links to OWN, - ignore? I try. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bleh. I hate it when folks think they make their point better by linking to the obvious. It's bureaucratic too: as if policy needs to be cited for everything. If I were you I'd point them to the section in the MOS that says you don't have to link to the obvious, and that you certainly don't link the same thing twice. Doesn't Francis Schonken want his comments to become FA material? This is an instant fail. Keep the faith, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He posted another (my talk), linking to Forumshopping, probably because of the above, - I use any forum I can find to propagate saying "please" ;) - I also say thank you, Drmies ;) - enjoying a bit of islossningen, which - as DYK knows - was a political statement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own Church cantata (Bach) (which anyway others wrote before me), but think it was more for the average reader before ... - I didn't downright revert as bold (That and what followed and what seems to be planned), but mentioned it on the talk page and Classical music. Everyone: what is a "0." (cycle)? If there was no cycle before the first, what can we say? - I suggest: say nothing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Ho (artist)

[edit]

Here, Dr., is another spam bio I started to clean up, to no avail. It's undergoing a concerted puff-job by multiple accounts. I noticed that Diannaa had previously removed mass copyright violations, so I've dropped her a line as well. Feel free to have a look at your convenience. Very best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"House for the bum", eh? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not my bum. 99, I think it's meating. I warned them all for promotion. My advice is to keep on editing and warn the next editor that puffs it back up; that will be level 4. Next time after, report them. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I had barely dipped my toe in when a well-meaning drive-by reverted me--if I'd done that kind of cutting I would likely have been warned to the max. But you know I'm willing to put up with the indignities visited upon an IP, with just a dollop of perverse pride. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one with the same problems, Alice Lai Nga Yu. These don't look like meatpuppets with promotional intent after all, but groups of students answering school assignments. I've cleaned this up a bit, but perhaps you can keep an eye on it. If it's homework, students will probably return to puff it up. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it means you can't edit them. Is "99" your first name? Bishonen | talk 17:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
He used to be 69 but grew out of it. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph. Bishonen, I used to edit in a 99 IP range, before which I mostly edited as a registered account, bestowing richly sourced content to numerous articles and working closely with any number of decorated and influential Wikipedia editors, who, like me, apparently had far too much free time. Lately I've taken on a series of 2601 IPs in attempts to stem general mayhem. Drmies knows most of my aliases, and my real-life identity, as well. Since I know his, this knowledge acts as a kind of mutual deterrence. Or so I thought, before the '69' crack. Really, if I lived in Alabama I'd be a lot more circumspect. For instance, I'd say I lived elsewhere. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh 2601, you think you know, but you know nothing. Nothing, you hear? Bish, I'll let you in one thing, and I'm saying this only to hurt his feelings: he's older than me. Also, 99/2601, the pool is almost at temperature, and we have a bottle of Prosecco that we'll open on the first official pool day. You're welcome to drop by, of course--as is Bishonen and my go-to visual expert, Hafspajen. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greensaulberg

[edit]

Hi Drmies. I think User:Greensaulberg is User:MichaelBolusStudio based upon User talk:MichaelBolusStudio#re user name and the draft they are currently working on. I think he is just new to Wikipedia and was unfamiliar on how to request a username change. They still have the same COI issue though, but I'm wondering if it would be overkill to post something about that on his new user talk. Anyway, I'm posting here because you were the admin who blocked him. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also User:MichaelBolusStudio/sandbox which is pretty much the same draft as Greensaulberg is working on. Once again, I think this is most likely a case of a new editor perhaps getting a bit flustered by being blocked and figuring that creating a new account was best thing to do. I don't think it's an attempt to purposely mislead anyone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sure you are right. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I see now: we have a new sandbox under the one name. OK, now they're merged together. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm late to the party, but it looks like you did all right. Histmerging the sandboxes was a good idea, and I think that's really all that matters: I don't think renaming vs. just creating a new account is that big of a deal, really, as long as they're up front about it. I think one of our username templates even encourages people to just abandon the account and create a new one, without requiring the name change. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the {{uw-softerblock}} does that. Bishonen | talk 23:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

greensaulberg

[edit]

