Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mona.N (talk | contribs) at 18:51, 4 August 2016 (→Some baklava for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


That's right y'all.

Is this a reasonable EL?

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

Admin assistance needed

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

The sad thing is, he is doing it equally as much on German-wiki, but we have no jurisdiction there. Plus German-wiki is so bizarrely set up in that you can't track user edits to an article and so forth. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plus it's in German. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That user page should be a straightforward CSD#U5. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks; if he reinstates it, one of us can tag it. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you hadn't said "one of us"--I won't get that song out of my head tonight. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sections don't have references; they could be removed (like wot I done). The dating of the letter by watermark could do with elucidation (if a source is found)- it seems to imply that the paper wasn't made earlier than 1812. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, that helped. When I say "I don't know how to", I basically mean "I don't want to". Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, not that anybody asked, it pisses me off big time that that stupid movie Immortal Beloved ruined for all time the correct English translation of Unsterbliche Geliebte, which is obviously "Eternally Beloved" (as in "unsterbliche Liebe" -- undying love, which refers to the love, not the love object). I knew that movie was going to suck the minute I heard the title -- and except for a few scenes it did not prove me wrong. I'm still mad about that mistranslation (which doesn't even make sense!) which has spread everywhere now and can never be put back to rights. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Back to the subject at hand: I notice that on the German-wiki version of the article, someone rolled back a large entry of Klapproth's theories [2]. Softlavender (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editing the article's like knitting with spaghetti. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's an effing mess. Softlavender (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein may be of assistance here. Irondome (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the translation from Immortal Beloved as unattributed and a copyright violation. Also there was a link to a pirated copy of the film. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to add: He wrote that entire Josephine Brunsvik article, so it is going to have to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb in regards to accuracy and neutrality, and in terms of the claims made therein. Softlavender (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORCP#Izno

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good morning Drmies

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

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

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

Rollback

Kind WP admin, I have the following doubt:

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Faiz Syed for deletion

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

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

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

My IP "fan"

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

Thanks

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

Danilo K

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

Notability 101...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Done. I don't think much of it. I didn't know I was on the guy's shit list; can't remember having run into them. (On the bright side, they think I'm dumb, so they can't be that stupid.) What I can't figure out is why I can't see who suppressed all those edits; the log gives me no entries. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're only talking about revdel, I think you have to look at the log for the page(s) in question. For instance, Writ Keeper did at least one of them [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. It was not nice to deal with this guy in 2013. so I don't want another episode. I still have the unproven suspicion that he is the one behind a few threatening e-mails I have received about Wikipedia. English language mails about what I did on the Dutch Wikipedia... The Banner talk 08:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fangusu edit

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

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

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

I need to report a vandal

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

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

Thanks

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

Ham

Hello

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

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

108.199.223.23

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

Danratedrko's sockpuppet DS-616

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

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

A removed prod and hello

Hi Dr, I removed this prod [5], noticing after the fact that you'd placed it there. I think that particular issue has been resolved. Anyway, it gave me the chance to drop by and say hello. Hope you're staying cool this summer, enjoying both the pool and the ale. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I need to identify IPs

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

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

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

@Leo Bonilla: Me too. Chronus (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)And I see they are blocked as socks of Bazaira.[6] Doug Weller talk 10:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

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

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

WO

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

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

User editing in violation of ARBPIA 30/500 GASP

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

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

Shenanigans at Andrij Dobriansky again

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

Nomination of Barinder Rasode for deletion

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

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

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

An Apology y

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

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

Talkback

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

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

see in real life

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

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

ICARE Foundation

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

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

73.53.121.199

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee?

Hello Drmies,

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

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

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

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

Some baklava for you!

Dear Drmies, A couple of days ago there was an issue in which I was involved, and in the absence of admin Pony I thought maybe you could help, but unfortunately you weren't available. Anyway, I apologize for any inconveniences I (pinging) may have caused you, and thank you just the same. Regards Mona778 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=733006400"