Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Katfactz (talk | contribs) at 17:52, 28 October 2019 (→User:Katfactz). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talking

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

I guess you removed this from some other article?

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers.--Moxy 🍁 16:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
? Drmies (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterman–Smith Building

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterman–Smith Building. BigDwiki (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

My Little Pony

I'm just concerned that other editors may not agree with this, so I reverted your edits. Hopefully you add the episode tables back to the main article, because I can't see them. RareButterflyDoors (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manafest article

Hello,

Minutes ago you deleted a ton of the Manafest article but neglected to clean up the link citations and ref names. The reference list section now looks like a total mess. If you could please adjust this, it would be appreciated. RhettGedies(talk)

  • A bot takes care of that, and then we can look at those citations again: more improperly sourced material may have to be removed. That article is less of a mess than it was before. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • RhettGedies, I assume you're a fan; you need to have a look at WP:RS and WP:BLP. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely a fan. Wouldn't upkeep the article if I didn't follow the artist. I'm still confused as to why a secondary source interview was deleted when it establishes a lot of history for the artist based on his report in the interview. Yes, it was published on YouTube, but it's not a primary source from the artist. RhettGedies(talk)
      • An interview with an artist is a primary source for that artist's article; that should seem obvious. I am looking at other articles, where the sourcing is iTunes, KickStarter, PledgeFund, and more YouTube. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Totally understand deleting iTunes and various YouTube links. However, again, an interview that was posted to YouTube from an official company that interviewed the artist isn't source-worthy? RhettGedies(talk)
          • Depends. Usually, no--we report what secondary or sometimes tertiary sources say. I'm not sure what you mean with "official company" (I don't know what an "unofficial" company is), but I have not, as far as I know, removed anything reported or printed in notable, mainstream secondary sources. So in that context it seems like padding--and we typically just do not include someone's own commentary unless, again, it has been reported on in reliable and relevant secondary publications. From the article on one of the albums I just removed a ton of video links as well: it's just too much. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yxngxr1

The links that I provided are relevant and are all accurate, they are taken from the musician's personal profile on the social media that I provided. (Maybe exepte the Imgur link that was a screenshot of the storie/ the post that I provided. If you want I can give you the original link for that post.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der under Smurf (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not convinced you understand what Wikipedia is, either in terms of reliable sourcing, promotional editing, or achieving consensus. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the links and sources are relevant to the article. They contain the correct/accurate information on the musician — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der under Smurf (talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No they don't. They may be relevant to the subject, but they are of no value, no matter how many SoundCloud or iTunes links you stick in there. You can't even prove in any reliable way that he's distributed by Empire, setting aside the fact that NBAND requires "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". Even if your claim were true, it's one, and it's with a distributor, not a record label. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: reversion of my edit to Redskins name controversy

I added both the removed content and created the linked article on the Washington Redhawks. After almost two years with no further actions by the group calling themselves "Rising Hearts" I thought that this addition was my mistake, and the protest was not encyclopedia-worthy, thus my deletion today. The main article is too large to support all the small details that swirl around the controversy. Neither a random deletion nor ownership, this was cleanup to maintain the article's GA status.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey. I am not going to fight over it and I know what you've done for the article--but I do think the edit summary was a bit odd. If you put that main article up for deletion, won't it be kept? What I'm saying is that I don't think it's a great reason to remove it, though there may well be others. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm surprised to see the word "fight" in response to my mild inquiry regarding being reverted. Yes, my edit summary should have been more descriptive, or pointed to a talk page section (which I have since added). I assumed that you did not know how much I have been responsible for the content of a GA, or my edit would not have simply been reverted.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double checking

Hello D. Is this edit different enough to not be the copyvio that the previous edit was? Thanks for checking. MarnetteD|Talk 05:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moomins

