Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 120

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Drmies

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:34, 6 April 2019 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from User talk:Drmies) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 115←Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122→Archive 125

Ray's Rules

That is a nice list. Think it would be OK to make that into a projectspace page people can link to? 28bytes (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Might I suggest WP:RAYSRULES as a shortcut redirect either to that section on his talk page, or to a new subpage in his userspace? Seems a fitting tribute. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
"I want to share with you, something we found in his work desk that one of my sons had heard about--Ray's Rules. ... They are worth sharing and help explain his kind and generous nature"--I think that's your answer. Thanks y'all. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Something to live by. Ever so proud to have another inspirational man on the Main page, and that he was just Mike for me, and I knew nothing about the story until I researched because I was sure he deserved an article ;) - Yoninah wrote most of it. - It was also nice to see the church that someone wanted deleted pictured ;) - I will give Ray's Rulez prominence in my edit notice in 2019, - new year's resolution. Haven't changed it in years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I included them in my good wishes and resolutions for 2019. Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
pictured:


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for brightening many of my days last year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Now I also changed User talk:Gerda Arendt/Editnotice. I should read it myself often ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Please check out "Happy" once more, for his smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Lost content

Opéra Royal de Wallonie, mentioned in a BLP, was a sad stub. I suggested to my most prolific and cooperative French friend LouisAlain to expand, along with a request to create said BLP. He did. All could be fine. But somebody (even somebody whom I had sent Ray's Rules) not only noticed and warned that an attribution declaration was missing, but also deleted it all as a copyright violation. LouisAlain is usually meticulous about such tags, not only saying which article, but even which version by whom, see? In this one case of thousands he forgot. The result is sad for everybody involved, especially potential readers of the translation. Help, anybody? It needs an admin, or I'd restore it myself, attributed of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done by talk page stalker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thank you for stalking, much appreciated ;) - please keep stalking LouisAlain also, who was recently templated with an overly sugared wording requesting references ;) - as if you could , when translating, translate more than there is. He had to face other questions regarding his skills, but is really the one I'd single out for super effecient, speedy, friendly help, consistently over six years. DYK that, thanks to him, all Bach cantatas have French articles? More than German that is. - Other question: the sugary template (Ways to improve ...), shouldn't it "notice" when it was applied to the same user on the same talk? Instead of presenting the same sugary nonsense again and again? If my math is right, 39 times here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
If you stalked LouisAlain, you saw that he was blocked by the same. Sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
... which now is at ANI, and Martin is blocked for a month. My short version: Fram had an article on his watch list because it was deleted, LouisAlain re-created it, Fram found that a copyvio, and claimed that something in LouisAlain's sandbox was also a copyvio. While possibly correct in a strict sense, I know - and so am involved - that the sandbox was just for me, for my understanding of what 3 French texts mean, not supposed to go to any article. LouisAlain got blocked for 24 hours, possibly correct but I'd imagine better options. Martin re-created the article in other words, but not good enough for Fram, so he blocked Martin for a month. Better no comment. - This is what I come home to after vacation. Sad. During vacation, I had to deal with two articles of the recent deaths category, Wilma Lipp and Jean Guillou. Sad, sad. So finally, for a positive note: today I managed to present someone living on his 90th birthday, Werner Bardenhewer. If only he could get a talk with Fram. Ray's Rules seem not to be enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
SAD! See WP:CLAIM. MPS1992 (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm yes--wait, Martinevans123 blocked? Whoa. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
January 2019
Caleta de Famara, Lanzarote
... with thanks from QAI
But Floq could have repeated the line above, "done by pagestalker", unblocked. Thanks to everybody who protects the content editors! It will take some courage to recreate the often-deleted article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Same editor blocked LouisAlain for one week for putting a translation in a new article to make it available for me. I didn't ask for a translation, only wanted to know one specific thing in a French interview. If translating, he should have sent it per email (and not even in his sandbox). I still hate people being blocked for trying to help me. Help?? - LouisAlain blocked for a week means c. 35 21 articles not created. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

nl

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC) The birth name of Leo Riemens (one created, thank goodness from the above) is given as four names, and the only spot I see them anywhere online (except Wikipedia mirrors) is here. What is this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Gerda Arendt, what is De Gids? I know it as a literary journal, but it mentions other arts as well. (Hard to believe it's still being published!) Or are you asking what that website is? DBNL=Digitale Bibliotheek van Nederlandse Letteren: it is an awesome resource that reproduces coverage of Dutch literature (and some arts as well). There's more on your man Riemens here, though it's not much more. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, that helped. Imagine: I missed that dbnl is the National Library. The "more" is already in the article, in the authority control. I don't know why that section seems to be largely ignored. Everytime I am asked to reference published books I sigh and think: look there, libraries and WorldCat. LouisAlain created the article with 200+ links. I hope he'll return. Yesterday a DYK review informed me that he is blocked for copyright violation. That's what the block log says, sure. He's blocked because he tried to help me, and did it in a strange way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Block is over. Sing praises ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Precious
Seven years!

Sing more praises

7 years precious. Remember our first encounter at DYK? He died. I find someone whose memory needs polishing almost on a daily basis. Ethel Ennis. I left Lagerfeld to others ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you Gerda. Yes, I see that too. I now go through my book of poetry and find they're almost all dead. Well, Judith Herzberg is still alive--and her article certainly needs polishing. At least her father's article is in decent shape, with much help from Simon Adler. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Today I received the sad news that a very very very distant cousin died, a great man, will write an article, - should have done it sooner, of course. There's a good radio interview, - is there any chance to use that as a ref? - Stadlmair: I was present at an audition, and he told the one who wanted the job and had to play a piece sightreading and asked if with the repeats: You can repeat as often as you like, until you are "zufrieden". (The candidate played the repeats as Bach had prescribed.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

you are loved

I guess. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to briefly lock this page as well. Several edit warriors cant seem to stop themselves at the moment. Just sayin'... - wolf 01:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, full protection would be best. Some people just can't help theirselves!! OK, just kidding. MPS1992 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

hey buddy I can get you elected

(Personal attack removed) just above wanted to stop me making edits like this. Well I dunno. Maybe they are right? Maybe it's important to recognise all the people that wanted to have their picture taken, and this is an important encyclopedic thing? MPS1992 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually I just read over all of the above, and I decided that it is all very boring and that Thewolfchild and I usually agree on everything. We both look after articles regarding military ships and many other similar institutions. The only things on which we disagree involve 88mm guns used by German army units in the 1940s, and on that subject we need to talk to you. Maybe. MPS1992 (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow... I saw a page being disrupted and suggested an admin lock the page. I didn't file a report at 3RRNB, I didn't even mention any editors by name. MPS1992, you only embarrass yourself with the bizarre rant and personal attack you've posted here. Yes... "get a grip" is sound advice. - wolf 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You don't like nerf guns? You don't like dumplings? OK. MPS1992 (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Batsignal

I hate to come ping-begging, but it doesn't seem there's any admins watching RFPP right now. Could you please take a look at the anon IP at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Well that was easy. Why didn't you go adminshopping ten reverts ago? Seriously--leave that content be, find an admin to block or protect, and then revert. Now that history looks like a mess; actually it kind of looks like an invitation for trolls. Anyway, that disruptive fool is blocked. I don't see much in the history that would warrant semi-protection, but this is one of those pages that is likely to be edited (legitimately) only by regular editors. So if it happens again, let me know. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I only went to RFPP as a backup to ANEW because nobody was watching ANEW... welp, that didn't work either. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It's really not a case for ANEW. It's just someone edit warring in a way that's not legitimate. If you and I edit war over some content, that's one thing, but if you revert some unknown person who dives basically in the archives to fuck up some consensus, that simply warrants an immediate block. For that kind of thing you can always call on me or whoever else is active (check Recent changes). Drmies (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Does this look like some kind of LTA?

Hi Drmies, sorry to bother -- just wanted to ask since you seem to be familiar with the going-ons around the 'Pedia -- does this look like some kind of LTA to you? Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I was origionally Frogger 48, I want to start off fresh from my past mistakes.

ABCD5798 (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer

because the section of main characters goes first those that appear in the opening credits section and those that are in the section "also starring" go down do not you think is better? Tia Canita (talk).

  • I think I know what you are saying, and I think that's fine, but if you don't write this up in edit summaries (that other editors understand) you should not be surprised to be reverted, Tia Canita. I noticed that in all your years here you have never left an edit summary or edited a talk page... Drmies (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to ask…

—Qui demande?!

What's the story behind your IKEA userbox? Gaelan 💬✏️ 18:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gaelan: It refers somewhat sardonically to this news event, per standing with France. Or Drmies may just like hunting out meatballs in a beach-toned plywood labyrinth  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks, that's pretty funny. Gaelan 💬✏️ 18:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
SerialNumber, a little birdie told me you have a beard. Is this true? Drmies (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Only in a certain light. ——SerialNumber54129 18:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Shabir Ally

Dear Drmies, Regarding Shabir Ally's latest undo, have you had a look at the edit. It's all citations. Also, it's being debated at the talk page where I'd be happy to read your opinion regarding the matter. Thanks! Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've also just seen the conflict of interest template. I do not work for Shabir Ally, nor have I ever seen him in real life. My sole communication with him was an exchange of email asking him to upload his photo to commons, which he replied to with his photo and his permission to upload it there. I only work on Arabic Wikipedia and rarely do I contribute to other wikis when I find the need for it. This very edit you rolled back is from a contribution to arwiki that I thought enwiki could benefit from. And I still would like for you to contribute your opinion to the talk page under RfC. Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, talk page it is then. But that COI template, I placed that because your edits seem consistent with someone who has a conflict of interest. Arwiki may allow a list of YouTube videos with links, but we do not. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Making another mistake

So I'm going to foolishly ask for help. I'm just not understanding what I've done at this ARE [[1]]. I mean I do understand that at the Glock article it looks like I've moved a goal post but I feel like what I'm trying to do is further refine my objections. Even if I still don't agree is that really STONEWALLing if I don't revert the change? I don't feel that Dlthewave's behavior was beyond reproach but I also don't want to throw them under the bus as I think they are acting in good faith. Can you help me understand what I did wrong before I get a warning for it? Oh, and look at the article the IP sock dropped off. I think it makes a much more compelling case for inclusion since it talks about how Glock changed the market and upped the effective firepower in the process. Thanks and I promise to foolishly agree with you about something at some point! Springee (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Springee, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Do you mean to say you can't really be stonewalling since you didn't revert the change? I have to tell you, in all honesty, that I am much less knowledgeable of that particular discussion than maybe I should be, and I am sure you saw that my comments in general have been limited. I'm looking over the report again--I don't know of "rambling walls of text" that you wrote but I haven't looked. If indeed there are such rambling walls, that can of course be regarded as evidence of stonewalling, and it has been in the past. I also am not sure that "external sources about Glock that make that association" is such a terrible thing (mind you, "external" isn't the best term to use--stick with "reliable secondary sources") to ask for. But the part that discusses what they see as your "double standard"--if that is true, or found to be true by the admins looking at it, yeah that would be uncool and could lead to a topic ban.

