This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
Posting this here because I've had enough of carrying on conversations with people on other people's talk pages for one day, and since I'm aware that JC doesn't like me posting on his talk page. I figured one message telling him to back off would be okay but I'm not going to hazard editing there again.
Anyway, assuming you were referring to "have a word with you" being like something a schoolchild would say: I was being coy. I meant I would ask you to block him. John Carter's been taking wikibreaks of between four days (I consider that a wikibreak when during active periods the user doesn't go 24 hours without editing) and five months, and every time he has come back, with one exception, he has followed me and comments on something I was doing within about an hour (or does the same to one of my "friends"). I don't want another IBAN, but surely when obvious hounding is obvious it's a blockable offense?
If what you meant was that you are not interested in getting involved, that's fine. I'd be just as happy messaging someone else. Or posting on AN. Or getting one of the other people he's been hounding because they agreed with me at some point in the past to do it.
It sounded like you were calling on your big uncle, the truck driver, to intimidate someone. And I have no interest in getting involved here. I don't know what validity there is to your claim; I've worked with John Carter as I've worked with you, and I don't know John Carter to be a harasser. Please post on AN if you really think admin intervention is warranted. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how did you come to comment at WT:JEW? I don't assume you were following someone but I've never seen you at that page. Sir Joseph(talk) 14:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, you mean Hijiri? I don't think I've commented there, though I hound Doug Weller on a regular basis. FWIW, I don't see why Arab Jews wouldn't be subject to DS. Having said that, what I think is missing on the talk page is a decent discussion of sources. I'm an outsider, but I see one of the arguments is that the IP's sourcing is inadequate, but I don't see much proof of that, or much in-depth discussion. Again, outsider here. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: Just saw this now. In future, if you have messages for me, please you leave them on my user talk page. I have edited articles on Jewish (and early Christian) topics quite a bit, and if you look directly below your thread on WT:JEW you'll see that I had left a notification there of a related discussion on WT:BIBLE. I left the same notification on WT:CHRISTIANITY. I looked up the page and saw your notification, which I thought was inappropriate, and responded. By sheer coincidence, I had been reading and considered editing some explicitly-IP articles two days earlier.[1]Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Truckers? DefinitelyGeoff | Who, me? 16:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, sorry for being unclear, I meant Hijiri. My concern with having that under ARBPIA is that most of the article has nothing to do with the conflict. Even the mention of Zionism is about Zionism, and not the IP conflict. Zionism can be viewed outside of the IP conflict, and in this case it was mentioned about how Zionism was trying to erase "arabism" from Arab Jews. More so, the article hasn't seen disruption or vandalism and in my opinion protection was sought to win an argument. In practice, Wikipedia should be as open as possible. We lock when necessary but in this case, locking is not needed. Sir Joseph(talk) 16:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No, that's OK. I agree with you in principle, but I assume that the admins who made the call (there's at least two in the history, right?) know this stuff better than me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No, just one. And at RFPP, it was listed as regular protection, and then somebody just commented that since it's Arab Jews it should be under ECP so the admin granted ECP protection. I think it's silly and as was pointed out to Hijiri, who is in favor of keeping it at ECP, he violated the sanctions by his edits. We don't need more articles under protection if regular editing can deal with it. Sir Joseph(talk) 17:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I am wondering if there needs to be better guidelines written. This page, Umm al-Hiran was just added to ARBPIA sanctions, when it's a Bedouin town in the Negev. It has nothing to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Sir Joseph(talk) 01:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you on that point. I just don't think we should work within hypothetical better guidelines when the current guidelines are clear, even if they are overly broad. And the General Prohibition should apply to all edits by unregistered and new users, regardless of whether the article in question is actually related to the Arab-Israeli conflict; if an IP adds something about the Arab-Israeli conflict to another random article, that edit is a violation, regardless of whether the page itself deserves extended confirmed protection. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, my recent history is of editing almost exclusively on Monday and Wednesday, so describing the interim between active days a "break" seems at best questionable to me. John Carter (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emma Bunton
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hey again Drmies, just like the other day with Ngaiire, I've noticed a user has added a bunch of new information to Emma Bunton (50k of it, to be precise) and I think the article is bloated, but have no idea what to cut out. The user is Patricia CV (talk·contribs), who has previously added a bunch of ridiculous genre claims (claims that the former Spice Girl is a bossa nova musician when this is entirely unreferenced). If you get time and can take a look at it and maybe remove anything untoward, it'd be appreciated. Thanks. Ss112 05:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
OMG that's too much for tonight. Imagine if all that time and energy was spent on articles that need it--like Water. Drmies (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want water, you have to pay in chocolate, or maybe that is vice versa. But I do notice that the water 'article' is a complete whitewash -- 'they' mention BRIEFLY that you should not pour water on an oily fire -- and then the only other 'danger' noted is drinking too little which you just know Big Water made sure was the POV the water article would push! No mention of *drowning* and the serious other fatalities that dihydrogen monoxide is known to cause. Avalanches... black ice on the roads... (well not in Alabama usually I guess)... baseball sized hail... tsunamis... gravitational pull of the oceans MADE OF WATER on the moon slowly halting the rotation of the earth itself! Stuff is deadly, and wikipedia just goes la la la, water is goodness, water is light... sickens me. The stench of universal solvent bias and polar bond corruption. Sick. To. My. Core. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree. Listen, it's not yet 11PM here. I am perfectly willing to make you a nice cup of peppermint tea (got other flavors too) so we can sit down and talk about this, and hammer out a more balanced approach. Having gone to the "ethnic store" recently I can even offer you a Marie biscuit. It's all good! Drmies (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Also
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Just to let you know, whenever an IP or troll account puts in "Jean Kirschtein, from Shingeki No Kyojin" into List of fictional horses, revert immediately because the character isn't a horse to begin with.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll be glad to leave those to you. I'm not so knowledgeable when it comes to anime and horses. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I put in another petition at the page protection request page to ratchet up the protection at the page, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What a coincidence--go ahead and remove that. :) Drmies (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this child doing this kind of stuff elsewhere? If so, a filter could be appropriate. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, it's just a bunch of trolls gathering on that page for that particular inane joke. I'll check and see if it pops up elsewhere. Thank you muchly for ratcheting up the protection levels.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing. As far as I'm concerned it's block on sight. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Shit. Forgot to notify you.
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
An issue you were heavily involved in four years ago is at WP:AN. I don't think it really matters, since I can kinda predict how you would !vote and consensus is already unanimously on the same side. But messaging you anyway as a courtesy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, I'm writing to seek feedback on this article, which appears pretty well owned by a single account. It is profusely sourced, and a lot of it looks good, but I'm tempted to template it as an advert, based mainly on the hyperbolic headers and a lot of the content regarding the present day, which reads a bit promotional to me. Am I overreaching, or is there a whiff of the promotional here? Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
'Embracing the Market', 'Forging an Identity, Finding a Role' and 'Rural Setting' all seem more suited to a promotional brochure than an encyclopedic entry. Okay, they're not 'Greatest Cafeteria on the Planet' or 'Naked Happy Dorm Life', but they do raise a flag. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
They sound more local newspaper to me. The first two aren't great. I'd suggest you go ahead and improve them. Personally I'd shy away from "'Naked happy Dorm Life". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I've reached out to the editor about the potential WP:COI. Also, I saw on one of your editing summaries "how much more of this has similar issues?" in regards to copyright issues - I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but here's a great tool for finding copyright issues.Garchy (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently I'm three days late in telling you about this! Garchy (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No harm in that, especially in a world where we've all become too quick on the proverbial trigger. And taking your advice, I did the copyvio check, too. I think I removed the content that constituted the 42 % likelihood. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, Drmies, I wonder if you could perhaps help me out with something. So, this Dragnea fellow has become somewhat of a hate figure among Romanians, and one of us has taken his campaign to Wikipedia. The stable version twice mentions his criminal conviction - once in the text, once in the very lead. It's not as though there's an attempt to bury this. But no - the user in question insists on a short separate question, to signal to the casual reader, LOOK, THIS MAN IS A CRIMINAL! And he's also a revert-warrior who won't let up ("looks like we are in for a long ride"). If you could somehow shorten the ride, that would be appreciated. - BiruitorulTalk 15:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Duly noted. I left them a brief message and have semi-protected the article given the many BLP violations/vandal edits by IPs. Let me know if it continues. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
While I agree I did a mistake you mentioned it is not a fact. It is a fact that he was convicted, the court ruled it, regardless of how many people disagree. This could have been avoided if people actually took the time to explain to me what I did wrong instead of pointing to a MoS heading which doesn't say what I did wrong. More info at the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garchy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mess110 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is arguing it's not a fact; what you were stating is that the incorrect representation of that in the article was a fact, and that is simply incorrect. I don't know if things were explained well enough, but I do know that reverting without understanding what's going on is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
That is not what I was stating at all. I was saying it is a fact that he was convicted. I even gave an example of the ro wiki article for the same user, showing the counterpart which contained the exact same heading. My intention wasn't to disrupt. When I understood (the hard way) what I was doing wrong, I stopped because that was the correct thing to do. From my perspective, someone just reverting my edits and pointing to an article which doesn't actually say what I am doing wrong, won't teach me anything, regardless of how many times I read the linked article. Instead it incites an edit war. Which happened. It is very discouraging for newbie contributors, I am surprised there are no rules for more experienced editors to teach others, something which would lead to more quality articles and less.. well.. less of this. Going to let the waters clear for some time and start a constructive discussion (I hope) on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mess110 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Am I missing something?