Hello Drmies you have recently changed my user page sandbox, greensaulberg and replaced it with stuff from my old user name michaelbolusstudio. Can i have my greensaulberg sandbox back please? I was well on the way to something....i think? Greensaulberg (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ok, but where is it? I only see the old michaelbolusstudio one?Greensaulberg (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, after I merged them the page indeed showed the earlier one. It's still there in the history, but I restored most of it just now, I think, and made a few tweaks. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahha! Thanks Drmies, i found it in 'view history' page. I see i can go back to earlier versions....very cool!Greensaulberg (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

errr, sorry Drmies, i appreciate the help but being a newbie i am having trouble finding the things you are doing! So when i recieve a message saying 'Yep--but then you lose what I just added, cause now you have a review by a notable critic' i didnt know where to find it or perhaps i acted too quickly to get back to where i had been after David Biddulphs help! So fried was going to be added when i got back to my library this weekend but you done it for me! Thanks and i'll slow down.... a bit!Greensaulberg (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

calling for discussion

[edit]

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Cruz extramarital affairs allegation. You wrote: "The result was delete. Per SNOW. We're not the news, this is not Watergate, this isn't even a day old--having this as an article already is TOOSOON to put it mildly." Sorry, but I don't see any useful commentary, from you, as to when having an article on this topic wouldn't be TOOSOON.

Please bear in that non-administrators can't look at the deleted versions, and evaluate for themselves any weaknesses it had. For this we have to rely on the closing administrator's closing comments. Your closing comments were of zero value in this.

Your closing comment explicitly waved at WP:NOTNEWS. I just re-read that section and am mystified as to which of its four subsections ("journalism", "news reports", "who's who" & "a diary") you were waving at, as I don't see any of them as applicable.

Would you consider returning to the AFD discussion, and adding a fuller explanation to your closure -- one that a good faith contributor considering recreating the article would find useful? Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm {{ping}}ing @Edison:, @BlueSalix:, @Irrigator: -- contributors who I thought made valid points you didn't really address in your closure. Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do you need my commentary? There's plenty of calls for TOOSOON etc. You don't have to tell me that I have to bear in mind that non-admins can't read the deleted version--that's sort of the essence of being an administrator, and that they can't "evaluate ... any weaknesses", yeah, that's cause it's deleted. You are welcome, of course, to go to deletion review, and I have a hunch that this is your next step. But I really have nothing to add: I'm not giving any specific reading or interpretation of NOTNEWS or whatever in that AfD; it seems to me that those who called for NOTNEWS as a reason for deletion read it correctly. And there were so many naysayers that I didn't have to pull the BLP as a trump card, though that was mentioned as well by a number of editors--but citing "per BLP" as a reason for deletion wasn't necessary, even though it was clearly a concern for a number of editors. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geo Swan, as I understood the close, it was determined that 3-4 days after the event met the criteria of TOOSOON for evaluating whether there was a sustained level of coverage necessary for inclusion. That said, two weeks out, we may be able to evaluate that sustained coverage has, in fact, occurred. I can't say that with certainty, as I haven't followed this closely since then. If you do decide to recreate it, however, I saved the last version of the article in my sandbox, in case that's of use to you - sandbox saving the article is, of course, permissible since the deletion decision did not cite copyvio or BLP as a reason for deletion. (It probably doesn't need to go to deletion review, you can probably just recreate it if the sustained coverage standard has been met; I don't think Drmies close precluded the article from ever being recreated.) BlueSalix (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • BlueSalix, no close can ever preclude an article from being recreated; when someone says "no prejudice to this being recreated" they're usually just being nice to someone. You may have noticed that Ted sent his wife out on the campaign trail again because they also discovered that women vote, but that the abovementioned allegations are just not newsworthy anymore. That's neither here nor there, I know, but good luck writing it up again.