    Again, I'm speaking somewhat generally, without knowing all the particulars, but I'll look at the whole report again, and the responses, I promise. Can't look at that article right now though I might later. (In general, I'll say that I always think that encyclopedic articles should try to take a wider view--not just list physical properties and sales numbers and stuff like that, but also what such things mean. See Key Largo woodrat. Obviously there's Glock and "Glock"--"Glock" stands for a lot of things that other manufacturers don't get. I mean, otherwise we wouldn't have "you ever heard the Glock go click like a camera"?) Drmies (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth I find K.e.coffman's reply to your ARE comment very frustration. On my talk page the editor said they didn't replay to my concerns regarding their earlier comments due to length yet they did have space to add an accusation that isn't related to the behavior in question and leaves out a lot of context. K.e.coffman and I have previously disagreed on what is and isn't DUE but I would assume that is ok so long as it is civil. The complaint at hand seemed to be that moving goal posts was a disingenuous form of debate not that we didn't agree on weight in a given context. Moving goals wasn't my intention in this case and I will certainly be more self a aware in the future but I'm not sure it's fair to just say I don't understand weight because they don't agree with me. Sorry, this is a frustrating process. Springee (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-related concern: Part of the discussion at the ARE has involved editors who have opposed inclusion of criminal content adopting a battleground attitude. Suggestions that one side has an agenda to push such content into articles doesn't promote collaborative editing. However, I'm concerned the same editors who push (not PUSH) for inclusion are also removing large swaths of non-controversial, technical content from firearms articles. [[2]]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]]. I'm trying to raise the issue in a civil fashion here but I'm my audience isn't sympathetic. I understand that the content is unsourced, likely added by well meaning IP editors who weren't familiar with WP:V. However, these are also uncontroversial claims and it seems it would be better for the encyclopedia if they were tagged so they could be corrected instead of just removed. I think it undermines the view that the censorship of information is one sided and certainly adds fuel to the view that some editors have an agenda to turn articles about firearms into articles about the crimes committed and not about the device itself. I also currently feel a bit trapped because, if I object to stridently or decide to run around and fix all the recently edited articles, well that supports the "partisan agenda" view that MastCell was talking about. I certainly think it's hypocritical to push for one type of content yet actively try to strip away a different kind. Anyway, looking for your thoughts here. Thanks again. Springee (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

And a related question: Is it possible to protest a warning? [[6]]. I'm being warned not to do things I wasn't accused of doing. At no point was it suggested that I made POLMIC statement or vilified other groups of editors. Springee (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Springee, I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand. Sandstein made a ruling in the case and decided...well, you saw how they decided, and I think that the other two certainly should be grateful that it was a mild warning. From a quick look, it seems to me that Sandstein considered POLEMIC to be an appropriate guideline to cover all, most, or the most important aspect of the behavior. Obviously I can't speak for Sandstein. Moreover, you should not just be looking at the original post, but also at the comments offered by others, and by admins in the "Result" section. Sure, you can appeal this, but my guess is your appeal will be dismissed very quickly. Now, at the risk of sounding patronizing (and realistic), I think your best option is to accept the verdict and see if you can learn from it. Trying to explain the finding/result away by saying "this wasn't what the dude said we did" sounds a bit like moving the goal post, as if what the commenting admins concluded isn't valid cause it isn't literally what Dlthewave (is that their name?) said. No appeals court will look kindly on that. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the feedback and thoughts. It looks like things have been resolved and I won't need to appeal. I'm still going to be more conscious regarding making making arguments that might be seen as a double standard at a later date. Thanks again Springee (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

A new batch for R/D

Hello again D. The edits by this IP 2600:1001:B100:E15F:88DC:8185:F495:2E59 (talk · contribs) need R/D like those in the past. My thanks to you or whichever of your talk page watchers get them first. This macabre comic strip brought to mind the nerfgun comments from last week :-) Enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 20:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like 49TL zapped them while I was typing this. Good work. MarnetteD|Talk 20:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks MarnetteD. 49TL is on the ball. Liam got his new Nerf gun today but made a serious mistake--he got one of the Elites, sniper model, but single shot. Everyone knows that if you're going Elite you need to get the Nerf N-Strike Elite Strongarm Blaster; plus "sniping" just doensn't work a. with the little Elite bullets b. with something that shoots a foam dart twenty feet if you're lucky. My wife is getting a bit overwhelmed with all the Nerfing, and what she doesn't know is I'm getting a Nerf N-Strike Elite Mega CycloneShock Blaster, which I will keep hidden in this kitchen drawer until I have a need for it. BOOM. And then five more BOOMs. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, it was that swine again. You'd think that by now the WMF would have a list of editors who should not be allowed here, and their IPs and MOs, and would have made some of their lawyers make a quick call to some ISP, for instance. Or local police. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Christ Almighty. Well, I know when I need a firearms expert, or at least an expert in Nerf Blasters and Red Ryders, I now know who to ask. Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Got a Red Ryder for my birthday, last year. It has proven very effective. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

IP User 68.197.237.168

I've noticed you sent a message to that guy. I've had trouble with this person before, he wouldn't stop bragging that all non-IP users (Especially targeting Admins) are idiots and jerks. He is also an IP Hopper, as he once vandalised my talk page when I called him out. Watch out for him! Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why he acts so mean to anyone on Wikipedia apart from non-registered users. As you saw, he's very racist and he acts very edgy. When his ban expires in 3 months or so, i'll suspect he'll go back to being rude and edgy. By the way, I think I found another IP address user that might possibly be him, as he/she told a user to "Suck my D***" on the Zoey 101 page. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Welp, he came back to insult me with the same lame stuff he always says by block evading. He got blocked again. Luigitehplumber (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Catalogue of Women Featured Article

Hi Drmies, it's been a while. I hope all's well. I as browsing through today and corrected some template errors in Catalogue of Women ... then I nominated it for Featured Article. I'm thinking I'll get back to editing a bit to get my mind off work ...  davidiad { t } 05:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The naughty words guy is back again

Hi, you might want to take a look at Special:Contributions/75.170.5.193 and block. I see that you've blocked them before (from this IP address and several other accounts and IPs) and they're back again making their normal edit requests related to "naughty words". It looks like they didn't follow the advice you gave them to find a different hobby, unfortunately but not surprisingly. A long block would probably be best, considering they started editing again less than two hours after their previous 1-month block expired, but I'll leave that up to you. Many thanks, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Loyola Jesuit College; advice needed

I am starting to loose my cool over Loyola Jesuit College. To my opinion, somebody is using that article for promotion and to draw in new students (see User_talk:The_Banner#LJC). At the same time, he makes clear that he has absolutely no clue what he is doing. Like adding test and competition results to the lead because he failed to notice that it was moved to the end of the article. And restoring info about a singer/plan crash survivor while the article is about the school.

Except stepping back and cool down, do you have any advice to proceed? Maybe send in some experts? The Banner talk 13:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Stepping back will happen anyway, as I am moving house soon. No clue how quick my provider will be with moving my internet connection.

(talk page watcher) @The Banner: First things first, he should have been advised re. edit-warring:  Done Now we wait. Enjoy your trip to the pool-side bar  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 14:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I was too far down the line to think of that. The Banner talk 15:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: Nashville Predators

Or breaking ankles. Really don't get people's urge to run to Wikipedia and vandalize after every game but oh well, that why you guys exist. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this kosher?