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
In a talk page discussion, I asked an editor a question and another one repeatedly answered so I said "Red, unless you are a sock for Nbauman (or he is a sock for you), I'd really like to get an answer from him." Said editor has been screeching that I accused him of being a sock and it's a NPA etc. Do you feel that was an allegation or a personal attack? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Meh, no, not at all, but I don't know why you'd throw the s-word in there. Gotta be careful in the New America, Niteshift--people are delicate and get demoralized easily... Drmies (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I kept asking one a question and the other kept answering for him......so "....unless you're a sock..." was an attempt to say "butt out" in a nicer way. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I know. I'm just being the old grumpy guy. Hey, did you know we have almost the same infobox on our user page? Drmies (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you're talking about Rhode Island Red? That's funny--we have one and her name is Poppy; she's our oldest chicken, a lovely bird. That's a very long conversation and I hope y'all get to resolve your issues. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
At it again
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
This editor has taken to editing articles under arbitration - they were warned that they could not edit the article as an IP address, but after 2 more minor edits they moved to the talk page. According to the arbitration notice "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." I'm not sure this editor (per the history here too) is really trying to be productive, especially this comment. Is this worth bringing up at arbitration? Garchy (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Garchy I don't know if that's worth the trouble. As you said, they're on the talk page now, though less productively than I had hoped. If they continue in this vein (and I don't mean just editing articles that are off-limits) they are headed for another block, for disruptive editing. A DS block is certainly an option, but I'd rather not be so heavy-handed right now; I am convinced they wish to improve the project though their methods aren't always so good. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I was thinking the same thing after checking out the contributions today. I'm convinced of WP:DUCK, but I can certainly find more productive things to do than wait for the editor to screw up :) Thanks for the advice! Garchy (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
On William Bratton, the IP had a point--holy moly this was bad. It is hard to figure out who was responsible for this puff piece; this is only one edit. It permeates the entire article. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm seeing that now - looks like that businesses section had an advert tag going back to 2015, so it's been long overdue. Although this editor has been a little pesty and rude I'll have to remember IPs are human too! Garchy (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Gina Loudon
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I am fielding an inquiry at OTRS regarding Gina Loudon. You deleted the article on 18 October as a G 10. It clearly was at that point in time but it looks to me like the entire contents were replaced by attack language. The version as of 20 February 2014, on first glance, doesn't appear problematic. One possibility that this is a simple as you saw the content on 18 October and agreed it should be removed and miss that it was replacing a valid article; another possibility is that I am missing something. Would you be willing to take a look at it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't remember anything special, so I'm choosing option 1. The article underneath is pretty bad, but not an attack page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I plan to restore the underlying article - I agree it isn't great. Let me know if I misunderstood your view.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You did not. Thanks User:Sphilbrick, and my apologies: I should have looked harder. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Not a big deal. I have removed many an attack page and while I try to remember to check the history, I can't guarantee that I've done so always so won't be surprised if I've done the same thing myself at some time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
User page used as......
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well, in such cases you can do what Toddst1 did, which is tag it as WP:G11, which applies to user space also; if it's not totally blatant spam, have a look at WP:U5. In the meantime, RHaworth deleted it, and I see that DGG deleted a spammy article they wrote up. TJSMSQ appears to be headed for a block, for either NOTHERE or just for spamming. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"There was canvassing"?
Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
I would have responded sooner, but I haven't been on Wikipedia. You sounded so certain that the now dead "vote stacking" accusations are true, which is convienient given that you closed the WP:ANI discussion immediately before I was about to do a full breakdown of everyone that I apparently canvassed. All of the accusers completely failed to demonstrate how I supposedly knew what all of these editor's opinions were, especially given that I have clashed with some of them in the past. Some I've barely even spoken to. I have, of course, gone into detail about all of this, but the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT at the discussion was legendary.
"Stop doing it or you will very likely be blocked." - I'd suggest coming up with some actual evidence if an admin expects to get anywhere near a block, because repeating "it was clearly canvassing" over and over (and ignoring the many genuine points that I have made) isn't getting closer to proving anything. A block also would not be preventitive in any way, given that this is the first time I've ever even been accused of doing this. You said that like this happens every other Saturday.
In short, I won't be taking responsibility for vote stacking, because I never had any intention of doing so and the so-called "evidence" is flimsy at best. I fully intend on moving on now... DarkKnight2149 22:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Moving on is fine--without canvassing, preferably. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no plans of WP:CANVASS in the future. As I said before, this was the first time I was ever accused of it. I even left a note on my userpage assuring everyone that I don't condone that behaviour. DarkKnight2149 18:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Excellent--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
More evidence
Just when I thought that things were wrapping up, more evidence just presented itself regarding what I've been saying all along. I am referring to this report-worthy exchange that took place behind my back yesterday. It not only confirmed my suspicions of Curly Turkey's intentions ("He's going to be a major roadblock in cleaning up the mess at WP:COMICS."), but it also confirmed my suspicions of some of the factioning that took place at WP:ANI. Hijiri88 even goes on to offer to allow Curly Turkey to WP:CANVASS him in future discussions, exactly what they accused me of doing ("Well, if you need someone to back up your claims that he dismissed or downplayed non-comics influence on Batman characters, canvassed, and engaged in some pretty blatant IDHT behaviour, you know who to call."). Even when you go back to the discussions at Talk:Joker (comics), Curly Turkey was pulling accusations like WP:NOTHERE out of nowhere in an attempt to undermine my side of the discussion, and later admitted to projecting his opinions of WP:COMICS onto me.
I'm not about to sit here and pretend like I know more than an administrator (you've been at this a lot longer than I have), but I feel like this is why you shouldn't just assume one side of the argument is true. I'm really conflicted on if I should file a report or not. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens from here. DarkKnight2149 18:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That note by Hijiri is not an invitation to "canvass". That you chose a select group of individuals to send your message to was stated by a significant number of respondents in the ANI section. I closed that thread because there was some agreement on the matter, and because a. I figured that sending you a signal that this was not OK would be strong enough and b. you seemed to be in a hole, continuing to dig: I was doing you a favor. Now you're digging again. Whatever you have to say about the content of some article or the behavior of Curly Turkey has no bearing on the ANI thread or its close. If you want to complain about Turkey's behavior, don't do it here--take it up on ANI, maybe, if you think administrative action is warranted. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, how is a biased party offering to help WP:FACTION in future administrative discussions not canvassing? And those "select users" were not selected based on their opinion. I had no way of knowing what their opinions would be. In fact, many of them were either already involved (some disagreeing with me before I alerted them), from the Wikiprojects, or have disagreed with me in the past. DarkKnight2149 18:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC) (NOTE: I should probably mention that I will now have to largely avoid inviting people to discussions altogether, just to avoid more accusations; it's sad to say, but true). Also, that behaviour does have a bearing on it when the user's motives for filing a false report are called into question. DarkKnight2149 21:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Just when I thought that things were wrapping up DK, please give it a break already. This is literally the third time you have unilaterally dredged this dispute back up, and the third time you have blamed me or Curly for it being dredged back up. I chimed in on ANI because I had personally experienced you engaging in the same kind of disruptive behaviour on a page that had nothing to do with Curly, and I have offered to point the same thing out again if it ever comes up. I also offered to point out that you are engaged in pretty gross IDHT regarding your canvassing behaviour, because that is the case. It's ironic that you would use the word "biased" because in reality what you mean is "involved", and notifying an already-involved editor can't possibly be canvassing; not notifying might be inappropriate, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"This is literally the third time you have unilaterally dredged this dispute back up." - Ha, what?! When were the first two times? Because I'm certainly not the one who kept bringing it back up at the deletion discussion.
"I chimed in on ANI because I had personally experienced you engaging in the same kind of disruptive behaviour on a page that had nothing to do with Curly" - When was this? Are you holding a grudge for our completely unrelated disagreement at Talk:Vulture (comics)? If so, you should know that Wikipedia is not a battlefield and you should take another look at our citing sources policies.
"It's ironic that you would use the word "biased" because in reality what you mean is "involved"" - Still continuing to lie. You were not involved in any way, shape or form when you commented at WP:ANI. And serving as a meatpuppet for your friend is indeed disruptive behaviour, as is suggesting that he WP:CANVASS you in future discussions (I've already linked to that little discussion). DarkKnight2149 21:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) and uninvolved editor here. Darkknight, I would take a break from the discussion, as nothing constructive can come from continuing here. If you see a continued issue I would reopen at WP:ANI, but be aware that if the issue is considered closed that may boomerang right back at you. Cheers, Garchy (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably not a bad idea. The reason it was brought back up is because I haven't really been editing lately and was unable to defend myself against claims, while people are also continuing to insist that I canvassed (despite my overall clean track record from nearly three years of editing). I should also note that I did initially revert my message at HiJiri's Talk Page just to slow down the conflict, but he reverted the revert. You can read his reasoning in his own words at that Talk Page. In terms of the new evidence that has arrived, I'm probably just to see if anything further comes from it before filing a report (though I already have all I need). DarkKnight2149 21:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
...righto. But not only was the speedy tag added twice- it was removed both times by the article creator- and since they're not allowed to do remove tags themselves, that justifies its replacement...? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 19:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna, that's the edit I saw too. It makes sense to remove that tag once you move it into draft space. Interesting--if it is moved back in to main space, I think in principle editors should be allowed to tag it again, with the same tag, since the idea is that if it goes through draft space it is a "new" article, or at least a new attempt at an article. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd be curious to know if something like that has ever happened, and how the community deals with it. It's not the first time that the moving back and forth obfuscates the history, to some extent. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I see something like this about once a week. It is sometimes due to confustion, but sometimes by deliberate attempts to circumvent the rules. But I would not tag it again unless it showed no signs of meeting the problem. The proper course would be AfD if it gets into mainspace, (or MfD before that, if it doesn't even meet the looser standards for G11 in Draft space) I'm very conservative about applying IAR to speedy deletion, tho there are a few times I have used it. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you DGG. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
February 2017 at Women in Red
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Another article overseen by COI accounts--you'll love the edit summaries. Advice/assistance from the Dt or talk page stalkers much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to restoring this version [2], before the ANS 'editing committee' took over the article? 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion
Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, any thoughts about or assistance you may render at Frank Spotnitz and related article Big Light Productions will be appreciated. They're both press releases, largely tended to by a WP:SPA. A lot of unsourced and gratuitous tables of credits, and possible copyright violation content; the net result is puffery. They do appear to be identical, so once the dust settles one can probably be redirected to the other. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I did some bold work at Frank Spotnitz - let's see how the editor responds! Garchy (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I still think that "doozie" means something simple, cause that's what it sounds like. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Garchy. I'll have another look at the bio within the next few days--I think the tone of the prose may still be an issue, and now we know that it's been an autobiography for a long time, an online resume. As for you, Dr, I like to drop an archaic word your way from time to time. Can't imagine anyone uses 'doozy' anymore. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I've marked the first for WP:RD1 and the second for WP:G12. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
No, 99, it's not that archaic; I know it's being used, though I don't agree with it. But then there are a lot of things I don't agree with, and at least this one doesn't single out one specific religion to persecute. Anyway, JJMC89, I think I mostly followed your lead--thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Dr, you completely lost me if you're serious. I'm not familiar with the term being used in an offensive manner, and can't find any such reference. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Huh. I always thought "doozy" was a shortening of Duesenberg (sp?). Back in the old days the "Doozy" was known as a really high-end car, so that the word took on the sense of a general superlative. (Where I'm from "the Cadillac of [something]" has a similar meaning.) I'm curious about any religious connotations. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not sure where to bring this up so I'm parking it here. Two years ago this article was AfDed and deleted, when it looked like this: [3]. It received a DRV which endorsed the deletion. Now it's back again with some slightly better notability, but it's bloated (and some of it is sourced to things on the order of Wordpress and GoodReads) and needs a trim, as well as extra eyes. (For instance one editor is militating for a restoration of a clearly inappropriate and non-useful Criticism section which was merely soapboxing in disguise.) I'd do the trimming myself but the subject bores me. Could some of your lovely (I notice 99 gets a lot of traction when he calls your TP stalkers "lovely") talkpage watchers take a look at it and excise the excess? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
99 is an old sexist. Don't think those 19th-century tactics work on me, Smartlavender. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
That is not a good article. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I know, it's pretty sloppy and promotional. And still self-cited for much of the text. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, but I gotta get off this couch. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks much better now. If anyone else wants to give it a gander, fine. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, one of the sections you deleted has been reinstated. It seems the main author of the article is very insistent (see his talk-page comment about the removal). Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: DGG tagged the article as a news release; I re-removed the section you had deleted and removed DGG's tag. If the article's editors have gotten the message, it's OK now I think, but if they haven't this article should have a few more eyes, especially admin eyes, on it. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Odd--I used "delete all", a powerful tool. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what can come of this
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hoping you or some talk page stalkers can help with some advice on this. The discussion at Talk:Deflategate has become a massive assertion of point back and forth, and is taking over the talk page. I'm not sure any kind of consensus will come out of it or if it should continue on the talk or move to AfC? Any suggestions appreciated. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Eh...eh... Drmies (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. That's exciting. I suggest you let this go nowhere. There is editorial consensus against their "scientific" evidence, by I think four editors. If need be, if that person starts inserting it in the article again, I suggest you run a quick RfC just on the general question "should we include this kind of evidence", just to get it ironclad. If the editor does not stop clogging up that talk page, you can always ask for a topic ban, a very narrow one. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Assuming we are talking about Rob Young in New Hampshire (that's not a ping), the guy is literally a monomaniac -- that article is literally all he has edited on on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks both for the comments - I'll keep an eye on it and hopefully it wraps up soon - at this point Rob Young is outlining points to himself, as no one else is really engaged in this conversation...hopefully he moves on to other articles soon. Garchy (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I know, but how can you see anything at all? Drmies (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to show a comparison of the two pages, to show the content and reference changes? Request here from Zackmann08. Btw Zack, I'm also a non-admin. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, alrighty then...