When did WP:CONSENSUS get repealed? 8-( Mass blanking of a number of character articles from a substantial series would never happen if these were DC or Marvel characters. Why is non-US fiction always treated so much more harshly? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Andy. "Muumitalon asukkaat seuraksesi kohta saat...Pääset mukaan viidakkoon..." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know--ask those who make those distinctions. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've just single-handedly blanked a number of character articles - including the eponymous main character. On what possible basis? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, I think that should be obvious: on the basis of them not having enough sourcing to pass the GNG. A list is the best possible solution there, with short, referenced entries. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've been here too long to be confused between sourcing available to a topic and sourcing currently in an article, as written. You're claiming that the eponymous main character is "not notable", i.e. adequate sourcing does not exist. Such that even a redirect of their name shouldn't be categorised in a character list category. Seriously? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I have been here too long. Why can't you speak to a human being as if you're NOT on the Internet cussing someone out? Drmies (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because you've done the digital equivalent of walking up to someone else's sandcastle and kicking it over, just because you can. This doesn't improve the encyclopedia or its coverage of Moomins. This doesn't save someone the embarrassment of a derogatory BLP. This is just your ego exercising itself, doing things that don't need doing, but they massage your inflated sense of importance as Keeper of the Sacred Knowledge. There are many edits like this, but it's a surprising realisation that they nearly all come from the same handful of editors. These are not positive edits. Did the article need work? Of course! Does this action improve the likelihood of that happening - no, quite the opposite. Particularly because I have every expectation that if anyone did restore it, or then proceed to work on it, then your response would simply be to repeat the blanking (I can't predict the future, but I can count the past).
We also have a vague set of principles based on a community and consensus within it, particularly for deletions. Did you follow that? Or did you just do what you decided on your own? And then when you were challenged here, did you stop and discuss it? Or did you just double down and carry on removing even more of it. So, yes. I am pissed off at your behaviour here. But also unsurprised. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused; this wasn't deletion, it was merging. Isn't this more like someone walking up to your sandcastle and carefully moving the whole thing into the area of the beach where the sandcastles are less likely to get kicked over? I guess I can understand someone disagreeing with that, but I don't understand the outrage. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Andy sees it looking more like <redacted>? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It rather looks like Andy came over to piss on my sandcastle just because he can. He didn't "challenge" me here, he just came by without manners but with an impressive amount of bad faith. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging phone surveillance articles

Hello, considering topic overlap I wanted to discuss potentially merging several pages regarding phone surveillance. I see you've recently done some edits on one of these pages, so wanted to bring it to your attention. Talk:Cellphone surveillance would love to hear your thoughts. Tecuixin (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IPv6 ranges

Hi Drmies! I hope you're doing well! It's been awhile since we've said hello, and it's great to talk to you again (as always). :-) I was handling a report at AIV regarding an IPv6 address that was causing disruption onto the talk pages of its range, as well as other user accounts. After looking into things and checking out the scope, I applied a range block to 2601:600:A280:553C::/64 for one week. After going through and lifting the individual blocks so that the range block would take precedence, I noticed that you already have a range block applied to a narrower range of 2601:600:A280:553C:2000::/67 and for a month. I wanted to let you know about this so that we can take a look and determine which range and which duration is best to use, so that we could adjust these two blocks so that only one between them is applied (if applicable). This will lower the potential confusion for editors and other admins who may not understand ranges and why some of these IPs show your block, while others show mine. It looks to me like we should combine these blocks to use the /64 range and do so for one month, but I'd like to get your thoughts and input as well. Can you take a look and let me know what you think? (Just ping me in your reply here so that I receive a notification). Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, I always find WP:/64 to be good advice when it comes to ipv6. SQLQuery me! 03:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SQL - Same here, but I wanted to check in and discuss it with Drmies in case there's important details that I don't know about that would have an impact with just going with a /64 range and 1 month duration merge of these blocks... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Oshwah, thanks for the note and for that block. Same set of a-holes, no doubt. Here's what I think: whatever you do is usually right; I went with the range that I found using the rangeblock tool with the vandal IPs that I plugged in (you will have seen that I used magic glasses to see how many accounts there were--there were very few). The only thing I would say is, well, a week might well be enough, but I picked a month because some of that shit went back to 6 or 8 October, if I remember correctly, and maybe earlier. You do what you think is right, and if SQL agrees with you, all the more reason to stick with it. Srsly, I do NOT mind y'all looking over my shoulder. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drmies! I've gone ahead and increased the /64 block to two weeks so that we meet in the middle there, and unblocked the /67 range, as it's serving no purpose and is only redundant at this point now. All set! Thanks for responding and for giving your thoughts and your very kind words. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking an IP