      BTW, if you copy an article (text only) and then it gets deleted and then you put it back up again--well, that's not really OK; see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The history needs to be represented fairly, but this is something that your friendly neighborhood admin can help you with. In other words, don't jump the gun and start copy/pasting your sandbox in user space, and make sure that somewhere in your sandbox history you stated where you got that text from. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

[edit]
Mona778 (talk) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Re your recent Ballpoint pen artwork edits

[edit]

If what you noted is, in fact, so -- that, because the ballpoint pen artists whose websites I'd linked to in the Exterior links section of the article have their own pages, links to said websites should not be listed in the Exterior links section of the Ballpoint pen article (where they are all noted accordingly) -- then I will respect your cutting the links from the section. Anyone care to weigh in &/or confirm this??

Separately, though, you started un-bolding artwork titles from the captions of SOME images, while leaving the titles of OTHER images bolded. Rather random, especially with no explanation. Those captions, as they existed since the start of the page (including making it into DYK), went uncontested for years. Which is it? :- ) Penwatchdog (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someone answered my question about the unbolding by completing what you'd started in the time it took for me to write the above message! Penwatchdog (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's needless bold. We don't do it elsewhere. I didn't go through the entire article. Yes, the external links were removed because they were not directly appropriate to the topic, and if one of the links had been for a person without a Wikipedia article, that would have been even more reason to remove it. We need to be sparing in our linking: we're not a repository for links. BTW, that horse, the lead image, that was amazing. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson learned, thanky. The links section of that article was always a headache anyway because every TomDick&Harry who ever drew with a ballpoint pen has tried to insert a link to their own website there (though it'll probably continue to be so). On a separate note: I just noticed an edit you made to the article about ballpoint artist Lennie Mace; you inadvertently deleted a new image he was nice enough to provide by my invitation (aftre many requests, that is; as he & other artists in the Ballpoint Art article have been nice enough to do). I'm going to reinsert that, and at least one of the sentences you deleted as part of that edit. I can understand your point for those particular deletions, but now that section jumps to its facts too robotically. While I'll concede to having padded that section because I personally found it interesting (and I felt it set up the many facts reported thereafter), I feel his statement of "drawing since before he could write his own name" (which is stated not only on his own website but in one of the Tokyo sources available online) is not only worth noting but also provides factually interesting reading about an interesting artist. Penwatchdog (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Surely you're aware of this 'war on commas' that Dicklyon and SmcCandlish are waging through-out the project. Why aren't you or any of the other admins doing anything about it? - theWOLFchild 08:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not aware of what I have not seen. I got a ping from somewhere but there was no direct question. Take it to ANI, if you must, and pick up some good faith on your way there, please. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were pinged to this ANI. In it is a link to recent RfC you closed regard this silly comma-eradication-program. Perhaps I should have just given you an actual ANI notice, but I think you should participate. You RfC close is being used as an excuse to re-write guidelines and alter hundreds of articles. Many of these are contested and this behaviour needs to be stopped until this can be sorted out, properly. Thank you - theWOLFchild 17:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the close is what it is. Disruptive behavior should be treated as such--as disruptive behavior. The only thing I can do at that ANI thread is do my admin thing, since I really just have no opinion on the commas. I write "jr" with commas cause that's what I was taught, but that's the extent of my involvement. It's amazing to me how the MOS leads to so much animosity. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you could do some kind of "admin thing" there, it would be appreciated. While some are concerned about his behaviour in regards to his recent indef (for much the same as now) and the standard offer he just agreed to, my main concern is that all the mass page moves and comma removals stop, until this can be sorted out (including a review of the extensive re-writing of MOS:BLP - was that even approved?). You have basically a pair of editors unilaterally and arbitrarily making widespread changes, which is leading to equally widespread disruption. I think a timeout on this needs to be called. - theWOLFchild 20:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some dim sum for you!