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Jeez, just trying to help. I'll try to respect your authority next time. Patriotsontop (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Patriotsontop
How were you trying to help? By falsely presenting the article as protected? Not a question of authority--it makes no sense to put a "protected" template on an unprotected page, or to pretend in an edit summary that you protected an article. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hsiung Feng III
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
An IP hopper who has been adamantly pushing the use of blogs and tabloids for an exceptional claim despite being repeatedly refuted has been laying siege to Talk:Hsiung Feng III for a few months now. But lo, it appears we've made progress; after realizing he stands no chance he has resorted to (incorrectly) pointing out spelling errors, as can be seen in the RfC section that's now in shambles. Just came to tattle because it's become annoying and disruptive. Lizard (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
You mean this one? That talk page is not fun to read. If all those letters and words and paragraphs led to a better article with better sourcing, fine--but if editors have to waste their time arguing that certain papers are tabloids and that that tabloids shouldn't be used, that's disruption. I appreciate editors' patience in dealing with that RfC, but it strikes me as needless, and if this continues, this time wasting, we should maybe consider other measures. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I mean this one, who I suspect is the same editor as most of the other IPs on the page. I should have specified that what's causing the RfC to be needless is the editor's inability to understand the concept of reliable sources. But I'd have no objections if you went and closed it right now. Lizard (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm well, it only just started. I think what you can consider is just pressing participants for a straight up or down vote because that discussion is going nowhere; there's not even real conversation about the second and third issues. And you can, if you like, hat the discussions about the tabloids, which is clearly off-topic. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
re: Nerds on Site
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not finding much on the internet regarding this company, other than their website, and the Wikipedia article. Maybe we should delete it? Boomer VialHolla 05:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. It's been here a while, and typically admins don't speedily delete stuff that has some history. But the article history is mostly full of trash. I removed one or two of the tags (there's some claim of importance), but chose to edit it some rather than delete it. If you can't find anything, just leave the tag on and the next admin will judge it. If they decline, then you can choose to take it to AfD (the IP editor can't do that). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Would that be ...?
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Drmies, just so I know, could you please tell me why the "Image of Sampaolesi line during Gonioscopy: [1]" is invalid? (Article: Sampaolesi_line). Cheers Jkokavec (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Jkokavec, hi--for two reasons: a. "See also" is for links to other Wikipedia articles; and b. even as an external link, we typically don't link to such external images--I see nothing in WP:EL that suggests we should include links to images (see the second paragraph of that guideline). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you then suggest how I might alert readers to this important image, without infringing upon Copyright? How else to I indicate that this is an important image for this topic? Thank you, Jkokavec (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's the thing--you really can't, because doing so (you, that is Wikipedia saying something is important) is original research. Things are important if secondary sources say they're important. That applies to images, theories, political statements, records, etc... Now, I didn't look at the link, but I assume there's some context there, that someone published it, someone who knows stuff, someone who provided context for it. That document can be a secondary source (if, of course, it's reliable, published, etc.), and then you have both an image and an explanation--an image by itself is nothing, just askCam Ward. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion
Hello there
Hope you're doing well?!
I would like to know your opinion on this edit, where User:Esszet insists to delete the whole content of a section due to non-neutral. But I've read NPOV a few times and can't see a reason for an act like that. Can you help and guide me please, as you did before? Thanks a lot! MetalS-W (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I thought I was doing OK but then I read this and now I'm asking myself all kinds of questions. Rainbow! Sure, I'll have a look, unless that's too masculine and patronizing. I've always had a problem with "Starstruck", by the way. I'm certainly not ordering coffee for Ritchie Blackmore. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm OK--the sourcing is pretty poor, and the opening sentence is not neutral enough... The last bit, about that Iranian band, that's not well-sourced enough to prove any kind of relevance; if a more notable/reliable magazine had published on it maybe, but a Deep Purple fan site, no. This Schmier guy is (encyclopedically speaking) nobody, but Rob Halford is somebody and we appreciate his opinion. So, Byff and Halford's comments are relevant, if the whole thing is phrased much more neutrally. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
And now I got "Man on a Silver Mountain" stuck in my head--thanks a lot! Drmies (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've learned something new today. I am sorry if you don't have a good taste in music but that's alright, we are all different ;)
Thanks again anyway, may I suggest you this or this and hopefully you will feel better?! Peace! MetalS-W (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Wait--you like Starstruck but not Man on a Silver Mountain? Come on! :) Drmies (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh! I adore them both, I thought you were sarcastic! I take my word back, Sir. You have a very good taste in music! :)
BTW I've Googled and I found an article about that Iranian band on Bravewords but I can see it is already there, maybe I added it previously but I can't remember atm.I think Bravewords can be considered as a reliable source. MetalS-W (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
See WP:MOS-ALBUM. It doesn't say anything about including other musicians' opinions on the album at all. The entire section just seems like an attempt to make the album look good; what does it add to the article? Esszet (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It is about the 40th anniversary, which came with that SHOCKING tour. I think we should find a way bring that back into the article. Just check out the poster and you can see what I mean. MetalS-W (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Esszet, if the people commenting on the album are notable, and the comments are relevant and reliably sourced, then I see no reason to exclude them--it becomes a matter of editorial judgment. An Iranian band, maybe not, but that depends on the quality of Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles and the depth of coverage--not to mention the importance of that one band. The singers of Saxon and Judas Priest, yeah, their opinions are likely to be notable, but there also it depends on the source and the depth. No one cares for a passing comment, of course, but if it's more than that, perhaps. I'm not going to draw many conclusions from the poster, and some coverage from Blabbermouth is also not enough (too much NOT a WP:RS), but if the Byff and Halford references are valid, then why not? Or we could ask Blackmetalbaz (who knows metal and Wikipedia like few other people), or more generally Dan56 (who is likely, I think, to take a more conservative approach, and has wrote up more FAs than Blackmore had keyboard players). Drmies (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Quite simply because you don't need a 40th anniversary reflection section, even if the people commenting are notable. Look at articles for other famous albums from the 60's and 70's: Revolver, The Doors, Led Zeppelin IV, and why not even [[Machine Head (album}|Machine Head]]. You might find some retrospective commentary, but a) it's generally from professional critics b) it's not for a specific event like the album's 40th anniversary. And MetalS-W, I looked at the poster, and I don't see what you mean. Even if you personally found the tour "shocking", you'd have to find a lot of other people saying the same thing if you want it to be included here. Esszet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Esszet, I find it very refreshing to see an obvious fan who is not eager to put such information in. However, if notable people find it relevant to comment on the occasion of the 40th anniversary (if that's what's going on), then, simply put, that 40th anniversary has become notable. BTW I do not base anything I said here on a poster. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really, simply because they're not critics and it's critical opinion that matters here. Reducing it to a single sentence in the "Reception" section would be fine, but you certainly don't need an entire section for it. Esszet (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
And by the way, I don't know much about Rainbow at all. I was led to the page from Sad Wings of Destiny, and I haven't heard much of their music at all (if any). Esszet (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, those early albums are really good, and the live album, On Stage, is excellent--a bit noodly for some, maybe. Anyway, we are not limited by policy to "critics only"; that would also beg the question of what a critic is. Musicians can be critics as well. I've said already, I think, that I would suggest limited space. But if some terrifically notable person says such glowing things, yeah that's important enough. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The thing is that these people are notable, but not for their opinions on other people's music. Their opinions thus generally aren't notable. Esszet (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Esszet, you're repeating yourself, and so I shall too: this makes no sense. To some extent they are experts in their fields, and it is prima facie ludicrous to not have a musician talk about which other musicians have been important to their music. Have a little common sense. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
What? You certainly wouldn't put "Rob Halford" in the ratings box, and if they're talking about influence, then fine, but reduce it to a sentence like "Musicians such as [blank and blank] have cited it as an influence" and move it to the "Release and reception" section. You don't need a "40th Anniversary" section just for other musicians' appraisals of it; it would fit in just fine in the "Release and reception" section. Esszet (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, sometimes my judgment is a bit clouded. What I was getting at is that such comments are notable, but not notable enough to warrant an entire section dedicated exclusively to them. I reduced it to a single sentence and kept Snowy Shaw's comments in; that should get the point across without sounding too biased in favor of it. Esszet (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, ß--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Dongargaon ek jannat
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
After the users last revert, I've started a thread at ANI, thought you may be interested. Chrissymad❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm thanks. Yeah, that was going nowhere. I hope they spend some time on the article we already had. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Project
Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
Hello. Can you please take a look around Wikipedia:WikiProject Validate credentials and help out if you want. I don't really mind but if you like the idea it would be good to have you endorsing it. Thank you. Wiki-CoffeeTalk 00:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