I noticed that Locke Cole had inserted victims' names at Daingerfield church shooting today, clearly attempting to bolster the precedent argument. I think that's improper under the current circumstances. But no worries, I reverted per BRD and made a note to watch his contribs for more. Then it occurred to me that he has already reverted twice at Aurora, Illinois shooting while logged out, under two different IPv6 addresses. Is there a way to check for other such edits, or anything else that can and should be done? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've now been re-reverted at the Daingerfield article by a different editor, so that article now names the victims on the strength of a 2–1 "consensus" established by re-revert and edit summary. I asked the other editor to let it to go talk and they refused. And as I indicated above we have no idea how many other lists have been added in the past days at low-vis articles without even that much "discussion". Bout time for a DGAF attitude adjustment and a wikibreak I think. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I can't block that one editor for inserting verified information, no matter how much it may seem against possible consensus on another article. This is really a matter for ANI, if you think the editor has been disruptive enough, but in the end an RfC, a larger one maybe at the Village Pump, should settle this. The Las Vegas shooting doesn't have it either, I noticed. User:Niteshift36, I know there is nothing that forbids you from having done that revert, but still. Now we might have another edit war. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If we banned everyone that was annoying, there’d be no one left. Besides, as Asimov once said: “People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” O3000 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, it was not on the "strength" of 2-1 consensus at all, as I clearly stated. I looked at other shootings, ones with more victims, and found that they had lists. Several others that I didn't mention also include victims, even putting them in boxes of their own. When I reverted the removal of sourced materials, I explained that the RfC cited doesn't solve anything and that contemporary articles show longer lists of names (with more detail) than this article. I wasn't asked to let it go, the statement (not question) "I feel that's improper, but in any case this is not an issue that should be resolved by re-revert and edit summary. It needs to be dropped or go to talk." I was told to go to talk if I didn't want to drop it. Yet I see no discussion started there by Mandruss. Mandruss cites BRD, yet I'm seeing little discussion on his part as it relates to this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • My request was for you to self-revert, thus leaving the discussion decision with the BOLD editor as per the most common interpretation of BRD. I asked nothing else of you; sorry if that was unclear. But I may start an RfC at that article anyway; I'm letting that percolate. An RfC would be necessary to get sufficient participation there. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There was no request in anything you put on my talk page. You told me what needs to happen. It was more of an order than a request. And before you start arguing "it's semantics", yes, yes it is. This is an encyclopedia and words mean things. I'm sure that you were asking me to self-revert in your mind, but it didn't come across in your words. I'm looking forward to the discussion you start at the article talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For comparison, this is what an order would have looked like: "Self-revert so the issue can go to talk." But I shall make it a point to say "Would you please" if I ever ask anything of you again, which isn't likely. Not that I expect the outcome would be any different; that seems like a bit of red herring to me. And I haven't said I would necessarily start any discussion at that talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • To correct you, saying "It needs to be dropped or go to talk." is an order. You TELL me that I have 2 choices, drop it or take it to talk. There is no request in that at all. I've given you the benefit of the doubt thus far, but now you are essentially accusing me of dishonesty. And no, you haven't said you'd start a discussion. The presumption was that since you are a fan of BRD, that you'd actually participate in the D part of it. You removed sourced material, used some RfC that didn't even have a consensus to support it and then came to my page to tell me what to do (not ask). Where did you discuss the Daingerfield shooting article? Heck, you didn't even discuss it on my page. You ran to an admin and started complaining. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, a small minority of editors would call that an "order". I would start every sentence with "In my opinion," but in my opinion that would be very cumbersome. In my opinion most editors omit that, and in my opinion most infer it. As I said, I've added you to my very short list of prickly editors. In my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I too noticed the edit on Daingerfield. And as the information added is BLP (or close to it), any edits that receive resistance should be discussed. There is no consensus to include that information on the article. It is up to the editor wanting it in to establish such consensus. Why is BRD tossed out the window when the subject is crime? It's beginning to resemble the relationship between RS and wrestling. John from Idegon (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait, do I understand this correctly? You are trying to use BLP as the standard to use for adding the names of people who have been dead for nearly 4 decades? BRD hasn't been thrown out the window, but the editors I see chanting BRD have done zero discussion. You removed the victims first, as unsourced and citing NOTAMEMORIAL. No discussion. Another editor returned the information with a source, then Mandruss removed it, citing an RFC with no consensus and saying BRD, again with zero discussion. I restored it and suddenly I'm the one who is ignoring BRD? It was there, you "boldly" reverted it, it was restored......then with no discussion, it was removed again. If anyone threw BRD out the window, it was Mandruss first. NOTAMEMORIAL doesn't seem to apply here. Nobody is really being memorialized. It's a simple list of 5 names. I've already shown examples of contemporaries that show much longer lists of victims, including more information than the mere name and age that this article does. In addition to the ones I've cited (Columbine, Virginia Tech and MSD), articles such as Charleston's church shooting, the Bath School Massacre (a GA), Umpqua Community College shooting, West Nickel Mines School shooting, Santa Fe High School shooting, Poe Elementary School bombing and others list the victims. It would appear that this is a common practice on Wikipedia, so it would appear that there is a community consensus. Perhaps you can explain why this particular article should be held to a different standard? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You need to recheck your facts re me, some of which have already been refuted. And it's RfC, not RFD as you've written at least twice. RFD is redirects for discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You're correct, it is RfC. I mistyped it some of the times. You'll need to be more specific about the things you think were refuted. (And linking to a RFC expecting everything you write there to be applied here IS referencing the RfC. What you, along with John, have never done was discuss anything at the article being edited, but both of you have thrown BRD out like that absolves you from actual discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I refer you to my comment Monday at your UTP, in which I explained that I had never "cited" the RfC but merely had pointed to my !vote there because it was a convenient way to provide the fairly long rationale for my BRD revert. Even that explanation should not have been necessary, but even after it you're here claiming that I "cit[ed] an RFC with no consensus"! I really am not interested in pursuing discussion with an editor so inclined to misrepresent facts (or so unable to hear what I'm clearly saying; take your pick). As far as I'm concerned that article is now a dead issue, and you can have that list. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When you point me to a RfC, you are citing it....in this case, hoping I'd read everything you wrote there and apply it here. Sort of like when you cite a book....you point me to it and hope I'll read the source. And your revert wasn't a BRD, because it had already been removed once, then restored with sources. Just because you followed another editor into the article doesn't mean time restarted. And oting that you still haven't actually discussed the issue. Rather all you've done is complain about editors. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Mandruss: Point of order. When you say "I think that's improper under the current circumstances" can you tell me what "current circumstances" you have in mind? Can you expand on that? Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Whew. I managed to get this in between your edit conflicts. Ever consider spending more time polishing a comment before posting it?
    I don't know about you, but I don't go around enhancing precedent while precedent is a matter under dispute in an active RfC. As far as I'm concerned that's little different from changing a guideline relevant to an active discussion, in order to support one's position in the discussion. It just didn't smell right, particularly from an editor who had a history of disruption at the article and a lengthy block log for EW and DE. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mandruss: Well over 100 articles have been examined by me, 90% of which have been found to contain victim lists. One more article containing a victim list hardly "enhances precedent" to an appreciable degree. Victim lists can be considered standard material for inclusion in such articles. You are endeavoring to change longstanding practice. That is a valid pursuit. I disagree with it wholeheartedly. But I just thought we should get some perspective on what is transpiring in discussions such as these. Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't followed all the litigious details of the above but I am weighing in to endorse the gist of Niteshift36's comments. I did a lot of digging through related articles and found about 90% of related articles to include lists of victim names. I think "memorialization" is more than just listing name and age. We provide information. Our aim should be to provide an abundance of reliably-sourced information that is relevant to a given topic. If a reader finds a paragraph or section not relevant to their interests they simply skim over it—that is what I do. But deliberately omitting information, as is argued for here, is at cross-purposes with our raison d'être. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Am I crazy?

I need a sanity check. Is this not a case of WP:BIO1E? Given the coverage I can possibly see line in the Morgan Stanley article covering the controversy, but an entire article on an otherwise non-notable private individual? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) remember what the dormouse said. DlohCierekim (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: Interestingly, someone plopped a paragraph of OR trivia in the reference section of that article nearly three weeks ago. Fixed now!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Yes, looks like 1E to me. Not necessarily in the sense of "there was only one event" but in the sense of "it was one news event". It's a tough call, a BLP for someone about whom one can't say anything positive (I wrote up a politician like that, and got him on the front page), but then given the penchant among editors for ANY NEWS EVENT it's unlikely that it'll be deleted. So unless you can make a case that it's an obvious BLP violation, there isn't much we can do. And I don't know if the story links him to his employer strongly enough to put it in there. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
So I am crazy. The majority of sources in the article frame the story as "Morgan Stanley knew this guy was bad news and did nada", but if this is the sort of NOTNEWS jetsam that is regularly kept at AfD then so be it. Sigh.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd support deletion if it goes to AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Niteshift, you want to put it up and see how it goes? Drmies (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Ponyo et al.: I see that there's a huge section for "controversies"--I hate those sections, but it shows that there is indeed a place in the main article for it: Morgan_Stanley#Controversies_and_lawsuits. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Aye. I don't think adding a section in the main article and boldly redirecting the article there would be particularly controversial. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
So ordered. Thanks to all of you. Please go see what I've done--I cut it some, but maybe more needs to be cut. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
You're a star!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Only because Black Kite told me to, basically. BLACK KITE. YOU WROTE THE ARTICLE FOR Eat (band)??? Holy MF you are my new superhero. Would you believe I found a copy of Epicure a few months ago? Still haven't listened all the way through--there is nothing like Sell Me A God. And there's a new EP? That article needs some cleaning up... Drmies (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Sold out. And there was another--also sold out. Grrr. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Point of order: "Crazy" is a relative thing. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
That thing has a plot summary? Drmies (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, not being acquainted with the illustrious Firesign Theatre. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This is true. On the bright side, I owned a car with an 8-track player. AND I HAD A BARRY MANILOW 8-TRACK. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Schniggendiller talk 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Brisbane Boys' College Old Boys

No article, no entry? What's that got to do with lists of people? They are all cited. JRATalk 06:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Does Old Boys mean the same thing in Australia as it does in the South? TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
No it doesn't, Tony. C'mon man! JRA, we're not talking about a standalone list, we're talking about a list in an article. The easiest way to prove "The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement" is to write the article. There is no reason whatsoever why a "Director of Australia Food & Fibre Limited" would be notable, and this "cited" stuff--yeah, this guy was cited to a Who's Who, which is the lousiest of all sources. Plus, what we seem to have here is another one of those promotional lists that alumni associations love and that all too easily veer into undesired territory--where every alumnus is listed because, well, they're an alumnus. And then there's the fluff, like, someone is "associate member of Royal Australian College of Radiologists for outstanding contribution in innovation". Rhodes scholars aren't inherently notable, and the citation there was a document on the university website: that's not citing properly. Finally, you will have (or should have) noted that I left the names for which one can presume automatic notability--the judges. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair call. I mean the notability requirements for lists are a bit up in the air according to that policy, so I just wanted a little more explanation on a type of article that has content often willy nilly added and removed. What's a bit unfair is your edit note "No. rv unexplained re-insertion of non-notable people" when I clearly opened dialect with you here. :\ JRATalk 00:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Quranism

So, you blocked User:Quranism here.

Straight back from their block, same edit summary.

I wonder if you'd care to remonstrate again? Pinkbeast (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. [Username Needed] 13:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't rush, I've closed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Ritchie333, I am so sorry I missed the action--thank you for taking care of it. Who is User:Username Needed and what were they doing? Or thinking? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
It was me reporting everyone involved in a case, regardless of 'side' since I was uninvolved [Username Needed] 09:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
OK--I hope you saw that this, unfortunately, wasn't very useful in this case. It's not like Charlottesville where all sides were equal, according to some: please read the comments in the now-closed and possibly archived report. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Fake news! Just because he said there were "very fine people on both sides" doesn't mean he thought they were all equal. I think everyone knows which side he thinks is more equal. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Mandarax, this would be even funnier if you knew what my Facebook name is. Take care, old friend. I'm listening to some Talk Talk, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, but I do know. That's not why I wrote the above, but I was thinking of the connection. Now that you've mentioned the connection, if you think someone might be able to brute-forcely discover your True Identity, feel free to revdel thus whole tangent. And here's a tangent tangent: although my previous proselytization attempts have been unsuccessful, I highly recommend you check out "The Math of Love Triangles". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ravrij3!!

User:Ravrij3!! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Drmies

I just reverted a bunch of promotional edits to American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and went to leave an NPOV message at User talk:Ravrij3!!.

I saw that the only other content was an NPOV warning from 2018 by you, so I checked the contribs: all to the same page.