[edit]
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 08:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

Hi Doc

Wanted to know if you were able to illuminate this topic. I wasn't able to find anything beyond WP:MUG and WP:BLP#Images. My view is that given how close the entire topic is to violating BLP (my view is that the strong implication of the WP coverage—not that it's different from the media coverage—is that the named individuals have somehow engaged in wrongdoing, while there is in fact no sourcing for that proposition), the images are totally inappropriate. Are there other P&G to cite on this topic?

Thanks Bongomatic 09:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the images are inappropriate, but *sigh* I think this time it should be another admin who jumps and pisses everyone off. I'm getting tired of hearing the whining about censorship and the whole "it's verified so it's encyclopedic" etc. The PP article is at 100k now; maybe it's time to split up Wikipedia into two different pedias: one NEWS and one NOTNEWS. I'll be working for the latter. Hey, BTW, nice to see you again here, and thanks for getting involved with that hot topic. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, however there is lots of NOTNEWS in the PP topic—unfortunately, it's just not what people choose to write about. Bongomatic 00:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's more fun to run around following the updates to get them in Wikipedia ASAP. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 April

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manipuri cinema

[edit]

Hi again Drmies. A while back you made this edit to Manipuri cinema. It's not so much the edit itself, but rather the edit sum you left which makes me wonder about this edit which basically re-adds everything you removed without explanation. The account that made that edit was created not too long after Delta Quad blocked Thounaojam Chinglemba as part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gurumayum Arvind/Archive. I think this other account might be a duck based upon the similar genre of articles being edited and their reverting of you. Any suggestions on how best to proceed here? Is an SPI needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a WP:DUCK, SPI filed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look JJMC89. After you started the SPI, I took a closer look at the edit history of that editor and found lots of more stuff which leads me to believe this is another sock. I posted it the SPI. Looks like this is take some time to clean up since lots of articles were created and files were uploaded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flip-flop!?

[edit]

[24] (Did you have a chg of heart? [If mem serves, I was absurdly accused of making "sexist insult" when using the word to refer to ongoing complaining; you did your scholarly research on the linguistic aerodynamics of the word; you concluded there was a good case it was sexist; you made known on your Talk a personal commitment to discontinue your own use of the word as a result of your conclusion; & you so graciously added that you wouldn't block me for it {even that wasn't anywhere near the issue then or ever}.]) IHTS (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure. My god, I wish my wife was half as interested in me as some of you are. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sure" what? (And my post here doesn't mean I'm interested ... It means only that I came upon your post unexpectedly, am a ruthlessly logical person w/ a fairly good memory, and demand people in power positions take flak from underlings when they [the empowered] exhibit blatant inconsistency.) p.s. I also remember you said once you were surprised at chess editor hostilities since chess was/is "such a peaceful game". (Shows how much you know, dear Dr.! [A reliable source once described Fischer, who squeezed wins like blood out of a rock, in multi-hour sessions of adjourned tournament games, as elevating the chess contest to "a duel to the death". There's also a famous cartoon where he's playing Satan, and the latter is sweating or nervous as hell {no pun intended}.]) p.p.s. Be sure to tell your wife I sympathize (hehe). Peace. IHTS (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tell you what, I was yelling at the kids this morning (or yesterday--it's a daily thing) and I stopped short of saying the b-word, remembering your comment. I said "whining" instead, so thanks. It didn't help, by the way. Parents are worse at parenting than most other people, I think. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was a deal you made w/ yourself, not w/ me. (I'm all for the b-word+ing. [It wasn't "sexist", it was generic. But I was accused, and you supported same etc., as above.] As far as using on/teaching kids, that's a whole other matter.) IHTS (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close a thread....

[edit]

....WP:ANI#Repeated personal attacks and baseless accusations made by Legacypac. I think it's me who should have had thicker skin really. You can close it now (and I ask you for no reason other than that you are an experienced admin and only involved on the surface). --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

72bikers (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further adventures in the life of an IP

[edit]

Good Dr., here's another one for the permanent files [25]. Editing as an IP is like wearing a 'punch me' placard. Best wishes from 99. 2601:188:0:ABE6:60FC:44F0:F227:C4AF (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May be a record...