After what you had to say to me yesterday? Drmies (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Drmies It was an opinion about how you engaged with one editor. I saw it by accident and just thought I would mention it because I felt that attitude could drive away people from Wikipedia, but I am prepared to accept that issue is resolved and move on. I would prefer to move on and it would be good if you would evaluate the merit of the project on the principles and concepts. If you felt that what I said to you yesterday was unmerited, I apologize, but I don’t usually notice something then keep down if I feel it is rude. Sometimes it’s good to get an uninvolved and outside perspective on things? If you don't want to engage with me that's fine but personally I have gone right past that. Wiki-CoffeeTalk 03:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Drmies Additionally, I want you to understand that I am seeing things from your prospective. Probably along the lines of “who is this new guy who hardly has any edits coming along and speaking to me who has put so much hard work into this project… in fact it’s my life! Who does he think he is talking with!” The fact is however, that I can speak from the prospective of an outsider who is not as involved emotionally or otherwise with Wikipedia as you are. This is not a bad thing, as editors like you seem to me to be essential to how Wikipedia functions, however it can sometimes cloud vision. You do deserve respect – and some users like the one yesterday might not exemplify something worth showing much respect back for but I think you are one for being able to always take the higher ground. I love the whole idea of Wikipedia and what it does for people, and respect the work people like you do to keep it going. With that said however, edit counts and time spent on Wikipedia does reflect that you spend a huge portion of your life on here which means you might be very attached to it. When an outsider like me comes along and appears to be dictating or lecturing you – I understand how this could piss anyone off… but if you try to understand my vision. I am a Lawyer off Wikipedia and have a history of standing up with minority groups that are oppressed. It’s with this and my own personal background that I find it incredibly difficult not to openly object to something which appears to be wrong – no matter who I am standing up to. I hope that you appreciate that it could be you or anyone else and it does not mean that I disrespect you as a person. It just means that I hope you could do better, just like I hope I can do better and that if I was ever wrong just as I pointed out to you that you would address me all the same. Thank you for your understanding.Wiki-CoffeeTalk 04:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is how I felt, and I thought I said so. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: You seem to be very intelligent and I respect that. I would love it if you could read my new essay and give me some feedback. Its here: WP:LOWEDITFEARWiki-CoffeeTalk 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: Is MiT not qualified to make that statement either? Wiki-CoffeeTalk 18:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Drmies And of course if you did not find that an improvement in the WP:No legal threats I understand. Definately do not agree but understand. MiT referred to Wikipedia as having a "crushing bureaucracy." What is the problem? Wiki-CoffeeTalk 18:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to ping me on my own talk page. That (interesting) article is one opinion by one person ("crushing bureaucracy" is hardly a factual statement since it cannot be quantified)--from 2013. Plus, Tom Simonite didn't write your essay--you did, and those comments on admins and whatnot are yours. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
"If users are involved in a legal dispute with each other, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, it is not a reason to block": "it" has no clearly discernible antecedent. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Drmies Additionally, if you read my essay WP:Wikipedia's bureaucracy I would be surprised if you disagreed with it. There are explanations as to my view on the issues and it might be useful who knows? But maybe when you read it you could then judge it on its merit. If there are specific elements which you would like to challenge I would be more than happy to hear them for debate is the essence of discovery.Wiki-CoffeeTalk 19:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hilton Hotels & Resorts
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, Drmies - I just happened to see this edit to Hilton Hotels & Resorts, and wondering in what way the previous edit had been "bad", I looked at the previous edits and saw what looked like edit warring, adding, removing, adding, and removing what appears to be sourced content. I don't know who is right, but I thought it was possible, since the article is about a hotel chain, that someone does not want anything unfavorable about it to be there, and I thought an IP editor may not recognize edit warring or know what to do about it. I also thought "bad edit" was not a very informative edit summary. What do you think? I leave it up to you. – Corinne (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't speak for YSSYguy, though I gladly acknowledge participating in the annual march of the fuck-knuckles (see their user page). I also saw this and I wonder if this is someone we/I know--then again, everyone seems to hate on Sro23 these days--except for me, Sro! and you have a friend in Jesus! And the IP has some history with YSSYguy. Anyway, I think the edit you pointed at is pretty bad--poorly written, bare URLs, incorrect code, poor references, and the content is trivial, as far as I'm concerned; it's the typical "hey this happened at this place"; yesterday I deleted a fight in a schoolyard or something like that. And typically that sort of trivia is negative, or it doesn't make the paper--I just saw this in the same article. BTW, let's hear it from Herman Brood, the godfather of Dutch rock and roll, who we always thought was more likely to jump off the Okura hotel (wonder if they still have a sushi restaurant at the top level). Sorry--got distracted. Yeah, I don't think YSSY is whitewashing the joint, and I don't think this IP editor is much of an asset. Thanks for the note--and now let's play some rock and roll. This is the Brood song, with Danny Lademacher on guitar--so cool, on the P90-equipped Les Paul, with some cool analog chorus, vintage 1978. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, I couldn't give a hoot about the Hilton company. Secondly, in addition to the above, the event had nothing to do with the hotel company, which is the subject of the article, it was allegedly about a particular hotel; also the sources do not actually mention a Hilton hotel. One of the sources says, "Police will allege the man yelled profanities at passers-by and then claimed he was going to blow up a building. It’s unclear which building the man was referring to." One of the buildings at that location is a Hilton hotel, a fact which the IP has used to put two and two together to arrive at five. Yeah, I have been following the guy around WP for a couple of weeks, that's because his edits have been shit; plenty of others have undone his edits as well at various articles, but when I see a bad edit to an article on my watchlist by someone, I also check that person's other contributions as well. YSSYguy (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies, for your reply and the links. I had never heard of Herman Brood, but I like rock 'n roll, so I enjoyed listening to the song. I made a few copy-edits to Herman Brood. I notice there are a few "citation needed" tags there. YSSYguy, thank you for your comment, also. It sounds like you are perfectly correct in your assessments of both editor and edits. Even if you're fairly sure your edit summaries will be ignored by that editor, an edit summary that is slightly more specific than "bad edit" might help other editors figure out what's going on. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Corinne--it's been a while since I looked at the article and stuff has changed some. I worked on it many years ago trying to clean it up, but as so often I just half-assed it, even though I'm a heart and soul rock and roll junkie, just like Herman. Any help is appreciated. Glad we got this worked out, by the way. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit revert
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Drmies,
The edit you're talking about is not mine. The person who originally reverted the edit, reverted multiple edits, including mine, which didn't include anything about numbers (I didn't write anything about "30 000 ou 40 000"). My edit reorganized the "notable people" section and added details about various people. Whoever made the first revert, reverted my edit as well as someone else's. My edit was completely sourced. It linked to Wikipedia pages of the people concerned and is completely accurate. As far as I know, my edit was reverted for no valid reason, which is why I was perplexed by the revert, and the mention of a lack of sourcing, which definitely doesn't apply to my edit. Thanks. Gelkatn (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I am talking about this edit. I don't know what all happened before, and it is possible that stuff happened that became part of "your" edit--but you made this edit, and thus you own it. And the "30 or 40,000" edits, that's in the source. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not very hard to see which user made which edit. If you look at the history, you can see that my original edit (not the "re-reversion") did not contain any correction of any figures. It was strictly a textual addition to the people section. The edit you apparently have a problem with is not mine, and whoever (first Haybs and then you) made the first reversion did not do it properly, since my edit was reverted along with the "problematic" edit. The edit he, and subsequently you, wanted to revert was made before, long before, mine, and not by me. Again, it doesn't much effort to look at the history. The "re-reversion" you're linking to came after he reverted my edit along with the "numeral edit", hence my use of blanket reversion to describe it. It was improperly made. He could have re-edited the page, manually, without making use of a blanket reversion that completely reverts everything before it, including accurate contributions, albeit involuntarily. Again, it doesn't take much effort or time to look at the history before making brash editing mistakes. It's very lazy editing, if it can be called such, in my opinion. Gelkatn (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)The issue appears to be on your end - the revert you reverted (of a revert) did not simply add back in your information - it added in unsubstantiated information that was removed during the first revert. You mention that "he could have re-edited the page, manually, without making use of a blanket reversion that completely reverts everything before it" - but I wonder why you didn't do the same thing - you could have simply added back in the information you had added that was subsequently removed. Garchy (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Gelkatn, it's simple. If you insert obviously unverified or incorrect information, you should be reverted. I really don't care how you came to put that information in there--YOU put it in there. I don't care about your original edit; I care about the edit that inserted obviously unverified and incorrect information. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Hi there! I'm 146.243.110.117, logged in. :) Just curious about your revision of edits to the American Journal of Public Health. I understand Wikipedia is not a repository for links; however other academic journal articles do list some noteworthy articles in their pages. The articles I added I believed were noteworthy for historic and current event reasons (e.g., the Kawachi article is well-known in Public Health grad programs as majorly contributing to the understanding of social capital as it relates to community health) and far from being a PR campaign was intended to demonstrate the contributions the journal has made to public health. In your revision comment, you said it was not verified. If I am able to cite a reliable source stating the journal considers the listed articles noteworthy, would that be sufficient citation to include the links again? Thanks for your help! ViolinGirl♪ 17:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
If you have a secondary source, an independent one, that says that this or that article as published in that journal is noteworthy, sure--but if some article is important, that doesn't necessarily make the journal it was published in important, or the fact that it was published in that journal and not another. I've looked at many articles for journals, but I don't think I've ever seen a list like that. Here's the other thing: if a journal has made contributions to (in this case) public health, then one would expect that to be verifiable directly. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It does, thank you very much for your explanation. I will be sure to cite independent sources to verify the noteworthiness of the articles before I implement them into the page for the journal. I appreciate your help! ViolinGirl♪ 19:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely, and good luck with it. BTW, my go-to experts for journals etc. are Randykitty and DGG. While neither are as young or as goodlooking as I am, they both know tremendous amounts and don't mind helping out. Randykitty even knows a thing or two about health. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Myself, I consider a list of famous articles quite appropriate. But they must either be selected as Drmies has described. or be selected on some specified objective manner, such as the number of citations. The actual importance of a journal is the expectation that it will contain importance articles. I'll take a look at the specific situation tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It's all been said well, except that I'd like to add that I'm softer and fluffier than Drmies! --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, assistance would be greatly appreciated on these articles. The issues are self-evident...my requests for speedy deletion and page protection have been denied, but the former is especially awful in its current form. Even in its previous incarnation it's a press release. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It's been proposed, most recently here. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer TJW, I see. That's one of those discussins that gets lost once it gets bogged down in discuusing detail: if the original proposal had been focussed on paid editing, rather than the ToU (which admittedly could be a catch-all, almost), it would have been at least a sharper discussion, and possibly a different result. What makes PE different is that the accounts are generally use-once / disposable / throw-away accounts so blocks don't affect them: the only thing that wil stop them- 'follow the money'- is destruction of what they have been paid for. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, anchoring it to the TOU was kindof a way to try to avoid the pitfalls of past proposals. And anyway, it's CSD, which has a new suggestion rate of about one a week and a success rate of near zero. So a body has to overcome that predisposition even if their proposal is a damned good one. TimothyJosephWood 16:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Labdoo
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Drmies, you flagged the Labdoo article for several reasons.