Looks like a promotional WP:SPA.

Is it too soon to conclude WP:NOTHERE? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

My edits at Passive-aggresive personality

Thanks for looking over my edits. I reverted you reversion of my editing without realizing you had weighed in. The reason for the "their own" addition to "anger" is that I have brought up the anger that can be evoked in associates by PAP, as well as the person with the PAP being angry.

As far as changing "acting dumb" to "going dumb", PAP is by definition not an action, but rather a lack of action, so "going" seems preferable here to me. As a compromise, I have put in both! Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Special:Diff/886267034

Honestly, I have no clue. You are welcome to review the discussion at User talk:Steven rose. This is way out of my wheelhouse. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I don't really want to make this an ANI thing. User 62.149.52.246, apparently a relative of murdered UK tourist Grace Millane, objects to the presence on wikipedia of a page about her. He also (oddly) appears to think the description "property developer" as opposed to "property maintenance business owner" is not merely inaccurate but somehow defamatory. I tried to reach out to him on his talk page, explaining that his concerns could be discussed at the article talk page with a view to improving the article, but got nowhere. He has now made two legal threats ([7] & [8]). Could you maybe have a few words with him? Or is this just indef block material? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. We don't block IPs indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Max, thanks Bbb. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Blocked?

Hi. I wonder why you have blocked IP 83.185.84.126 for LTA.DrKilleMoff (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

83.185.84.126 (talk · contribs · count) has never been blocked by anyone. It has never edited, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting you as vandalism, thought you were involved with this [[9]]. Apologies again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23:. Ok, my misstake. It was this IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2A00:801:381:8B58:2E1D:53C5:B9B6:3603

That IP was blocked as part of a range. Why are you interested in it?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Because it's my mobile IP and i've never edited from it so I was kind of shocked DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@DrKilleMoff: You can find a Drmies response here. The range was enormously abused by a prolific vandal. I'd change the block message to something a bit friendlier, but the block has not got long to run. As long as you're logged in you won't be affected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: [10]

Hi Drmies,

Thank you for your message. I will take it up with SF Weekly directly. Please keep an eye on the Globelamp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page. User:Elvenwitchtiff has already revised all of your edits.

Pinewood Derby Cars

Have you finished the cars yet? I wanna see! :-D --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Ha! Good point. Yes, and I made shelves for them too. I'll upload some pictures when I can. And I'll tell you that SOMEONE IN THIS ROOM won "Most Awesome Car". Drmies (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon

I'm concerned about recent edits by Tony85poon, but don't know what to do, if anything. Might you be willing to take a look at their recent contributions and take an appropriate action, or pass along my concern? If you're not interested, all good! ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think User:Muboshgu is taking a look. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
No, more eyes the better. I only just recently watchlisted that article and am not particularly familiar with it, nor promising to look too deeply into it right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you pinging me cause I've had a little run-in with them before? I see their edits go by, occasionally, but have not yet seen more cause for concern. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like

Michael Licona has an army of zombies. Praxidicae (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Wow. I semi-protected the article, though if these accounts keep popping up from some antedeluvial period rather than out of nowhere, there's not much point to it. Let's see what comes out of your SPI report. This is crazy. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I actually fully expect this one not to be a technical match but rather meat by way of the subject trying to push it. Also I removed some more garbage sources (like LDS records, which are generally from Familysearch.org) Praxidicae (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Same here--although I can't myself to bring me yet to think that a good, nice, white Christian boy, the perfect son in law, would be engaged in something like this. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, there's def some level of COI here. Praxidicae (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Maurice Ravel

With the appearance now of User:Hurtwiki2020107, I'm wondering if an SPI might be in order? Or maybe just some more blocks? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably not socking, just a vandal magnet because it's on the main page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: I accidentally saw it and I can't unsee it and now I'm scared.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes. Good point. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC) a vandal magnate... a bit like a troll tycoon?
Currently setting up an adminbot to block everyone who has this page watchlisted. Just to be safe. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That would be my first. - Help (was moved, and is requested to be moved)? Has a better image of him than the FA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I, for one, have never read this page and didn't even know it existed. O3000 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
WHAT. WHAT HAPPENED HERE. WHY WAS I ARBCOMMED AND SOMEONE WROTE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S SECTION LIKE WE'RE SAVAGES AND THEN IT WAS DEARBCOMMED AND NOW THERE'S TALKING ON MY TALK PAGE
And I, for one, know that this page does not exist. And that's why I refuse to add any comments on it. Ever. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I don’t know what this “watchlist” thing is. I simply dip my mind into the web each morn and absorb its essence. I reject the accusation that I “watch” (i.e. stalk) anyone here and would file a complaint at AE or AN/I, except I’ve never heard of them either. The only reason I’m here is that I get bored waiting on hold for my cable company to stop playing The Girl from Ipanema. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, at least it makes a change from this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
That's more notes than Mahavishnu. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
<--- please insert preferred copyright-compliant YouTube link here ---> not here 123 (not talking) 23:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
not here 123, I was seriously thinking about citing you elsewhere on Wikipedia today, where someone had left me a YouTube linked comment--and I was going to say "I only click on YouTube links if Martinevans left them". Birds of Fire... OK earlier today I posted on Facebook that there's no need to listen to anything made after Chaos A.D. (don't tell Ritchie), but that's not to say there's nothing before that. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing approach(es)

Hi there,

please read this testament if you want (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hippo43), then compare both latest sets of contributions if you will. Will never be able to prove it (so out of respect for the other user i'll never say it's the case), but this is very similar to WP:HOUND and, either way, it's making me feel uncomfortable as hell.

From now on, maybe sticking to updating infoboxes and/or adding refs to already perfectly outlined storylines (such as the ones written by the user above)? Hey it's a (wiki)living... P.S. Please no messages to the other user to further aggravate them, this is as bad as it is now (person, never resorting to insults or profanity that's a given, but never acknowledging any wiki-wrongdoing, or any mistakes at all for that matter, i'm the pathetic one that does not understand the site's guidelines); nor do i want any ANI report, merely confiding to you and hoping for some feedback.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It seems like you two have worked it out some? HEY--so the ONE TIME I should have been watching soccer on a weird Tuesday afternoon, I missed it... I think I'm going to find the whole match on YouTube and watch it. I can't believe I missed it. Can't believe they beat Real like that. Also can't believe those horrible jerseys... Drmies (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

inconceivable

I cannot believe how many editors had their eyes on that and let that go. valereee (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

For your pleasure

Hello D. Naturally you popped to mind when I listened to this delightful segment on NPR this morning. Of course you may already be aware of this but I thought that you and/or some of your talk page watchers might find it interesting. For any of thse who are not familiar with NPR's website if you click on the arrow in the blue circle in the upper left corner you can hear the whole interview. Enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 16:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I didn't hear it, but a half a dozen people pinged me on Facebook, haha. I'll bring it up in my linguistics class next week, too. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Jerome War Relocation Center

Hello! Thank you for your message. Nice to meet you. This article needs editing and sources. But this is not my topic. I write about other things (for example). Best regards, -- Baden-Paul (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, I would like to let you know that you are no longer invited to comment on my talk page. I realized I have failed to tell you before, but now I would like to make this as explicit as possible.
Best regards, DoctorSpeedWant to talk? —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, I don't know what you did that this editor feels the need to warn you off their talk page half a year after you last commented on it, but you're welcome to comment on my talk page instead. I only bite doughnuts, and, rarely, minivans. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, TonyBallioni is right there with you. DlohCierekim 01:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
According to some WMF banned users, I’m one of Drmies many Dutch socking CUs, so that makes sense that we’d be banned under both accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, I told my wife about ... need to look it up ... Brian Krzanich and all the money I got from Intel for editing that article. She asked the same thing the IRS did...WHERE IS THE MONEY??? And I didn't have a good answer for that. Anyway, if we get banned we'll just start our own wiki. Get some fools to do the unpaid work for us...have them yelled at, outed, denounced to their employers with impunity...it's a win-win. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I just want to know when I learned Dutch. Next time I’m in Alabama I’ll come by for lessons in my native language. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Zal een keertje tijd worden, gozer! Drmies (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
It has been a while since you have stopped by my talk page, Drmies, but you are welcome there any time. I know that it is boring compared to yours, but still. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I apologize, Cullen. But in my defense, I visit your daily flower photographs quite regularly... Drmies (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Then all is well, Drmies. Ten years of Wikipedia editing and six years of frequent flower photos on Facebook. Old men have their strange obsessions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

In other news, good doctor, the game is tomorrow and I have a ticket. Berean Hunter is jelly. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Wait, for real? Wow. Cullen will tell you, if you're not frequently mobile, how to continue doing your job from your cell phone. Is Zion back? I think he missed two games since that little accident? Drmies (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Being in grad school has some benifits, most reverend doctor. I’ll be sure to send pics when we win. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Buy yourself an Android, and learn how to use it, like billions of other people do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Cliff's Notes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I know this is completely OT - I think the topic has descended into college football, which is where all topics on Drmies's Talk page end up one way or the other - but I was reading (again) your bio on your userpage (I get a real kick out of it - you tell a good story), and I was curious about one thing: how did you get to be Jewish with a name like Heaphy?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23, I grew up in a Detroit suburban neighborhood with lots of Jewish residents, had Jewish friends as a kid, dated several Jewish women and ended up marrying one. I converted to Judaism after about 14 years of study, and within about two years, was elected board president of our local synagogue. That was well over 20 years ago. In the Napa Valley, "Heaphy" is now a Jewish name Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
College basketball, Bbb. Much more exciting. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Ask Drmies what I think of sports - professional, college, amateur ...--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I once worked for a much older and very good man. He had season tickets to the Bruins games (any "normal" person would have accepted in a flash). He offered to take me, but I really didn't want to go. However (blending topics a bit here), he also invited me to a Yom Kippur service. I'm not big on churches, temples, etc., but his school sweetheart wife was disabled and house-bound, and I figured he really just wanted company, so I went. I was glad I did (wasn't a bad service) and he was pleased.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Tony. Sports is great. College ball is great. But I'm 0-2 this season. I'm sad. I wish I was Jewish, or X-ian, or anything, so I could maybe find solace in the universe. And every time I hear "Reddish" I think "Reddick". I think this world has passed me by.