[edit]

Your pinging me on this AfD, referencing a comment I made 8 years ago may be up there for oldest reference to relevant discussion on a Wikipedia topic. :) Protonk (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is disgusting

[edit]

Honestly you need to hold yourself at a higher standard. This is utterly disgusting and you should be stripped of your rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jytdog#April_2016 99.249.130.248 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You get all the fun trolling. John Carter (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I can't help to notice that Jytdog is becoming a regular subject on AN/I! The Banner talk 00:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Anyone for bitterballen, Frikandellen or "berehap met satésaus"?[reply]

  • Oh you folks are priceless. At the same time I have no doubt that decent folk like Bbb23 and Dennis Brown are shaking their heads in disbelief. Banner, yes, Jytdog is a regular, as is JzG--no wonder I yell at the one when I mean to yell at the other. Trouble finds them; they don't have to look for it. I think I had a period like that and it really wasn't all that much fun, so I sympathize. (I'm kidding--I'm ArbCom. I can only pretend to sympathize.) Ent, yes, I remember them now--they made that Bitches Brew beer which was AWESOME. I haven't seen their beers in stores in years. I'm a big fan of the Monkeynaut now--a bit hoppy, but funny name, and it's from Alabama. Also, Banner, I have NEVER had a frikandel in my life; the very thought revolts me. But bitterballen...why did you have to bring that up...

    Oh, can one of you write up Jacqueline Trimble? I have a COI cause she did a poetry reading tonight in a series I organized and she's great. Like, really great--LadyofShalott, you would have loved her, really loved her. Her book comes out in the fall. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am unfamiliar with her, but as you caught me when I am updating Goodreads for the first time in forever, I added her book to my tbr list. LadyofShalott 03:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, right, I see--it's on the Internet already. That poem about encroaching coyotes was very nicely developed and had a nice twist. She's really an awesome reader. I almost peed my pants in laughter one time, and had tears in my eyes another time. Apparently she had chosen the cleaner poems since the reading was in a high school; good thing, cause I had a ten-year old with me. I so hope she enjoyed it and is going to write some poetry herself. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beg pardon for the stray post but I've not seen the Lady recently and I'm in need of an expert's opinion. Is this an accurate translation, Lady? Thanks in advance. Tiderolls 04:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Nature Park -- admin needs to block Adamflinn for edit warring

[edit]

Adamflinn needs a block for edit-warring (and probably a permablock for COI promotionalism): He has removed the same cited text least 9 times so far (twice via IP). He has been warned on his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I didn't remember you were an admin. The guy really does need to stop editing that article, period. Definite and obvious COI. Needs to be given the COI instructions on his talk page. Jytdog? -- Softlavender (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping out with the article and the COI editor. Very much appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Lady is a longtime admin and editor whom I have admired for a long time. She's a rock. Like, you know, as in geology. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not like, err, S&G?! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, but I like their kind, too. LadyofShalott 00:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Trimble

[edit]

I thought that I would never see, a poem lovely as a lavatory, seat. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity ibox parameter

[edit]

The religion infobox parameter RfC at VPPOL closed (against the parameter), so your original close, with a new date, in the ethnicity one is surely good to go now (as predicted).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rude words again!