I removed my last added section, about Labdoo's zero funding approach, although it is not at all an advertisment, but a description of how Labdoo works. Nevertheless, I removed it. I reduced the history section to a minimum. Is that enough to remove your flags or how does this works?
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hello!
In a previous message to me regarding the Windsor Law page, you suggested that we should send you the revised content to review prior to posting. How should we go about doing that - do we put it on here or....? Also, once it is approved, would you suggest reverting the page and then editing out the offending language? We are loathe to completely redo the page when we have already done that and it now just needs clean up. Thank you Moonlore20002001 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Annette
Moonlore20002001, I don't think I said that--that's not really how it works here. Wait--you're pointing to the standard notification, "you might like to draft your revised article before submission". Yes, that can be done, and the best way to do that is to propose changes on the article talk page and ping an editor or two for advice, and/or leave a note for the relevant WikiProjects (hereWikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, and here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities). For relatively small edits that's the best way to go. What I take issue with is the "you" in your "we should send you"--I'm not a gatekeeper, no one is; these things are done by consensus, so "you plural" would work, but I don't want it to sound like it's us versus you (singular, Annette). And I really think/agree that to make cooperation relatively easy, it's best to propose smaller changes, not a major overhaul. Now, if y'all now have 600 faculty instead of 500 or whatever, and you have a decent source for it, go ahead and make that change; such changes should be uncontroversial. So perhaps focus on those kinds of changes first and get your feet wet, and then we can take it from there. I'm pinging DGG and ... who else ... Kelapstick; the first is a university expert, and the second is a Canadian, so he can translate for us if need be. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Moonlore20002001, I remind you that the subject of an article does not control the Wikipedia page for it. You should, in fact, not be entering content except for straightforward facts with clear sources--updating the number of students, and the like. the current article as it stands is unacceptably promotional, with content that is more appropriate to its own web site -- even from the first paragraph -- "The Faculty of Law embraces the principles of Access to Justice in all aspects of its operation, including its admissions policy, faculty hiring, faculty research and scholarship and its curriculum" This sort of self-praise (or possibly the Canadian equivalent of a US non-discrimination statement) is not encyclopedic content. "to provide upper year law students with a unique clinical legal education experience, and in turn support entrepreneurship and innovation in the Windsor-Essex region" is PR jargon -- I don't personally think this sort of writing belongs anywhere, but certainly it does not in an encyclopedia. The remainder is written in similar fashion. It contains material of no interest to anyone except a current or prospective student, such as the details of admission requirement. I have not yet checked,but it seems possible that some of this may in fact be copied from your web site. It's possible to give copyright permission--a free license that lets anybody reuse and modify the material for any purpose, even commercial, but the material is almost always unsuitable, so it much better to rewrite. And there must be third party references, not just to your web site.
I need to think whether this is so promotional it must be removed to draft space for rewriting, or whether I can quickly do the necessary cutting to let it stay as an article--that will be better than reverting, and, it may be easier for me to do it than to explain to you just what needs to be done.
.
And the journal really needs a separate article--but the material there also will need to be rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
In general, without having looked at the article in question, I agree with DGG's comments above. Pulled pork tomorrow Drmies, which is always tricky in rural Indonesia. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Man that sounds lovely but I don't think I can, Ed. I don't have a budget, and I probably don't have much time. Is there a link for the thing you can send me? Drmies (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Question
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hey I wanted to ask how to deal with not released albums on discography pages? Is it ok to add it when it has been reeased on iTunes? I always remove it because it is too soon and because there is no chating/sales but others add them back and right now I'm having some problems here. The album has been released digitally in January as far as I know but there is no charting or even sales. I don't want to get into trouble with other users so I was thinking you might help me out? Is it ok to add it because it has been released digitally or wait till it is officially released and we have sales and charting positions? Or does it matter at all?
--Thebestwinter (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe an expert like Dan56 has a good answer. Unreleased recordings are typically removed unless they're announced in a notable way. If it's already released digitally (and I think you are setting up a false contrast in digital vs. official: a digital release is official if done by the artist/record company), you can list it, but one would hope you could find a reliable secondary source rather than having to link to iTunes or Amazon, which is a terrible thing to have to do. BTW you won't easily get into trouble over something like this. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Thebestwinter:, an album doesn't have to chart or sell anything to be a part of someone's discography. If it's been released already on some kind of format, then it's in the discography. I don't know anything as far as whether citing a retailer is appropriate or not, and an initial Google search for the album seems to turn up retailers and blogs. Dan56 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both. I'll try to find a better source and add it back then.--Thebestwinter (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Tone on Talk Pages
Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
I'm glad you agree that the accusation that placing a DS notice is a DS violation is not collegial (and untrue, of course); I don't see how "for french fry's sake" is worse than that. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you consider the post by VM to be uncollegial? Since you're telling users to watch their tone, I'd just like to see you do so equally. It's not good to tell only one user to watch their tone, while the other involved user is going around leaving sarcastic comments. Just to be frank, it looks very partisan. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe I used any "sarcastic comments". What I said I meant literally, funny words aside.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I enjoyed VM's post. He sure has a fancy-brand bent for his word turning. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No. I don't. There's a big difference between making a false accusation and using an unusual phrase that indicates exasperation. I don't know, Thucydides, what is not clear to you here. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious what's not clear to me here. I'm interested to know whether it's acceptable to deal with fellow editors in the way that VM does in the comment linked above. If I were to leave sarcastic remarks and accuse other editors of bad faith (as VM did in the comment linked above), or if I were to make blatantly false accusations against other editors (as VM did in this comment, in the thread you were involved in), would that be viewed as acceptable, or would I eventually land in hot water with the admins? I think the latter is the case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Where was I being "sarcastic"? What I said is that if X is true then find a source that says it. That's it. Nothing sarcastic there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thucydides411, Drmies has explained to you twice that spreading falsehoods is much worse behavior than using colorful language to express frustration, yet you continue to conflate those very different forms of behavior. Why are you choosing to behave that way? Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thucydides411, this is not a high school playground, or some Twitter forum, where you get points for snarkiness, loaded question, or patronizing tone. This is, besides a schtick, a stick, and you should drop it. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: I asked you a simple question, and I was very direct about my reason for asking it. The way you chose to respond was very unbecoming of an admin, let alone a constructive editor. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies:"this is not a high school playground, or some Twitter forum": that is called snark and patronization. Thucydides411's question was direct. If you are going to intervene at a talk page and accuse editors of incivility, I'd like to see the even-handedness of an admin. The accusations that are and have been flying around on that talk page are extraordinary. -Darouet (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who you are or why you are busting in here, but you are wrong. This was not a direct question: it was a series of repetitive loaded questions, and I would like to not see those. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I was quite active on the Talk Page of the article in question before you showed up (sorry, busted in) to threaten BlueSalix over DS sanctions there. I was amazed that, given all the shit that had gone down at that talk page already, including numerous false and/or deeply hypocritical allegations of DS violations, you appeared on the talk page to focus on that one particular incident. Why that one, out of everything else? I disagreed with BlueSalix, but they were hardly alone, and acted in an environment that has been established at many of the Russia-US articles. For that reason your very particular intervention did appear partisan, and I appreciated that Thucydides411 asked you to explain yourself there (you didn't). If you are willing to threaten and impose sanctions on one side of an editorial dispute, but not another, there is no possibility that a collegial editing environment will be maintained. And confronting that, not with sarcasm but directly, is important.
Well, I'm sorry I missed that post. But let me list, again, what all it is that I object to. a. The suggestion that the two comments from the two different editors were somehow equivalent. They were not. b. The continued harping on the idea that they were, esp. if couched in passive-aggressive terms such as "Just to be frank..." c. The not at all passive word choice from you and Thucydides. If Thucydides cannot handle one simple non-templated note from an admin--sure, call it a "threat", why not? let's make this more uncollegial--then they should stay out of contentious areas. VM has not, as far as I know, crossed any line in a long time--not since I blocked him last time, I think. Now, if there is something you wish to accomplish, you can do it at ARE, and I wish you the best. Finally, the explanation you said I didn't give, it's in my very first response in this thread. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixing?