    Anyway, Mrs. Drmies paid $5.99 for the remake of A Star Is Born, and she thought it's a sweet romantic comedy. We're in for a trip. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Your Message

Hi User:DrMies, this is in response to your email. I led a 5+ hr edit-a-thon for about 80 people today at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles. It was part of the Art+Feminism campaign. I am an ambassador for that project and have been leading events like this for six years. The participants receive a one-hour training session that discusses COI, notability, deletion risk, and other issues; they also get one-on-one assistance after the workshop. Some students pick it up more quickly than others, and while I cannot personally assure every contribution they make, I'm devoting a lot of volunteer time to helping new editors contribute productively. Opening an SPI would be a waste of your time and a waste of mine. Hopefully that clears it up.StaceyEOB (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but I already said I wasn't going to do that. If the editors had placed a note on their user/talk page, like we do in the education project, I would have never looked into it in the first place. Thanks, and I hope it was a success. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't a one-off event

Hi, I noticed your recent reversion of my edit of Infanticide. Specifically, this wasn't a one-off event, it was a pattern of repeatedly ignoring the "don't execute a pregnant woman" rule during the Counter-Reformation in Britain. See page 91 of this Journal for more on this: http://quidditas.humwp.byu.edu/files/2018/12/20.pdf

The "don't execute a pregnant woman" rule is related to infanticide, you could think of it as a prickly hedge style rule, a fence of sorts that prevents occasional infanticide on the part of authorities. Hence I think this incident justifies inclusion in the article. It is one of the last state-mandated infanticides in Europe prior to WWII and the holocaust, though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You were right

I was wrong. --valereee (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies is always right. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
...and the only rational editor here to boot. Lectonar (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Bit unfair that, booting Drmies just because he's rational... ——SerialNumber54129 16:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
...wouldn't that have been..."and the only rational editor, here to boot..." Lectonar (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
No. ——SerialNumber54129 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Biff Rose

Hi, I noticed that you had semi-protected Biff Rose's entry. Someone has blanked part of the page and it looks like it might be Biff Rose himself. Could you give it a once over? Star*pust (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I super appreciate it.Star*pust (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Biff Rose 2

At one point you had semi-protected Biff Rose's page. Now that there are several racism and anti-semitic allegations as well as a photo with Rose posing with David Duke, another editor is blanking those citations and mentions. Star*pust (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Biff Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) here is a link to the article D. Star*pust this looks like a content dispute. It would be a good idea to start a conversation on the articles talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 22:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Other people think so too -- [11]. Drmies, I plunged into this after I saw your post at WP:BLPN and thought it looked in need of some tidy-up. From your comments above, it's no longer in your sphere of interest, but if you do need any further comments from me, just let me know. (I am in the UK still, and right now they have sawed their country in half and are trying to feed one half of it up the other half's rear -- or so it appeared from the politics news this evening.) MPS1992 (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Ugh what a mess. Thanks MPS--that website link was useless. Starpust, I don't know what to say--the stuff is poorly sourced, indeed, which seems to be symptomatic for the article. And the separate Bowie section, I'm going to tweak that seriously, since Rick Wakeman buying an album hardly verifies that this guy was that influential. MPS, BLPN used to be more frequently visited by a greater number of editors... Drmies (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding BLPN, don't worry, I think it goes up and down. There's sometimes an influx of stupid that needs dealing with, then there's an influx of nothing happening for quite some time, then people get less involved. There's one extra item largely unanswered there that I ought to deal with, but it won't be tonight so I might forget it. As for the Bowie things, I tried to ignore it since I basically don't care -- sorry -- but any blanking you've had to do is probably wise, because there's a long-standing allegation for more than five years now that there is or was some major WP:COI nonsense occurring on that article. MPS1992 (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Dowbiggin

Hey Drmies, I hope I'm not interupting something important you just happen to be who I saw online. This was very silly of me, I'm aware, but I moved Bruce Dowbiggin from my sandbox and wanted to know if the history (which includes everything I've done in the sandbox) could be removed? I don't know why I didn't think to blank my sandbox and move from there...been a long day. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Rollback permission

Hi - you might remember the issues with AryanTheArticleArtist, and the discussion here? I've been going through the CVUA course with Aryan here - they appear to be in a bit of a hurry, and don't always read everything as closely as I'd like, but they do seem able to learn and have been making progress. They were eager to start using Huggle, which I wouldn't be happy with because I find that the 'real time' nature of can lead to an urge to rush decisions, which wouldn't be good for Aryan; however, I believe they could be trusted with Stiki, which lets you take your time. They applied for rollback a few days ago, but there's a bit of a backlog at WP:PERM and the request hasn't been addressed - as someone who knows the backstory, would you be willing to consider the application? Thanks in advance, GirthSummit (blether) 16:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit, I'm sorry--obviously I'm catching up. Is this still something I need to have a look at? I'll be glad to. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi - the request is still open, so if you could take a look at it that would be good. I'm assuming that it's been open so long because it's a bit of a close call, which is why I came to you - if you think Aryan's not there yet, I'll be quite comfortable with continuing through the course using Twinkle only, happy to abide by your judgment. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Girth Summit, holy moly--you put in a lot of work. Thank you; I appreciate it. Your candidate seems to be doing OK, and by know probably knows a lot more than a lot of patrollers. The question remains whether they have learned much from their experience with the IP (often referred to as "99", in reference and deference to his age); in particular, I'm curious to see if they realize now that this comment was patronizing and avoided the real issue: it wasn't the IP that made a mistake, so "Lets all become friends and learn from our mistakes" is a cop-out. That, however, doesn't mean that now they're not qualified for rollback--it does mean that perhaps they aren't ready to do the collaborative thing (this kind of blanking doesn't help either]).

Anyway, I granted rollback with the parameters you indicated at PERM--and again, thank you for taking the time to help tutor editors. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW I revdeleted one of the vandal edits they spotted. I didn't read all of the training, but it bothers me sometimes that patrollers don't immediately report the obvious BLP issues that warrant deletion. And an experienced patroller, someone who actually knows and understands the policies and has experience in actual editing, should in some cases escalate warnings immediately, like in obvious racist vandalism. I've read the riot act to more than one such patroller (you know who the regulars are) but that seems to fall on deaf ears. Frequently, if the first editor/patroller doesn't signal obvious racist/sexist/etc. stuff, it remains in the history. OK, rant over. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that in so much depth. I agree with you that the response over the incident with 99 was totally inappropriate, and I hope I made it clear that in future, should anyone highlight a mistake they've made when reverting, an immediate fulsome apology is what's called for - so far, that hasn't been put to the test, but I'll work with them on that should it happen.
Apologies if I missed something that should have been revdelled. I have been trying to get attuned to what is and is not perceived as being over the threshold for it myself since I started patrolling. I think I get it right most of the time, but I have been surprised by one or two requests that were declined - once, I reported an instance where a head teacher's surname had been changed to a slang term for a peadophile - I was told that was vandalism, but not worthy of revision deletion. That kind of stuck in the craw - as a teacher myself, I would find that grossly insulting.
Similarly with escalating warnings on the first instance - I once gave a vandal a level 3 warning for inserting 'I fucked your mom' (with spelling mistake to evade the filter) into an article; as they continued doing it, I gave them a Level 4, and ultimately reported to AIV, but my report was declined because 'the user had been insufficiently warned'. Since then, I rarely start past a level 1 unless it's massively egregious.
I don't really know where I'm going with this - I suppose I'm saying that the guidelines for how to respond to vandalism are open to a certain amount of interpretation, and we don't all seem to agree on what's appropriate. Perhaps we should review the guidelines and make sure everyone (patrollers and admins) are singing from the same hymn sheet. So that's my rant over - thanks again for looking at this. GirthSummit (blether) 19:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It is true that different admins deal with things differently. It is also true that frequently not enough warnings have been given. But "I fucked your mom" is, in my book, enough for an immediate block--though it's also true that I've become less tolerant over the years, since I've seen so many cases where vandals were allowed to go on for too long. Another problem is that often vandal edits get reverted but warnings aren't given out, so that the next person starts with level 1. As for level 1, are you ready for a rant? Triggering Mandarax... Anyway, if I'm around, and you run into things you think need some quick attention, don't hesitate to ping me. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
<Rant protocol engaged.> Sorry, too tired to be very ranty right now. Check the archives for highlights of previous rants. I will say that, yes, it's frustrating to report a vandal who got exactly the levels of warnings they deserved, only to have some moron say that they've been insufficiently warned. (I find that often a more reasonable admin will later come along and take care of the well-deserved block.) That's why, when I revert a series of vandalistic edits, I sometimes issue a separate warning for each individual edit rather than just a single one as is generally done. Or, if I issue a higher level warning, then check their contribs and see that they have unwarned edits, I'll issue lower level warnings for those edits above my first warning. Oh, did this turn into a rant anyways? I don't think so, but maybe ... too tired to tell. Rants are relative. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Rants are relative, and my relatives are ranty - particularly if I'm spending too much time editing Wikipedia...
Thanks for the comments Mandarax, I'm in agreement. Thanks too Drmies for the invitation to ping you in future instances - I might take you up on that one day! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 08:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Air raids on Japanese cities

Hi, Please let me know if you need sources for any other articles about air raids on Japanese cities. I have a range of sources on the topic, including a book which briefly describes literally every B-29 bomber operation of the war. The Craven and Cate book you referenced is probably the single most comprehensive and useful work though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Nick-D, I was very impressed by that book--and thanks, US government, for making all that material available. I'm going to show off my new knowledge to my colleague across the hall, the history dude and veteran of the US Army. No, I think this is about all I need for that particular article, though more is always better (esp. number of casualties). As I mentioned elsewhere I'm reading On the Natural History of Destruction and it's chilling. I see that you haven't edited much on Bombing of Hamburg in World War II, which is a shame, because you seem to leave many good articles in your wake. Right now the number of victims--over 42,000 dead, inconceivable--is buried in the middle of a sentence in the middle of a paragraph surrounded by bold print and blue links; if anyone can make this better it's you and I hope you can find the time for it (you know the conventions for those articles...). Thank you again for your help, for your making so many of our important articles so much better. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I have been considering working on the bombing of Hamburg, having visited the city and the main memorial to the bombing there. The lack of an article on the firebombing is a significant omission, and I'll try to knock out a B-class article or similar to fill the gap over coming months (we didn't have an article focused on the massive March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo until last year, so this suggests a broader issue). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey

I need to get back into editing. What've you been up to that is fun (i.e. not the vandal-fighting or super controversial stuff)? LadyofShalott 03:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Lady, so nice to see you. Also you, Doc. Take a look at Draft:Kristle Murden which is being discussed at the Teahouse and on my talk page. It is an autobiography by a black woman who may well be notable. At least I think she is. What do you two think? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Drmies I hope you enjoy the book!--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's very heavy, MainlyTwelve. Do you know I met Marlon James? I have a picture on my door of the two of us. I felt so proud. I'm finishing up On the Natural History of Destruction, then I gotta review a book on "excessive saints", and then it's James. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Drmies I didn't know that! Enjoy the Sebald in the meantime.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Cullen328. I have not looked at the references at all, but assuming the accolades listed in that draft are true, I'd say, yes, she is certainly notable. LadyofShalott 16:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nerf hammer on a new user?