[edit]

Hey dear :), you have been successful before in encouraging User:Davey2010 to leave Mona778 alone and not use the f word around her, but now he seems to be back at it again. It appears Mona778 made a mistake on my talk page -- she does seem to make a lot of mistakes doesn't she? -- and Davey thinks this is an excuse to come back to her talk page when he has been asked to stay away. Since you, dear, get taken a lot more seriously than me, could you offer him another beer or whatever it is that works? Please? MPS1992 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked her politely to stop that was all - There was absolutely no need for you to get involved, I admit I shouldn't of told you to fuck off but anyway I've unwatched their page and unless I'm "accidentally" pinged then I won't be there again. –Davey2010Talk 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm interesting. But Davey (sorry, @Davey2010:) self-reverted which was the proper thing to do. It is true, though, that pinging someone if you don't want them on your talk page is also inappropriate; if you see Mona, please tell her that. Whether I'm ever taken seriously remains to be seen, though I sure have a few fans--I doubt that User:Monkeys urinate on Drmies bald head is very fond of me, though. I'll have that beer with Davey (sorry, @Davey2010:) some other time; I hope he doesn't mind but three different syllabi, a series of poetry events, an ArbCom case, and two conferences are collapsing on my bald head. Thank you dear, Drmies (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manchester? C or U? Drmies (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give your opinion?

[edit]

Dear Drmies,

Can you give your opinion on this subject? [27] Thank you (Mona778 (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think that would necessary now, it seems the User finally accepted that he had been wrong all along! [28] Thanks all the same (Mona778 (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30

[edit]

Israeli salad is under ARBPIA restriction and currently under attack by a series of new editors. One of your changed protection templates could calm the situation. Thanks for your help. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is? It needs protection? OK, I see the edits, though I'm a bit loath to apply protection for what may be a one-off thing. I suggest you welcome/warn/talk to the editors, and if this continues we can block/run CU/semiprotect/ARBPIA protect. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

There is an important discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention about possibly finding a way to salvage Single-purpose editors and transforming them into positive WP collaborators in the general mainspace. I'm sure you run in to many of them as you wander around WP. I'm also sure that every now and then one of the SPA editors rises above the crowd and seems worthy of more of your time and effort. Your personal insight and experience would be appreciated. WP:WER has become a relative ghost town (and I may be one of the few ghosts left in town) and User:Robert's idea may be just the boost the Project needs to revitalize. It's an opportunity for the Project to actually do something beyond handing out awards. I think Dennis Brown would like it. Buster Seven Talk 14:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Erolatccsgroup

[edit]

I see you blocked this user, but isn't it the kind of username ("Erol at CCS Group") that's allowed by WP:ISU - "However, usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA"..."? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dashboard.wikiedu.org autoblocked

[edit]

Hi Drmies! It looks like your block of User:Greatstalkersdontgetcaught has done an autoblock on the IP of dashboard.wikiedu.org, since that user is a student in one of the courses using the dashboard. Could you undo the autoblocking, please? Thanks! --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and undid the autoblocking. Hope that's okay. It was blocking all the legitimate edits from the dashboard.--ragesoss (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ragesoss: who designed this dashboard thing such that it would do that?!?MPS1992 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice - Disruption of ArbCom case by Dan Murphy

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Cirt. I'm biting my tongue. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As am/was I. Real nice chilling effect when someone decides to use your job as a cudgel, even if my job wouldn't care about the edits I'm making (there's no COI there). Sigh. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right--yes. And we just let anyone mess with the ArbCom pages? Since I am one of the ones who voted to accept the case, you'd think that some people would put two and two together and realize that I'm not just toeing the old blue line or something like that. What possible harm? (And does this make me tweetable, and a party in the ongoing GamerGate or even GGTF shebang?) I think what we have here is another example of this ever-increasing polarization. Someone does something that someone else can think somehow favors yet another someone, and so the first someone must be wrong/partial/biased. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I blocked an editor called Tiger team for their username. Someone is going to bring me up on charges, saying I did so only because I hate Auburn or something. You best stay away from stuff like Queen Anne's Revenge, since, you know, it was commandeered by a pirate. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not just polarization—it's all-out total warfare to win an argument. You'd think pulling out the RL job card would be your last-ditch argument, not your first. And on pirates, by Dan's definition of COI I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. ;-) But I guess this is GamerGate in a nutshell. Good luck with the case, don't lose your soul. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

72bikers (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_99&oldid=1142977953"