Hi Drmies. For the life of me I cannot find the page on which to request blocks! Even tried going through the ptwiki page and hopping to enwiki, but the pages do not match! User 88.157.219.35 is the blocked Nuno Coimbra. Can you assist? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Rui Gabriel Correia, There's no general page for blocks. Useful ones might be WP:AIV for routine blocks of vandals, WP:ANI for general urgent stuff (and generally home for lots of drama—tread carefully there). For sock puppets it's WP:SPI, but I'm not sure on the policy around IPs there. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Gaelan said. But you were right, and I dropped a couple of blocks. I did replace that terrible photograph. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment of Bill Clinton revdel request

Hi Drmies, will you please revdel this edit [1]? S0091 (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama football

LSU winning actually benefits BAMA. Knocks Auburn out

Review / Revert

Hey- I assume (not certain of course) that you can't speak Mandarin or Hokkien but are at least passingly interested in Taiwan, China and Asia. In the coming month (Wikipedia Asia Month) I will be making a few new articles related to Taiwan, China etc. I have also been working on Asia-related articles consistently for about two years- and learned a lot! I would like to invite you to come by periodically and use your perspective as a long-time Wikipedian to check over edits I have made and make sure that the way I present things is comprehensible / understandable to an English-only audience. Also, I added more sources on that one recent incident near Qimei, Penghu that you had reverted- let me know if you think it's worth being there. Here's another article you may be interested in that I have worked on: 1948 United States Senate election in Texas. Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Maltsev (psychologist)