I'm looking for advice on handing a small but irksome content dispute in a way that won't lead to formal drama. I've been away from WP for a while, so maybe I'm just missing something obvious on how to deal with this.

At Military, I and another editor made reverts involving the flow of the lede in defining the subject, and I started discussion at Talk:Military#BRD: primary purpose of military is warfare. The editor has twice reverted during the BRD, against consensus (me and another editor against). Most troublesome to me, in the BRD discussion, the editor has stated "This discussion is meaningless" I have opened a thread on the editor's talk page, without meaningful effect.

Though new, the editor has made many good edits on several other articles, and will, I think, be of value to Wikipedia. So I'm not looking to escalate this (DRN, AN/EW, etc.), or to take up a lot of many editors' time (formal RFC), except as a last resort. Can someone (Drmies or stalker) spend some of your valuable time to look over this in enough detail to offer some considered opinion? The editor insists I am in the wrong. If so, I'll be glad to learn that without aggravating the editor by pinging.Otherwise, what should I do next?

If you don't have time for such a minor issue, that's understandable. The drama paths are always available. --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Whoa. That's a lot of text. Can I speak as an editor before I speak as an admin? That's a lot of wikilinks, a lot of overlinking, in both versions. OK. Yes, that editor is editing against consensus, even if it's a small group he's going against singlehandedly. But there's something else: their references simply aren't OK--they aren't reliable secondary sources. Worse, at least some of them are primary and reflect the opinion of the military of itself. It's like those ads for the Marines or whatever where they're all holding babies and delivering food from helicopters in ravaged areas. They may do that also, but that's not the whole truth. I wonder if Nick-D is still around--I think Nick was with the French Foreign Legion before he started churning out FAs on Wikipedia, and he may have either advice or a plan of action. And I agree with you on that dismissive comment. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Lol! FFL! hehehe JarrahTree 00:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, those references are not suitable. It's not a good idea to do things like reference "The main functions of the militaries maintained by sovereign states are usually defined as defence of the state, its territory and population, deterrence" to the website of the Singapore Ministry of Defence - it obviously doesn't support such a broad-ranging statement. There are tons of readily available reliable sources which describe the roles of militaries which should be used instead. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, all, for taking the time to look over this! You've confirmed that I'm not somehow mistaken about my view. I agree on the lede being overlinked throughout this; the conflict stopped the work in progress of trying to sort out that rather poor article. I also agree on the poor primary sources being added that don't support the text being cited; I couldn't get any response when I pointed that out. Mainly, thanks for the support in dealing with this editor, hopefully allowing me to avoid drama resolution. --A D Monroe III(talk) 19:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

About some editing issues on Phoebe Man's wikipedia page

Hi Drmies!

I am now working on Phoebe Man's wiki page. Thank you so much for your advices and guide! That's help a lot.

This is my first article on Wikipedia; therefore, I have some questions about editing. I would be grateful if you can help! You delete the section of "Work" because of inappropriate citation. However, the source is the official site of Phoebe Man. Why it is an invalid source? By the way, some artists don't put their works in the gallery. How could I find the gallery no.?

Thx again!

Suy sunny (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

How about the information from City University of Hong Kong? May I use this source to show Man's artwork on wiki page? Suy sunny (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Suy sunny, thank you for your note. Wikipedia works by way of secondary sources. What you link is a primary source--it is, essentially, the resume, which would then be used to source what is essentially another resume. It's the kind of thing we can link, possibly, in the External links section, but it is not something that could possibly be considered a secondary source verifying actual content. The question of a possible conflict of interest remains open, by the way. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thank you so much for explanation! I will try to find some other secondary sources for citation.Suy sunny (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Mail

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

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Self-reverts

Thank you for your assistance. Am I able to now revert the edits under contention (@ Lori Loughlin?Dogru144 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

But how...?

Do you explain that I found the Dutch ArbCom page that is linked directly on the sidebar from our ArbCom page if Reddit isn't right that I am you and you are half of nl.wiki's ArbCom?!?!?!? TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Shoot, who am I this time? A Dutch editor also? Wait--I vaguely remember... seriously these LTA sockers, how do they keep their shit straight? I saw today or yesterday that another longtime editor had been socking--crazy. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I think you/me/we are also natuur12? I don't know. Crazy is difficult to translate regardless of the language. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Rrrrright...natuur12...thanks! Yeah I should write down all my socks. Better, I'll write them down in a sandbox, that's a lot easier. On a happier note, I remember Pi Day in time, and we had chocolate tort for dessert. Look for Tyler Florence's recipe, if you got nothing better to do. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

New type of fancruft in K-pop

Im sorry to bother you with K-pop related fancruft (no animals or favourite colours this time), but apparently the Hong Kong fancrufters are now finding dance practice sessions extremely important, so they keep re-adding some crap at Gugudan#2019: 9 person performance version of "Not That Type" – this should be removed, right? That random HK actress just visited their dance practice as a segment of the TV variety show or some shit, and now the fancrufters even added her as a "one-day member of the group", even though she didnt record any music or anything with them, they just danced to a song together because of a TV variety show purposes; oh, and there are also 3 youtube dance practice videos used as a "source" in that section, like this, seem like a very important thing to fancrufters. I dont know if someone would already removed it by the time you would read it, here is a dif how it looked like – and that account is constantly adding it back during the last 3 days despite being reverted by three people, even with IP socks. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked users User:Thumb boy 3 and User:Brexit Bob

Hello. Per this edit they're socks of long-time sockmaster Evlekis. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. Cheers - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

the warning you left does not fit the description for that warning

could you please review the warning you left on my talk page? Verify references (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Petecover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Petecover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Fradio71

Sorry about that. I saw some useful edits from Fradio71, and generally got the impression we're seeing a very young editor. Certainly one who has problems with authority and has not yet figured out how to deal with conflicts. My bumbling attempts to get him to understand his position don't seem to have helped, if anything they gave him more rope to rant on. I'll stay out of such situations in the future. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Tarl, please do not apologize: I read your comments and appreciate them--that you advocate for a person who is in trouble speaks to your character. Please do not stay out of those discussions; we need editors like you. BTW I'm not looking at that page again--the anniversary of Trayvon Martin's murder was only a few weeks ago, and that user had no business drawing that comparison. It is hard to believe that it's been seven years, and look where we still are. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch attacks

What's your opinion on the use of the word "terrorist" in the lead? See talk page discussion at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • There's a discussion on that? Wow. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There exist worse problems on that article. In particular, repeated attempts to include a Daily Stormer conspiracy theory and rationales for the shooting based upon his manifesto. Some attempts at armchair psychoanalysis, that is determining his motivations according to his own writings, as if he himself knows why he did it. I was going to ask for more eyes -- but they're wandering in. Some side effects on Al_Noor_Mosque,_Christchurch. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • And now at AN too... Thank you O3000. I'm actually trying to stay away, from Facebook as well, since I get really sad and upset at the old a. both sides are at fault b. what about Nigeria (now picked up by Breitbart) c. fuck I don't care anymore what these conspiracy theorists, armchair psychologist, and unselfconscious racists are coming up with. I saw a collage of Dutch a-holes commenting on Facebook--it was like reading Nazis chatting about the Holocaust. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Hey, bigotry is so 2019s. Just wondering how broad AP2 and BLP DS sanctions can be applied. This type of thing has become political, and claiming a small mosque to be a terrorist recruitment center would appear to raise BLP issues. O3000 (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

victim list at Aurora, Illinois shooting

You are pointing to a percentage "by edits" as opposed to "by added text". Nevertheless I've added a lot of text so I'll respond to you here rather than add to my participation at "Aurora, Illinois shooting". Perhaps you will find this difficult to understand—a large number of victims should be treated differently in our articles than a small number of victims, both for logistical reasons—too much space taken up—and for emotional reasons—the mind goes numb when numbers of casualties increase. As to some of your other points—yes, these are gritty articles, especially "Aurora, Illinois shooting". (Less so, 2017 Las Vegas shooting.) With 5 victims in the "Aurora, Illinois shooting" article, they should be listed. Contrary to your assertions, their names do have significance. That is entirely obvious. Their names are not dispensable information.

I don't think you and others understand the precedent set by most other similar articles at Wikipedia. 90% provide information on the identities of victims including their names. Check out University of Texas tower shooting if you want to see what "gritty" means. I call your attention to the photograph with the caption reading "Whitman dead on the observation deck". This article contains in-depth information on how each victim died. And it mentions their names.