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Drmies, do you plan to fix the material you removed from the Violet Wand article? You removed the other major method of use "Reverse" and its description, and you removed all the other text on Branding and Body Modification in your rush to remove citations you felt suspicious of. You've left the only citation a book that contains two paragraphs about violet wands and is NOT the source for the information that is in the wiki. The major source for the information contained in the wiki article is at www.violetwands.org, The International Violet Wand Guild, a member-user and education only non-profit association that standardized the terms and definitions, and set safety and specification benchmarks about 20 years ago. They do product reviews but sell NOTHING. The organization is the only real source for violet wand information, and they ARE the source. So when the wiki article talks about 'Direct' and Indirect and REVERSe' techniques, those terms were defined by the www.violetwands.org, the original source for the terminology. When the wiki article talks about the safety of using violet wands, the recognized safety benchmarks came from the same source. The entire article is now 'citation needed' without that. And there's only one place to get those citations: www.violetwands.org. Please reconsider, the article is now ambiguous without the main citations.Awolnetdiva (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Awolnetdiva, I do not plan to fix anything here and in fact I just sent it to AfD; I do not believe the thing is notable by our standards. If there is only one place to get citations, and that place is a website that looks, at best, like a community forum, that's a pretty clear indication that we're not dealing with something that passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Question about an old reversion of yours
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey there, Drmies. I'm here to talk about these two edits which you made to the page The Underland Chronicles some time ago. I've been working on getting pages from that book series to GA status, and I'd really like to put some of the material you removed back in. I've been wrestling with how to approach this conundrum for a while, and I could use your advice.
I agree with your removal of the "symbolism" section that used to be there; it was completely unreferenced OR, and it should stay gone. It's the "locations" section that I'd like to restore. The series takes place in a completely original setting, and relies very heavily on the reader's understanding of it; the plot of the series is essentially a war over this fictional territory. I believe that you removed the section at least in part because of its poor referencing, although you simply labeled it as plot cruft, and I've been working on finding secondary and tertiary sources to resolve this issue. I'm confused by examples I've seen of this kind of section/page elsewhere on the wiki, however, like Fictional locations in The Railway Series and Fictional universe of The Hunger Games. Not to cast aspersions on other editors' work, I'm just getting mixed messages about how to justify material that might be seen as cruft-like.
Since it is your reversion I'd be undoing, what would you like to see in a restored "locations" section here? What makes The Underland Chronicles all that different from other book series, except maybe a smaller sales figure? I really appreciate your time spent reading this small essay, and any help you can provide. Happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
2ReinreB2, as far as I'm concerned all articles are equal; I just haven't gotten to all of them yet. The short answer here is threefold: a. for an encyclopedic article these locations are just not relevant esp. since they're fictional; b. yes, unverified, that's problematic; c. way too much detail. By way of comparison, A Brief History of Seven Killings is set in Jamaica (for the most part)--that's essential to the entire book; that's what it's about. For a fictional universe, the same rules don't apply, since the book makes up the universe. This kind of content is best reserved for Wikia or places like that.
Fictional locations in The Railway Series is a terrible article and rightfully tagged; Fictional universe of The Hunger Games is equally terrible BUT! one can easily imagine that some of these locations have been written up in secondary sources in regards to their meaning. Articles are all equal, but not all books/topics are: some should be written up in more detail than others because they're more important, according to reliable sources. That ought to make the difference--and that's why you'll see a ton on Tolkien and maybe a bit less on Ursula LeGuin (I'm guessing here). Drmies (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy reply. I do understand your points, but I'd still really like to add in a very brief "locations" section to The Underland Chronicles. If there's a section in which I can consolidate info on locations - just a few sentences on why they are strategically important - I'll be able to shrink the actual plot sections on individual book pages. In the end, a little consolidated detail (with references, of course) will lead to less material on the plot overall on Wikipedia. I brought up those unrelated articles hoping for an example page to use as a guide, but your comments have made clear that each situation is unique. So to restate my original question, then: In this particular case, would you accept an abbreviated, referenced "locations" section? Thank you again for your time, 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
I don't want to fight over anything, and if you write up something that's concise and doesn't list every single place, you stand a better chance of it being kept. Best is of course to start looking for secondary sources, which is where every single encyclopedic edit should start. Thanks, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
SPI?
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
On my talk page you requested that I add something to an SPI. I'd appreciate it if you explain this in the case! MereTechnicality⚙ 03:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I left a note on the SPI page--thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
i messed up on the trump cabnit wiki
You're fast, I've got to give you that. :) John Carter (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Haha, this is the new America. Help yourself. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
IP editor, there is so much coding in that stupid article, with designated colors and stuff inside a table, that I'm leaving it alone. Besides, that pending changes setting makes editing it even more tirritating. Just leave it be--someone will come along and fix it, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Ban parameters
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
What are the precise parameters of this ban? You weren't very specific other than "Comics". Obviously, all comic book articles are out of the question. But what about comic adaptations (television shows like Gotham (TV series) and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., character articles like Joker (The Dark Knight), Joker in other media, ETC)? What about linking comic-related articles to non-comic articles (such as List of mad scientists)? Am I allowed to casually talk about the subject matter on my Talk Page, if it has nothing to do with the articles or Wiki-content? Am I allowed to even mention them? Can I talk to WP:COMICS members if it has nothing to do with comics and isn't at the WikiProject? This is all new to me. DarkKnight2149 03:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
No, none of those things. (I am following the lead of the participants at ANI--all I added was "broadly construed", a formulaic phrase.) All of them involve comics--that is, anything that falls under the purview of the WikiProject. Sorry. Can't link them, discuss them, edit them; can't nominate them for deletion, participate in deletion discussions, move request, etc. You can talk to COMICS members, of course--but you can't talk about comics articles. I suppose you could in principle ask someone if they've seen the latest Batman or Antman or Dragonman or Bicyclerepairman movie or whatever, but you can't talk about the Wikipedia article on any of those things. Testing the boundaries of a topic ban is typically not held in high regard. I hope you see now that the stakes in that ANI thread were indeed high. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes (and gratuitously so, but I'm not getting into that here). Thank you for the clarification. Again, Darkknight2149 out. DarkKnight2149 03:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Happy Valentine's Day
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Happy Valentine's Day!
Dear Drmies, I wish you a happy valentine's day.-- Mona778 (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh Mona how sweet! Thank you--kiss kiss--, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:ANI
Latest comment: 7 years ago32 comments9 people in discussion
Is there any particular reason you removed this, but not the entire post? I don't see how that's neutral at all. Are you planning on closing the discussion? DarkKnight2149 01:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Eh? 1. I removed your entire post. 2. Why? Because everyone has had enough of your constant haranguing. It is neutral to remove ongoing disruptive comments. Yours are; others are not, or less so. 3. The rest of the conversation is hatted. 4. I'm thinking about closing that discussion; I'm reading over it. It's not looking good for you. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
How are my comments more disruptive than theirs? Did you not see the blatant evidence and thorough reasoning that I posted (which you reverted)? Help me see your point of view, because this looks ridiculous to me right now. DarkKnight2149 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
And if you were just going to collapse the section, can't you see how reverting my defense (and only my defense) could be just a little bit unnecessary? DarkKnight2149 01:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
And lastly, if I am THE problem, what would you have me do now? With all do respect, these aren't meant to be rhetorical arguments, but serious questions. DarkKnight2149 01:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Right now I am deciding whether to issue just a topic ban for you for COMICS, or also block you for ongoing disruption and being an enormous timesink. The more edits you make outside of article space, the more likely such a block is. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
In that case, this will be the last edit I make outside an article space right now. Is there a way to issue an appeal to a topic ban? All of my arguments at that discussion were genuine and I don't think you're being fair. I'm not just trying to get out of jail free; I am being honest (and as an admin, I will take everything you say into serious consideration). I feel that a topic ban would simply be a gratuitous waste of time, as there is no purpose for it or a block. Six months seems especially excessive, given that I am a productive user with no prior history for disruptive editing that mainly edits comic-related articles and there is a content discussion that I am (or was) involved in that I strongely believed in. Did you consider both sides (again, with all due respect). DarkKnight2149 01:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
As you likely already know, the topic ban appeal process is outlined at WP:UNBAN. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't argue with closing the trainwreck subthread, but I do think that if, somehow, there were to be some way for ArbCom to really encourage development of a good fiction MOS, that might resolve a lot of the problems, and there do seem to be at least a few problems outside of the immediate "problem area' of the Joker. John Carter (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
John, I'm going by what's talked about in the ANI thread. I cannot judge what precisely the underlying problem is, if there is such an underlying problem; there is a consensus that a topic ban from the COMICS area is a solution, and that's what I closed on. I know you know stuff and have insight into what can cause problems in some areas; I appreciate that, and I strongly encourage to do what you can in this respect. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, while I see where you are coming from with that logic, I believe that that might be the problem. You only looked at how things appear on the surface. I strongely disagree with the result of the discussion. DarkKnight2149 02:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of wrapping the whole trainwreck up after your closures of the various proposals. Blackmane (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Darkknight2149, you seem to suffer from a few serious misunderstandings. First, ANI and talk pages and all that are not where one has fights; it's where one resolves issues. Second, the role of administrators in such venues as ANI is manifold, but one of them is to establish community consensus. That's what I did, regardless of issues of depth. Third, when admins enforce community decisions, it actually means something. I suggested to you how close you came to a block for ongoing disruption; I will not hesitate to act on it. Continued harping on my talk page (14 edits already) on what is by now a fait accompli is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I won't waste anymore of your time. I'll just cap this off by saying that I hear what you are saying, I don't agree with it in the slightest, and that there will be an appeal to that ban. Have a good day, Drmies. Darkknight2149 out. DarkKnight2149 02:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