Do we really have to have so much detailed material in this article, most of which is reporting ad nauseam Maltsev's theories?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does the pope shit in the woods? No, that article should be gutted, and I saw you got busy with it. The list of references needs to be scrutinized as well, for padding. Have you looked at this? It's a bibliography of works only by our guy. Look at the publishers, and the publishers of those translations: what we seem to have is a cottage industry. One wonders what CESNUR is. I get the feeling someone got themselves a research assistant who produced "Applied Sciences Association: An AnnotatedBibliographyand Filmography of Primary Sources", which is nothing but an annotated list of publications by our subject. The "Memory Institute" is his, of course. In other words, all this stuff is self-published. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23, it's about as bad as I thought. What this needs, though, is "real" criticism. Someone deflected very cleverly by citing one of the subject's disciples (published in his own journal), who discussed criticism as coming from disgruntled martial arts competitors. This needs some seasoned BLP editors to add content. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pruning with a chainsaw, I like that. I had planned to do some pruning of the article over the next few days, but it's better if someone else does it, so they can't pin all blame on me. One thing I've learnt over the past few days is that all sources in all articles even remotely connected to Maltsev need to be checked, both to see if they're connected to Maltsev and to see that they really say what they're claimed to say, because most them are, and don't. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I like to think I have a scalpel, but you saw I had to go back and forth a bit in places--going through the bibliography closely proved insightful. Bbb23, Thomas.W, I wonder...maybe this guy's article should just be a redirect, with a short paragraph in that article. That martial arts thing, for instance, was a bunch of bullshit anyway. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMHO it's better to keep it as a short article, with a short biography, plus a mention of his organisation and the claims by others that they see it as a cult. Notes #1 and #2 in the article are better sources for his academic degrees (2x Candidate of Science, in Psychology plus Philosophy, with the latter specialising in "Religious history") than "Introvigne (2018b)", BTW, since the notes link to official Ukrainian gazettes. They're in Ukrainian, but I have checked them, and they really say that he has two "Kandidat Nauk" degrees. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fly on the wall comment: I've had several CESNUR-affiliated pages on my watch list for a while without a great idea of what to do with them. Massimo Introvigne seems to have worked out a pretty plum gig where he is both the editor-in-chief AND the author of about 70% of the articles in some issues of CESNUR. Most of the people associated with it CESNUR, are in a weird space where they have a mix of respectable academic work and extremely questionable affiliations. Might be worth editors' time to take a look at some of those other pages along with this one. J. Gordon Melton, Massimo Introvigne and James R. Lewis (scholar) Nblund talk 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nblund, I just went through the Introvigne article and PRODded a related article. I'm wondering to which extent we have a walled garden here, one which mimics the walled garden you describe in CESNUR. I certainly have some socking suspicions, beyond User talk:DrPoglum and User:42Marco P--maybe someone who does COIs (like User:Smartse) is interested in this as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the intrusion, but you have a very interesting discussion, which I saw from an article about Maltsev and could not pass by. Both of you are right in many respects, the Maltsev group really exists, they really spam a lot, and this is a problem. Although Introvigne is not a member of it, and some of the sources you deleted are not affiliated. I guess there is another problem with this article. Introvigne and Maltsev study religious movements, including the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church to fight religious minorities (for example, the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia). I investigated this conflict a bit, because several years ago, as the administrator and bureaucrat of the Ukrainian Wikipedia, he gave an interview for the film Orthodox lobby on the Russian Wikipedia, which was filmed by Maltsev’s group. The film turned out quite chaotic and naive, I did not like it. However, it caused very much irritation among the Russian Wikipedians pushing the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church, which according to the authors of the film are associated with Alexander Dvorkin. After the release of the film, the strain between the Maltsev group and the Dvorkin group intensified even more. By the way, the article Alexander Dvorkin was also written by representatives of the Dvorkin group and based on afflicted sources. Sorry for my English, I partially used Google translator.--Yakudza (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yakudza, no apology necessary--either you are very capable or Google Trans is very good. Let's see how this turns out: I am interested in possible COI experts looking into it, and I'm also wondering if anyone has ever made a map of this Wikipedia:Walled garden. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel it's worth noting that the article about the Municipal Guard (Odessa) (the "hatchet job" article, telling only Maltsev's side of the story, that helped me connect the dots, and find the connection between DrPoglum and Maltsev) on the Ukrainian Wikipedia was created by our new friend Yakudza (a machine translated version of that article as it looked just after being created by Yakudza), before being translated into English and created here by blocked user DrPoglum (the article here as it looked just after being created by DrPoglum). Trying to portray Maltsev and the others as innocent victims of Dvorkin and the Russian Orthodox Church is also a typical Maltsev tactic. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that I am the author of the article Municipal Guard on the Ukrainian Wikipedia is not a secret at. I myself reported this yesterday on the article discussion page by setting a template. It was a very high-profile story and all media wrote about it in Odessa and Ukraine in general. Sadly corruption in the state is very strong in Ukraine; Odessa's Gennady Trukhanov is one of the largest corrupt officials in the country. According to a number of Ukrainian deputies, the Municipal Guard is Trukhanov's personal army. It is known throughout the country for attacks on public activists, politicians, businessmen and journalists. The attack on journalists associated with Maltsev is only a small episode. In this episode, criminal cases were opened against employees who attacked journalists. All this in the article is confirmed by links to many independent sources.--Yakudza (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • According to reliable sources criminal cases have also been opened against Maltsev's group, the article is also very one-sided, leaving out lots of information, such as Maltsev being a partner in "Redut Law Company", where the whole affair started the day before, the journalists that were attacked working for "Public Priboy/Public Surf", belonging to Maltsev, and most of the "Scandals" section being sourced to "Unsolved Crimes", which also is a Maltsev publication. I'm not Ukrainian, have no personal interest in the affair, and didn't know anything about the whole thing until I started looking at the article here on en-WP, but it still took me less than ten minutes to find the connections to Maltsev and see that it was a hatchet job, written to please Maltsev. And I at least expect more of article creators here than that. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wrote an article about the Municipal Guard. Maltsev is not a member of the Municipal Guard, I did not write about him. In my article there are no sources in any way affilative with Maltsev. The article is based solely on independent sources. If you have doubts about any facts in the article Municipal Guard, we can discuss this on the article discussion page.--Yakudza (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Kanykei Tursunbaeva", who wrote the story on Advox Global Voices, works for Oleg Maltsev as secretary or similar (see Instagram and Twitter), "Газета Нераскрытые преступления" (Unsolved Crimes) belongs to Maltsev (or is at least very closely connected to him), "Hromadske" base their story entirely on what "Unsolved Crimes", i.e. the Maltsev group, have told them, etc (several of the sources in the article are totally dead, though, and can't be checked). I'm not saying the entire article is wrong (on the contrary, I find the fact that there is no real police in Ukraine, only private "security companies" that sell their services to the highest bidder, as being unworthy of a civilised nation), but it is extremely unbalanced, with the "Scandals" section telling only Maltsev's story. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Apparently you removed the thread you pinged me to? I gutted that article and haven't tried to communicate with our NOTFACEBOOK friend. We'll see what happens. BTW, I had 3 surgeries last week and am pretty much not here. Just be happy the tide is still undefeated. My guys (BSU) dropped out of that rare class last week. John from Idegon (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it's still there. I hope the editor pays attention. Yes, still unbeaten, but half of Alabama is praying for someone's ankle, and I just heard that LSU, which had some trouble dealing with Auburn, is now #1. Oh, that was a close loss--sorry. I'm actually a minor BSU fan: if it weren't for Boise I wouldn't have been married to Mrs. Drmies. You live in Boise? Lovely town; I'd love to go back. Need me some more of that Basque food. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In E. Oregon. Boise is the neighborhood big city. BSU's commitment to the overall success of their student athletes is impressive, as is their post collegiate success list. Was a fan even when I lived in Michigan. But then again, I was a staunch supporter of Bobby Knight too. John from Idegon (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Not that it's any of my business but where I come from American Football (to distinguish it from real football), with the ridiculous amount of protective gear the players wear, is seen as a sissy sport for people who are too fragile (or cowardly) to play rugby (a sport for real men...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, what can I say: rugby is exciting but crazy. I used to watch some of that when I was back home--but watching this (esp. #2) makes me side firmly with those who like protective gear. Imagine their head hitting the ground time after time. And I don't know about all that manliness. As for American football, type in "prothro" in your Google search box. "catch" will be the first hit--it's amazing. The second, "injury", I can't watch that anymore. In other words, you can have injury even with protection. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not respecting BDR