I would argue for good taste in these sorts of articles—but not at the cost of sacrificing information. I favor lists, not prose. The list of names at 2016 Oakland warehouse fire is lengthy, including the names and ages of 36 people. But I think the presentation is as tasteful as can be given the gruesomeness of the information. I don't think I am ghoulish for wanting to include this information. I think editors are being namby-pamby by not recognizing relevant information when they see it. Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but there's nothing here. The only reason you give for including short lists but not long lists is that a long list makes the mind go numb? You're determining article content based on reader-response? And because the reader's mind goes numb in a long list, the names are dispensable in a long list but not in a short list? Your argument to keep the names would make more sense without that blatant contradiction. So yes, I find that difficult to understand, and apparently I am not the only one. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Bus stop, I haven't yet seen where you stand on including the names for Christchurch mosque shootings. Where's your cut-off point? How many people--when does the list become tedious for the reader? If the victims' names are such an integral part of the event's meaning, as you argued elsewhere, how exactly does that transfer of meaning work? What kind of names are we looking for? But mostly, how many? Drmies (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I've made my position clear. You asked me on the "Aurora, Illinois shooting" Talk page if I would argue for a victim list at the article Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, involving almost 300 deaths. I responded "I would never argue that the 300 victims of the plane crash should be included in that article." I take a laissez-faire approach to article-writing. I don't know what the upper limit is for number of listed victim names. I have never created a victim list or contributed to the creation of a victim list. I have just restored a victim list in the midst of an editorial tussle over this. I say just let editors write articles. This is a created drama, an excuse for a bull session, hardly unusual. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • No, you have not made your position clear--you've thrown out a bunch of weird arguments, some of them contradictory. You restored contested content and filled up half the talk page with your musings: you are clearly invested, and yet unwilling to respond if you are called out on it. You say it's meaningful with 6 but not with 300; I'm simply asking you if 49 is still within your "meaningful" range. The rest is hot air. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, 49 is acceptable to me. If another editor creates a succinct list—containing say only names and ages—I would voice no objection. But this would be considered hypothetical, wouldn't it? I'm not even aware of the existence of the Christchurch mosque shootings article. I am only linking to it for the first time from your above post. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
          • BS (sorry, but you picked the initials), I won’t insult you by providing a link to bludgeon; but consider letting this go to closure and bringing it up as a general policy guideline elsewhere. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
        • You shouldn't be encouraging ridiculous comments like this—"BS (sorry, but you picked the initials)", but you are, by making comments like "If somehow the names of the victims are that interesting to you, I really wonder about you".[13] If you can tell me how omitting the names of the 5 decedents benefits the reader, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Bus Stop, I would not have stated the obvious joke sorry, but you picked the initials if I didn’t respect you as an editor. I also don’t understand the inclusionist concept of adding non-notables. Now, as an example, look at the efforts to include entirely irrelevant nonsense at Talk:Al Noor Mosque, Christchurch . Would you agree that it makes sense that someone that once worked for three months at a mosque per a court ordered community service program who then became a suspect in a terrorist cult should be mentioned as, what could be taken as a possible rationale for a mass murder? (Pardon if this looks like canvassing, but I’m trying to make a point.) What I am saying is that we are not here to create collateral damage. Privacy seems a bygone expectation. The EU is handling it better, IMHO. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
            • I pose the same question to you—can you tell me how omitting the names of the 5 decedents in Aurora, Illinois shooting benefits the reader? Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
              • It's not about "the reader" as some abstract entity. The reader in general, I have no idea how they would benefit from knowing the names. The reader who's related to one of the victims, for instance, I do not think that they want to see their loved one's name. I know, that's maybe just me, but I prefer to play it safe. I still have not seen how having the names helps anything--you've made all kinds of statements, none of which prove the point, and some of which making little sense. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
                • You have argued that WP:MEMORIAL precludes inclusion of the victim names. Now you are arguing "The reader who's related to one of the victims, for instance, I do not think that they want to see their loved one's name." Shouldn't you make up your mind? These are contradictory purposes. Either we are memorializing or we a violating rights to privacy. You say "The reader in general, I have no idea how they would benefit from knowing the names." You are conceding that omitting the victim names does not benefit the reader in any possible way. This mini-battleground is all about editors. It is in no way about readers. And if precedent has any bearing on this mini-battleground, bear in mind that 90% of similar articles contain victim names. Not in articles with multitudinous deaths. But where the number of decedents is manageable, we include their names. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
                  • "Shouldn't you make up your mind?"--Bus stop, you're one of my most favorite Wikipedia editors, but don't fucking patronize me on my own talk page. "Either we are memorializing"--no we are not memorializing, hence NOTMEMORIAL. No, I'm not conceding that "omitting blah blah". Please read more carefully: I am saying that including the names is of no benefit to the reader. These are two very different statements. This is getting tedious: good night. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Te deum laudamus

Te Deum laudamus
Sorry. Couldn't resist breaking the tedium. DlohCierekim 14:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Isabel dos Santos POV/ SPA editor is back

Hi Drmies. Hope you are well. User XavierD75 has removed the same content for the fourth time, sanitsing the Isabel dos Santos page. Could you please look ibnto this? Thanks, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Your thoughts on a revdel call?

Hi - I wonder if you'd mind looking at this. I just had revdel declined on IRC, and I'm not looking to admin shop - I trust the person who declined implicitly, but in light of our previous conversation I wondered what your take on it would be, wrt the second revdel criterion. cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, from where I'm sitting that's a BLP violation. The phrasing is somewhat vague, and there's plenty of speculation--including by specialists who state it ([15], [16])--but I think that most editors and admins would agree that such sourcing isn't strong enough. And given that we're dealing with a BLP, and that I take a pretty strict view of it, you shopped at the right admin shop, haha. I don't mind if that other admin contacts me, and it is entirely possible that I might be convinced they're right if they explain. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Cheers. Yeah, I don't want to cause any ructions between admins - it was someone who definitely knows what they're doing with counter vandalism stuff - I'm just trying to get my sensors attuned to what is/is not revdel after our previous chat. I guess that one was close to the line. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Sure thing. I remember early on in my career as admin I was perhaps more hesitant to apply revdeletion--not so much anymore. You know, it can always be undone, and it's better to be safe than sorry. And if someone just adds that without any support, their intent is questionable too. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, yeah - mentioning Hitler and Saddam Hussein in the same breath doesn't fill you with good feelings aobut their intent...GirthSummit (blether) 22:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion

Hi. I want to ask you for an opinion since I believe you can solve problems in Wikipedia(as you did in Iran's article). Could you please give your opinion about this Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#POV_pusher? Also this edit which was made against the consensus that was made in the talk page see talk:Slavery--Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I'll try later. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SharabSalam, I find it very difficult to figure out what is going on in that talk page discussion. Comments etc. aren't clearly indented/separated/organized, and aren't there two conversations going on at the same time? Oh, I see now there's an ANI thread that I haven't looked at (got lost in the mobile diff). Anyway, it is probably a good idea to just start a little RfC on the image and settle it that way. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned you

I mentioned you in a request for community imposed Tban re user Bought the farm. Your input is not specifically needed or requested, but would be welcome if you wish to offer comment either way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I understand NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User

Sorry about that. Just an oversight on my part. Good eye on the bad username. Red Director (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

colons vs asterisks

Hi, could you please help me improve my posts in terms of "accessibility" issues? The emotive quality of the following question is one of genuine curiousity, not passive aggressive challenge.... What's the difference in this edit? Why does it matter? The first web page I ever made had a bunch of links that all said "click here", and then a friend had me close my eyes and drove their voice-assist software over the page. What a wake up call! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • RexxS, you are the master--please help us out. Thanks! BTW NewsAndEvents, what a good experiment. I was just on the elevator with a guy in a wheelchair, and he and his friend were talking about PowerPoint. I'm a business writing teacher also, so I sez, "Don't read your slides!" ... and the friend says, "he can't cause he's blind" and everyone had a good laugh. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:

I'll start at the left margin to try to explain. The issue is that Wikipedia misuses lists to indent our comments. When ever we use a colon (:) to indent, we are using 'description lists' and this code produces the following html:

first reply

→ 

<dl><dd>first reply</dd></dl>

If we add another level of indentation we find the code produces an html list inside a list:

first reply
second reply

→ 

<dl><dd>first reply
<dl><dd>second reply</dd></dl></dd></dl>

Now a screen reader will read out those lists as lists including each closing and opening tag. It's not too bad, as our regular screen reader users get used to it. Every additional level of indentation simply adds another list inside the preceding one (and they all get closed at the end).

Similarly, a two level list using bullet points makes use of an 'unordered list' so the * code produces this html:

  • first reply
    • second reply

→ 

<ul><li>first reply
<ul><li>second reply</li></ul></li></ul>

A screen reader will cope with that as well.

But if we mix up the two different types of list, the wikiparser has to completely close the first list and then start again with a second one at the increased level, so we get this html

  • first reply
second reply

→ 

<ul><li>first reply</li></ul>
<dl><dd><dl><dd>second reply</dd></dl></dd></dl>

A screen reader has to hear the first list being "unwound" and then the second level being "wound up" again.

If the level is greater, then the problem gets increasingly worse:

  • first reply
    • second reply
      • third reply
        • fourth reply
          • fifth reply
sixth reply

→ 

<ul><li>first reply
<ul><li>second reply
<ul><li>third reply
<ul><li>fourth reply
<ul><li>fifth reply</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>sixth reply</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>

Just imagine you're listening to that with a screen reader, and see how much has to be read out between the fifth and sixth replies, even though it's not apparent to a sighted reader. That wouldn't happen if we kept the list style the same.

Does that mean we can never mix list styles in a thread? No, the simple rule is that you're fine as long as you copy the style of the preceding indent and then you are free to add your own type of indent to your reply, so both 

***** fifth reply
****** sixth reply

and 

***** fifth reply
*****: sixth reply

don't cause the "unwinding/rewinding" issues discussed above because they can start the next list inside the previous list. Of course, the seventh reply would have to copy the style of sixth one, and then add another level of choice, but any combination of : and * is fine as long as all but the last character matches the style of the comment being replied to.

I hope that makes sense. Perhaps somebody ought to write a short essay page on the topic and we could just point folks to it? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't even pretend to understand all the screen reader issues. I just use ONE asterisk for a bullet, and colons for the necessary indents, with the colon(s) first, ending with an asterisk. That way, even if there are inserted blank lines between different comments, the bullets still appear properly indented. Does that make any sense, or does it create problems? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This is what I have been doing also NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Yes, that causes exactly the problem discussed above. It looks right to you, but is an unnecessary trial for a screen reader, who is going to hear something like "start unordered list"/"first list item"/"start definition list"/"first definition"/"end of list", etc. for every <ul>, <li>, <dl>, <dd>, </ul> that our markup produces. 