John Carter: The idea was to eventually open an RfC or something at some place like the Village Pump and get sitewide feedback on the issue of how to present ficitonal characters. I don't see anything in the WP:COMICS discussion (which is really just a pre-discussion) that would require intervention from ArbCom. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I have a suggestion on how to present fictional characters: in one sentence or less, unless bursting with secondary sources from academic articles and books. :) Drmies (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
That would be frickin' sweet, but the community will never go for it. Wikipedia has independent articles on Jeryn Hogarth and Aldrich Killian -- that proposal would never fly. I wish the only fictional characters on whom we had articles were Shylock, Sun Wukong, Hikaru Genji and their ilk, but this being the internet I think we can just be glad each individual lolcat doesn't get their own article. Why I intend not to touch any such MOS discussion without an ∞-foot pole like the one used by one of the characters above-mentioned.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Meh--those two are nothing! See Category:EastEnders characters and bloated monstrosities like Mick Carter (not even the worst I've seen). On the other hand, poor Wiglaf barely gets playing time; Ohthere gets a bit more, but as a whole the Beowulf characters could do with only a fraction of the attention given to Marvel or soap operas. User:Curly Turkey, if there is such a discussion, cast a vote of "minimal coverage" for me plz. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The ironic thing is that if we tried that with articles on characters from fictional works from before, say, the nineteenth-century, we'd be (rightly) accused of OR. <facepalm> Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Masem, I thought you'd be all gung-ho about secondary sourcing. This reliance on primary sourcing isn't even a slippery slope--it's a chasm. Anything goes. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not the intent. You absolutely still need secondary sourcing to establish a character's notability, period. The thing is that secondary source typically gets you concept and reception information and may get some characterization. To fill in plot-specific details, one might have to end up going to primary sourcing. But that has to come after the article has shown its notability with secondary, otherwise it's a no-go. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Secondary sources aren't just necessary for passing GNG. We need to have adequate secondary sources to be able write an encyclopedic article. I don't even like the current "plot summaries can be sourced to the film/book/TV show itself" standard, since summaries if written by Wikipedians based on primary sources present inherent WEIGHT/OR problems. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I find that troubling too, and I have written more than one plot summary using secondary sourcing. Hate to keep bringing up A Brief History of Seven Killings (it's a long book and I haven't finished yet), but that plot summary really shouldn't be written up in a Wikipedia article by someone without access to secondary sources--the novel is fragmented, with multiple perspectives and multiple narrators whose reliability and knowledge of events may be in question. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Makes me think of Poison River, which is extremely fragmentary. I hated writing that shitty summary, and would rather sum it up in general terms, but I'm pretty sure I'd never get it through GA. None of my secondary sources really sum it up in a Wikipedia-ish play-by-play manner, so relying on secondary sources is out. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Tell me about it. I'm a fan of George R. R. Martin's works, but trying to read our articles on some of those topics would probably give me nightmares, so I try to avoid it. I brought it up on CT's page last night, but apparently a random new account has been going around creating articles on characters from Game of Thrones that as a rule conflate the TV adaptation with the original books and as a result contain some pretty gross misrepresentations of the books (characters' parentage being wrong, numbers of children being inaccurate, etc.). Attempts to tag the sourcing for improvement were met with this nonsense ("nonsense" has been called a personal attack, so I should clarify -- if a section is completely unsourced except for three words at the end then one shouldn't claim the sources are "fine"). And that's a GA! People criticize me for myGARs, but I can't really be blamed for frequently coming across GAs that really shouldn't have passed their initial GA review. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
BTW, the reason I absolutely refuse to post that particular article for GAR is because I don't think the plot summary section couldn't be sourced as currently written, I just think it should have proper citations. I also am deathly afraid of the modern American pop culture cabal that monitors those articles; if you folks think WP:COMICS is a snake-pit, try questioning the sourcing or readability of articles on the film and TV adaptations of said COMICS. Actually, no. Don't do that. I'd never wish that on someone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've been uncomfortable with that. I used to source all my plot summaries until someone told me one of my summaries was too short, and pointed me to that guideline. For a while I accepted that, but recently I've gone back to fully sourcing my summaries. I'm not sure we even need summaries as long as they tend to be—borderline play-by-plays. Some works warrant it, but many would do fine with a line or two giving the gist of the plot. Nothing something I'm going to put my chainmail on over, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
someone told me one of my summaries was too short I'd actually have the opposite problem. Really short, generic plot synopses like "This movie is about a group of Korean warriors in the desert and their attempt to save a Chinese princess from Mongols." can in theory be written well by anyone based on watching/reading the primary source (they are also, though, usually very easy to find secondary and tertiary sources for, so there is no need to use the primary source). Trying to expand beyond that leads to WEIGHT problems as the editors decide for themselves which elements of the plot they should include and/or give more weight to over others, which characters they should name, etc. This doesn't really apply to character articles, though, since with those anything cited to a primary source is by definition cherry-picked as something in the source that a Wikipedian thinks is relevant information about the character. Now, naming (and linking) the primary source inline is great, but actually getting the information primarily from such sources is not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am totally in the pro-seafood camp but shark fin soup seems counterintuitive. A dash of Tony's does wonders. Bon appétit. Tiderolls 12:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Ha, that's just LA speaking. You think Avery will get to keep his job? Drmies (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI...
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks. Surprisingly that discussion was started by an old-timer. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Requesting your help
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, doctor. "Kim Jong-woon" is both the birth name of the singer Yesung and an alternate transliteration of Kim Jong-un. While the title redirects to the former, its talk page redirects to the latter. It doesn't seem like something to take up at RfD, since it's clearly an error one way or the other, but I can't move the talk page myself. Can you help with this, or should it just be left as is? Hope all is well with you and yours. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't move anything, just changed the redirect. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Why did you do that?
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Did I miss something here [5]? The IP editor didn't explain their reasons for removing the content. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 04:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
They did--"duplicate sentence". The sentence with the number of horses. You have to look twice to see it; I didn't see it until I saw their summary. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Shit happens. Yes, it does look odd, doesn't it--shows you how easily we get used to seeing what we think we see... Drmies (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Archiving isn't quite working completely....
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Yay, another Grigori Rasputin issue! Well, kind of...
The automatic-archiving is working for the talkpage but the linkage isn't showing up on the article's talk page. And then there's are the two different Archives for the Rasputin's penis talk and for the main article talk... By the way, both of the (manually archived) archives are malformed according to the Bots' naming conventions, they are named "Talk:[article name]/Archive#" instead of "Talk:[article name]/Archive[sp]#. The bot is doing its work correctly (there is a Talk{Grigori Rasputin/Archive 6) but the article talk page doesn't know that Archive 6 exists. (A discussion about this issue is on Talk:Grigori Rasputin at: Talk Archive Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
(I didn't have a thing to do with his penis (or even archiving it for that matter...) That was done looong before I happened upon the Rasputin-scene. Shearonink (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC))
In any case, could someone please take a look at the automatic-archiving and fix whatever it is that is going wrong? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If you don't get a response, WP:VPT is the place to get technical support. Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thx Softlavender - that's going to be my next stop. I've looked and looked at the code and can't quite figure out what's wrong. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Teun van de Keuken
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for chocolate and literature! - Once I'm here: I'd like to write Liza Ferschtman one of these days, because nl has mo more than de, - could you imagine to help? - To any admin watching: Wikipedia:Iliya Zhelev should not be in WP space, but in the user's who is the also subject and the mover, and the earlier version to which I reverted should be back in article space. See also talk on Mandarax with Bgwhite. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Now I found a helper for the violinist, - lacking sources, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Reference errors on 17 February
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Latest comment: 7 years ago24 comments7 people in discussion
Need content-editor and admin eyes at Grigori Rasputin. This is a top-importance article, and it has a multitude of problems, including just for starters:
Excess irrelevant historical detail that has nothing to do with Rasputin
285 (no lie) hidden comments
Image captions which are unattributed quotations
An editor who has coopted it and refuses to engage, but instead avoids questions, attacks others, and stonewalls. Moreover, he seems to be unable (or unwilling) to answer simple straightforward English questions. I am also quite concerned about his competence level, given the preceding.
Any help would be appreciated. I merely stumbled upon the article by accident a few days ago, from a notice on someone's usertalk page. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE: OK now I have serious, serious questions about this editor's competence, to the point where I think it may be best to roll the article back to before he started editing it. I do not think he can be relied upon, and almost every edit I've seen him make since I started watching the article has been incorrect. Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Strange how a search for the word "penis" delivers nothing, though he got an entire section in some book about rock star penises that I read many years ago. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I sure hope that "Perception" section is not yours. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding his penis, see Talk:Rasputin's penis/Archive 2 - there used to be a whole separate article on it. I think that this article might benefit from someone contacting WP:RX for any recent reference work (encyclopedia, biographical dictionary) articles on Rasputin which could be used as a basis for comparison.
Seconding Softlavender's request - yes please. This article's present bloat of non-biographical details coupled with an apparent WP:OWN/WP:GREATWRONGS editor who 1)is having issues understanding WP policies/guidelines & 2) has extreme difficulty communicating with other editors to gain consensus.
Re that Perception section - it was started by the editor in question in May 2014.