Hi. In EOKA article, I have made an edit [2], Dr.K. reverted [3] and I opened a discussion on it (respecting BRD) at Talk Page.[4] While the discussion continues, Dr.K. keeps adding staff that are not important in my opinion [5], and when I reverted him,[6] he reverted back,[7] not following BRD guideline. The situation get worse as I feel that his comments are extremely rude.[8],[9] Can you pls have a look? Thanks. Cinadon36 19:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the q. Drmies, I thought I have explained better in the Talk Page. The thing is that torture has been discussed elsewhere in the article. The specific section covers the lawsuit not the torture allegations per se. Torture is a heinous practice (it was employed by both UK and EOKA) but should we have to cover every act of torture or every lawsuit we will get off topic soon. Secondary sources have covered the torture as discribed at section "Detention Camps and claims of torture" which I was the major author. Now can you pls explain Dr.K. to move back to stable version before adding opinions as facts? Or comment on his continual harassment? Thank you. Cinadon36 06:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't answer loaded questions, Cinadon, unless I like the load. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need a page move urgently

I need over help a page move of highly visible page .Thanks.Can you please move Draft:Abdullah Qardash.Thanks.Made a wrong move.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your prompt response.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Dmitrev

Hello Drmies. I do not understand your edit. Could you explain it in more detail? Is there such a rule? In ruWiki this is not. For example, Статьи = Articles Is this the English Wikipedia rule?Wlbw68 (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this is conventional. Books are worth listing, since one can assume they were reviewed and thus have some noteworthiness; ideally they should be referenced with such reviews. That does not work the same way for articles, unless the articles have been specifically noted in secondary sources. Imagine us listing all the articles scholars produce, esp. in the physical sciences with their many co-written articles. The net result of also listing articles is that it turns what should be a biographic article into a resume (or, worse, a link dump). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Katfactz

This user just undid my edit again at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019, I think its safe to say asking for the issue to be brought to the article's talk-page regarding the source should have been enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you were the one that undid my edit. I updated definitions based on the content of their sources, which was not disputed but still undone. More to the point, you undid my edit of removing a source which no longer exists. Simple edit made into a political game so you could include a source which bragged about trying to take down the NRA ... even though the source doesn't even exist anymore.Katfactz (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=923457657"