* first reply
:* second reply
::* third reply
:::* fourth reply

produces

  • first reply
  • second reply
  • third reply
  • fourth reply

and this html: 

<ul><li>first reply</li></ul>
<dd><ul><li>second reply</li></ul>
<dl><dd><ul><li>third reply</li></ul>
<dl><dd><ul><li>fourth reply</li></ul></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd>

Compare that with: 

* first reply
** second reply
*** third reply
**** fourth reply

which produces:

  • first reply
    • second reply
      • third reply
        • fourth reply

and this html: 

<ul><li>first reply
<ul><li>second reply
<ul><li>third reply
<ul><li>fourth reply</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul>

The first style adds increasingly more verbiage between replies at every stage, while the recommended style remains at just two tags to be read out each time. There is no excuse whatsoever for placing a blank line between replies, as that is even worse for a screen reader – see WP:LISTGAP. --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So are colons allowed at all, like here? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Colons are fine when replying, as long as you don't want the bullet point. The following work fine: 

* I'm making a !vote
*: I'm replying to that !vote
*:: I'm replying to that reply

which produces:

  • I'm making a !vote
    I'm replying to that !vote
    I'm replying to that reply

If you want a bullet point, the last indent character has to be *, which implies, by induction, that if everybody wants a bullet point, every indent character has to be an asterisk. Otherwise, you're free to use a colon as the last indent character, but the rest of your indent still has to match the one you're replying to. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks RexxS. That was really helpful. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, good stuff. It needs boiling down for non techy people to remember on the fly. Also, is Help:Talk_pages#Indentation up to date with these pointers? I would figure that out for myself if I had a firm grip on the simply how to rules-to-remember. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The bold Use the same indentation and list formatting as what you are replying to, plus one level at the end of the indent/list code. there is the fundamental (and simple) point. --Izno (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: Izno is absolutely right. And to answer your question explicitly, yes, Help:Talk_pages#Indentation is bang up to date. --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the good advice. Old habits die hard, but I'll try to keep this in mind and improve. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Every thread needs a contrarian, so here I am. RexxS is of course correct. However, if you follow the advice above your comments will soon look silly because someone will insert an improperly indented comment above yours and that will make your comment start with a row of asterisks. My opinion is that what we type is wikitext and if there is a problem with the way it renders, that problem should be solved by the developers fixing MediaWiki to do the right thing. Techo people often love WP:Flow because it is so cool and they might not care that comments on talk pages are not processed properly and that's why we have the present mess. BTW, if anyone is unaware, Flow is awful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • John, I find myself frequently going through talk page and RfA threads etc. to try and sort those things out. If we had a page written up so that "normal" editors can understand and follow, that would be very handy. What RexxS is explaining, above, I get it to the extent that I can sort of follow orders; I wish I could actually understand it. But I probably just need to take a bit of time to read it more carefully. I do agree that a lot of these matters are not made easy for us--but then, I've been waiting for YEARS for someone to help me regain the old citation tool. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Drmies said, I've been waiting for YEARS for someone to help me regain the old citation tool....
    Here you go.....
    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    The function I think you're looking for is in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets:
    • refToolbar: add a "cite" button to the editing toolbar for quick addition of commonly used citation templates
    Let us know if that's not it. --Izno (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"Here you go"

NewsAndEventsGuy, this bird's for you. Note I centered it between the other fingers.

Rachel Marsden

Hi Drmies. I was going to request full protection again for Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), though I do like the changes you made. Given the article history, I'd rather not request a block or ban of Spoonkymonkey at this time. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Spoonkymonkey's been blocked. I'd appreciate you're looking over the content. I'm finding it hard to argue that all mention should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey Ronz, thanks--I didn't know a block/ban was in the cards, being blissfully unaware of the other editor's history or the rest of the matter touched upon. I saw the talk page discussion. I must say I am at least in partial agreement with the editor--certainly that one matter with the police officer is tenuous in terms of conclusion. Anyway, I'm not going to go to war over it, but it's not the kind of stuff that I like to write up. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Who are you

Who are you and what do you want? What is your problem? Rantemario (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies is an ostrich, as it says on their user page. I think what they want is to try to promote what WP:Categories describes as "the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory".
As for your third question, I just heard it used -- in exactly those words -- in a quite disturbing documentary television program about serious crimes committed in Luton. So it does not sound, to some, as very friendly wording. MPS1992 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks MPS. Rantemario, I have more problems than I can list here. What specific area were you interested in? Drmies (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

E. J. Levy

Hi Drmies and Drmies' talk page watchers. I stumbled across this article via WP:BLPN#E.J. Levy. The appears to have been/still be quite a bit of edit warring going related to a content dispute, including possibly some editing done by COI editors. So, maybe someone (an admin perhaps) could step in and try to get these editors back to the talk page. It looks like those involved have already gone beyond 3RR despite user talk page warnings; so, someone is going end up blocked for sure if this goes to AN3. Maybe WP:FULL would be a good idea for a it to help settle things down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thanks for tagging me on the record producer and audio engineer pages. I'm happy to help if it the discussion needs to be flagged somehow. Actaudio (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I saw you added some of that content. I wasn't opposed to some editing (on the Audio engineer page, there was some overlap), but that argument of theirs was just completely faulty. I happen to know a few things about the profession, and it's just an incredibly important addition to the article--thanks. And yeah, if a dozen, or a thousand, more articles need this kind of material, let's do it. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Pinkbeast

Hi, recently Pinkbeast reported me to an admin saying that I broke my promise about editing in slavery articles and showed two examples one is in Slavery article and the second is in sexual slavery article. Didn't I tag the admin who banned me before I made the edit? didn't I say that I gave a promise to not edit in Slavery article but because Balolay reverted with no consensus and had ignored my arguments ? For the sexual slavery I swear I didn't notice that it is about slavery I made the edit because I have been removing Gatestone Institute sources. Please note that I am not topic banned or something. This editor is trying to block me although I am participating in the discussions. Probably because of Zahran tribe article which he tried to remove.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • SharabSalam, I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. There was a promise? You were banned? And...if you promise not to edit in some area, shouldn't it be irrelevant whether someone else does? Anyway, I don't know, sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I have said this

      ...I have made a promise to MSGJ that I am not going to edit in any slavery related articles and I did my promise BTW I am not topic banned or something I am by myself choose not to contribute in that area any time soon yet I can't actually stand this behaviour so I decided to ask you guys to help me...

      and at that time I had not edited in any slavery related articles and I tagged the admin who blocked me and I also said this in another comment after I reverted the edit in slavery article

      ...also I want to clarify that I made a promise that I am not going to edit in the slavery article again because it is a sensitive issue and I don't want to say or do things that could be considered offensive. I didn't edit any slavery article since I had that problem with him. However, yesterday I reverted his edit in Photographyor Photograph and Slavery because I saw that no one noticing what he is doing...

      you can find all of this in the POV pusher section in here [17] Pinkbeast came just wanting to get me blocked. He reported me to the admin who I tagged there before making any edit.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • What Pinkbeast did is similar to when your classmate or your brother tells your teacher or your parents whenever you do something wrong or something that could be considered wrong out of context-as in my case-. This is the type of community Wikipedia has? It is a very bad behaviour to do that especially when you have nothing to do with that problem.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, maybe. But you did promise, and you did make those edits. I mean, Sexual slavery is slavery. Anyway, why don't you leave it to Martin to decide--you made your case. Yeah, I suppose you should have stayed away from the main Slavery article, but you got into it with that other user, who I agree was in the wrong. Anyway, I don't know what Pinkbeast is looking for; those few edits are hardly breaking the wiki, and I don't think that Martin will rake you over the coals for it. But maybe they will, I don't know. I will tell you this: getting into edit wars, whether you're right or wrong, is never a good thing, and what happened with Balolay was unfortunate. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I am hoping that SharabSalam will be re-blocked. That is what I would hope would happen when someone comes back fresh from a block for edit warring to repeat the very same reverts that they were making just before the block, especially when they turned out to have lied in their appeal against the block, and I think it would be additionally to the benefit of the project because SharabSalam is quite willing to insist a source that presents the Old Testament as literal truth is reliable if it happens to suit them.
I'm not asking you to act on this; I agree that is more sensibly left to MSGJ. But FWIW, that's what I'm looking for. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is one of the reasons of why Wikipedia should has some more restrictive rules regarding manners inside it's community. For example, editors should not be allowed to say I ((hope)) "X" gets blocked because the word hope is too much feeling that would most likely to be interpreted as hatred against me. Anyway, the 5-6 or 6-7 months problem in the Arab article has been solved and I don't think the Bible is a literal truth xD this is the funniest accusations I have ever heard against me. The whole paragraph that was in the Arab article was written in a way that indicates that the Bible is a literal truth. So when I tried to remove the one that was entirely based on original research and also makes the Bible as a literal truth I got reverted and when you removed another part of that paragraph saying that the source treats the biblical stories as literal truth I reverted you saying that the sources seem fine. Regardless of this, the problem has been solved by removing the whole paragraph. Also I believe most of editors who reverted me don't have much knowledge about the topic I was talking arguing about and that appeared so much in the discussion and I didn't have much knowledge about SPS (thanks to the admin Doug Weller who told me about this problem.) so misunderstanding happened in a previous problem in the Arab article but now everything is fine.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Gut it or?

I'm inclined to cut it back to a stub, but maybe someone is willing to take the time to do a less brutal "fix"?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Is this too drastic? Drmies (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • (laughing).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
      • You put the AfD notice on the wrong article (just removed it), but I'm not sure if you still want to nominate the bio for deletion given the fact that it's semi-protected and the redirect is (just barely) still in place.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Ha, it wasn't semi-protected until just now! Don't know how that template got on the wrong article: some Twinkle thing, no doubt. Thanks for fixing it. Yeah, let it ride, so we can fully protect it if need be. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Actually, I didn't fully fix it until just a moment ago, at least I think I fixed it. The wonders of transclusion, oclusion, misclusion, fusion... I was listening to a YT of Sutherland singing the Lucia mad scene when she was 60 years old and sounding absolutely glorious!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
            • I was typing a response to SN# and while I was saving it I got a notice saying you deleted it. Couldn't retrieve the content; very strange. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
              • Gremlins everywhere. I want to remove that whole long corporate structure from the group article. It's unsourced and uninteresting, of more interest to its corporate lawyer than to a reader of Wikipedia. As the only rational editor on Wikipedia, what do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Drmies, i notice there is deletion proposal for "Anindya Bakrie" articles on 24 March 2019. So far i believe it takes sometimes to discuss it over whether it reach at some point and being decided. But i just check over and the articles is gone and being redirected to "Bakrie Group" pages. Would you please advise ? Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks and regards. --Kungkang (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    • There was, but there seems to be a consensus of sorts that a redirect is the best solution, so that's what happened. And I'll just note that many editors thought that the content as it stood was way too promotional. Thank you, Drmies ([[User talk:Drm
      • hanks for your fast responses, when you said it was too promotional. Is it from original pages that i wrote, or after someguys edited it ? If i checked the pages history, theres someguys vandalized it by adding too much details which i didnt meant to. --Kungkang (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_120&oldid=891170911"