Also, nothing necessarily untoward in their usage of sandboxes but I have noticed they are saving various complete copies of the article in their sandbox2, sandbox/2, sandbox9, and sandbox10. Shearonink (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
And not wanting to further confuse the discussion at the article talk page, and yet needing to unburden myself, here's an incredible edit in which he uses a piece of fiction as a source for "facts" he inserts in an article [6]. Later, he defends doing that, saying "I am not interested in WP rules, they are too complicated, there are too many to remember... I add what seems interesting. We don't need an encyclopaedia based on written sources, that is past, 20th century stuff" [7]. It's impossible to trust anything this guy has done. Incredible he's been allowed to keep doing this stuff, on multiple articles, for all these years. EEng 09:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
User:EEng--oh dear. That's not good. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I would be enormously relieved if the editor received a CIR article-ban from Grigory Rasputin, because even babysitting his talk-page posts there is exhausting and overwhelmingly time-consuming. Now that EEng has raised the point that his CIR issues are not confined to Rasputin, perhaps it's time to consider a CIR ban or block, period. I hate to do that to an editor, but the encyclopedia, not to mention the community's time and energy, are at stake. I was thinking that perhaps after the Rasputin article got suitably cleaned up, perhaps the article-ban could be probationally lifted, but if he is a hopeless CIR case that cannot credibly edit on other articles, we may need a site-wide 6-month CIR block, or ban with S.O. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
About that penis of yours
Thanks Shearonink--it took me a while to find the merge discussion. It's here, Talk:Grigori_Rasputin/Archive2#Merge_from_Rasputin.27s_penis, and it's the lousiest merge discussion I've seen. User:OlEnglish waxed quite poetic the year before about this 12-inch organ, but apparently they didn't see that discussion. I wonder how such die-hard Rasputin editors like EEng and Softlavender feel like about all this. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
What part of "I merely stumbled upon the [Grigori Rasputin] article by accident a few days ago, from a notice on someone's usertalk page" did you not understand? I have made only these few (and very recent) cleanup edits [8] to the article, have not added anything, and claim no expertise beyond having read Nicholas and Alexandra and seen Fall of Eagles. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
So you're not a die-hard editor, but rather a soft sea cucumber? Drmies (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of die-hard editors... EEng 17:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I was setting you up for something like that. Your opinion over there would be appreciated. EEng 03:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
What is this, comedy night? Don't quit your day job; leave the comedy to SNL. Softlavender (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm a recent traveler to Rasputin-land myself, fell down a WP rabbit-hole from somewhere around here and here I am - certainly think the article could do with some improvement. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
EEng, I am in agreement with all y'all's comments over there (well, all the ones I read--there's a lot), but please see the note I just left on Taksen's talk page. Softlavender, please be more respectful of my humor: laugh or get topic banned--it's that simple, really. I wish you'd run for admin just so I can block you; I don't have an admin block on my record, and I hear you get paid double for those. Seriously, I feel for Taksen, even while I agree with you all. I have seen many such articles, and Sitush and LadyofShalott are familiar with some of them as well, and it never gives me pleasure to do drastic cutting even when it's perfectly in agreement with guideline and policy and readability requirements. Thanks y'all, Drmies (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
and can i just say i'm sad cause the title of the subsection didn't show up as an edit summary in recent changes... Drmies (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel bad for Taksen as well, but it's hard to hold onto that when he's being so thick-skulled. He's been openly flouting basic content policies for years. EEng 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Am I to read this as we actually had a separate article about a person's penis? Good freaking grief. LadyofShalott 23:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but it was very large (the penis, not the article). No monologues from the penis are recorded, however. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I had absolutely no expectation that California would pop up in that article, but let's face it, my home state elbows itself in everywhere. Cullen328Let's discuss it
…and for viewers at home tonight's mystery object is a trepang
I don't know who stuck that smoked thing there but it's disgusting. Very sad! Drmies (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion O_o ... I think it's time for me to remove this from my watchlist, lol. DarkKnight2149 02:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is it that every kid who discovers Wikipedia thinks the site absolutely must have a picture of his trepang? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Mediterranean horse mackerel
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for giving me a barnstar for expanding Mediterranean horse mackerel. However, the award was an error. Instead, would you please award it to Drauv, since he is the editor who actually expanded the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I can give them one too, but it was your edit I noticed, and for that I thanked you. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Thank you for the barnstar! It was a wonderful surprise. Also, thank you for being the voice of reason on Donald Trump talk. Please stay there. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Haha, I don't get accused of that very often, but thank you very much. And Coffee, who is also a Good Guy (I think he's a guy?), blocked the IP for quite some time. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Guy? Yes. Good? That's still up for debate... — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
A few more redirects
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey there, Drmies. I'm here to tell you that I have helped you out by redirecting a few unsourced album articles. Those albums are: Sunrise in Eden by Edenbridge, Stairway to Fairyland by Freedom Call, and the first three albums from Power Quest; Wings of Forever, Neverworld, and Magic Never Dies. Well, that's what you wanted, all the weakly sourced articles eliminated, and all the properly sourced ones kept. I hope you would thank me for all this, instead of just reverting those edits and blocking me....DAAOEM91019 (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, thanks, great. I don't get the blocking reference but sure. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Help, I think I found a mass of copyvio
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
See Talk:Bluebird K7. I'm afraid I may not have found all of it, and I think Donald Campbell may also need a careful going over. One of the editors involved may actually be the author of the text I found elsewhere, to complicate matters. The other is from a BBC programme and I have to dash and have yet to hunt for it to make a proper footnote ... but I'm afraid revision deletion is going to be needed in addition to rewriting for tone and to keep the facts, and as I say, I fear I may not have found it all. Pinging poor old Moonriddengirl, but I'd appreciate help from any watchers here who know their way around finding and dealing with copyvio. Argh. I'm sorry. It appears to be a bit of a mess. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Eh, I don't really know what to do with that. (Is that by way of this?) If you determine something happened in this or that diff, I can check and start revdeleting. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I confess, I looked at it because you had edited it - and saw some peculiar prose. The sad story of my researches so far and the changes I've made based on them is on the article talk page. What I've found and tried to fix was introduced by two different editors, both of whom edited the article many times, and goes back to 26 November 2012 that I've found so far. (I've since traced the TV programme to 1988 and a 1989 broadcast, but the website I found the material on is not 100% clear that the text is a transcript.) I'm afraid there may be earlier copyvio and/or passages I didn't spot. I'm also out of depth on the topic matter: I cut what seemed to be an out of place second section of technical specs, but possibly I should have instead moved it and referenced it. And I haven't even looked at other related articles, but they were coming up on Google search for the key phrases I used. Hence, "a bit of a mess" above. What I believe I'm seeing is a need for revision deletion back to before that 26 November 2012 edit, and possibly similar treatment at Donald Campbell and other articles worked on by the same 2 editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. It's a sad situation. I must do something tonight or I'd look for a Swedish obit on Vinos Sofka. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Valgetova
Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Can you (or can you recommend somebody else to) take a good look at user:Valgetova? I get the nasty feeling that we are dealing with a PR-employee from Hilton and/or Astoria. See here: SUL Info. The Bannertalk 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Good call, Banner. I left them a note. I didn't see any obvious promotional editing in my quick run-through, but if you see it, tag it or report it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I got across her (?) on NLWP where she was messing up, suddenly moving a restaurant in Zwolle to Amsterdam and more misery. When checking, I found that she had a remarkable interest in Hilton and Astoria hotels, not only on the Dutch Wikipedia but also on the Danish and Afrikaner Wikipedia and many others. The Bannertalk 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
No. The user must disclose his/her client and employer. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Correct. Who's going to be the bearer of bad news? Drmies (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have sacrificed myself... The Bannertalk 16:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
God zal het je lonen, mijn zoon--want van ons hoef je niks te verwachten. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why so angry, as the only reason to update things around here is to make them true and informative enough, I would like to do it according to all the rules, and still keep everything nice and clear. Since started disputing some of my edits, a lot of people included to update information and make the projects more complete. Anyway, I would like to continue to help updating information appropriately, can make it with the help of moderators I suppose, will be happy to do it, keeping in mind WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. Valgetova (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Troublesome article
Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Vinos Sofka, a massive article written by a newbie SPA, is mostly unreferenced promotional bloat. I'm not even sure it meets notability. (Hard to tell with the silly references and the wall-of-text self-serving bloat.) It definitely needs help, and eyes. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Talk-page stalker note: I saw this note by User:Softlavender and checked out the article. It looks like a legitimate topic, offhand, though the article is too laudatory and can certainly be improved. The situation is confusing though: this is a brand-new article in February, yet there is notice at User talk:Joymgb about the article being accepted at ArticlesForCreation by editor SwisterTwister, back in December. There is no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinos Sofka however. --doncram 03:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I have given the article a trim, but it still needs some help in terms of tone, language, over-promotionalism (and remaining bloat), and the blizzard of titles that should be in italics but are not. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Edited to add: I also notice that the article subject died this month, and the wiki article was created nine days after his death, apparently intended as some kind of memorial. Softlavender (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oopsie, it was 1 year and 9 days, not just 9 days; death was in February 2016 not 2017. I personally don't mind articles being created upon someone's death, either, that is a pretty big reminder to people about them and it is natural to think of creating or adding to a Wikipedia article then. --doncram 06:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Christ, I seem to do that more and more. Softlavender (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to invite JamesBWatson into this conversation, since he wrote a very relevant warning notice on the article creator's talk page in early December [10], and per Doncram's information above there seems to have been some smoke and mirrors involved in the (re)posting of the article live this month after JamesBWatson had deleted it (G11) on December 3, 2016. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
JamesBWatson, is this version [11] substantially the same as the version you G11ed in December [12]? Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You know if I came across this tagged for G11, I'd delete it without hesitation...and I'd tag it myself right now were there not so many eyes on it already. Vanamonde (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender, the answer is yes. I'm hesitant to drop the ax, however, since it's not actively being worked on and doesn't look a thing like that horrible promotional piece anymore. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking the deleted version. I agree that the article as it now stands, a fraction of the size of the original, is much better, and as long as the article creator does not come back to it, it's fine as is. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
122.104.7.121
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's possible, hell, it's likely--but there's little we can do about that, I think. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive edits and hate propagating by a long-term vandal
Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Hi Drmies,
There are ongoing problems regarding a disruptive racist editor who was indefinitely blocked last year per WP:NOTHERE. Hassan Rebell, justifiably, was blocked by @JzG:on 14 December. After his "long" messages and apologies on his talk page, user @Beeblebrox: gave him a "chance" and reduced his block on 24 January. However, only a few weeks later, I noticed that he began editing thorugh his "confirmed" ips (see Rebell's talk page) with exactly the same agenda [1 for months 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9 (...) After his "Swiss" ips became "notorious", he abandoned them for a while and since June 2016, he has been editing from Germany 1, 2. As I proved on the SPI with dozens of diffs, those German and Swiss ips belong to the long-term vandal Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell. Plus, the checkuser also agreed that those ips belong to the same editor. However, no action was taken since his sock account was already "soft-blocked" for impersonating user:Kintetsubuffalo and he has not edited via his other account, Rebell, for a long time, despite he is very active with various ips and proxies. As I mentioned on the SPI case, the sockmaster "intentionally" impersonating other editors in order to escape "hard-block". It seems to me that, impersonating other editors is the "tactic" of this sockmaster: When his disruptive/suspicious accounts are noticed, they are first blocked for impersonating other editors, before blocked for socking or disruptive editing. And thereby, they become "soft-blocked", instead of "hard-blocked" Exactly the same problem has occured in the 09 January 2016 case (Kinetsubuffalo). Plus, he uses this situation as an excuse. Two of his accounts were blocked for impersonating other editors, it is obviously not a "coincidence", but a tactic.
The same disruptive sockmaster was warned many times by various users for his problematic, "hateful" edits targeting a minority ethnic group: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (...) And finally, he was warned @Doug Weller: for the same reason 1, 2. Despite all these warnings and SPI cases, exactly the same problem continues1. The last SPI case was closed on 22 February, and he has came with a "new" ip range on 25 February. On the SPI case, I have proved with multiple diffs that the proxy ip "81.253.60.172", German ips and Hassan Rebell are the same editor and thereby the "new" ip "130.180.67.198" from Germany, obviously the same vandal. In other words, he is still active on WP and continues editing as if nothing has happened. If he had used an account, he would have been banned 100 times, but no one can do anything because he is abusing plenty of ip ranges and only "soft-blocked" because of "impersonating" other editors. This is unfair.
In order to solve this problem I request:
Re-blocking for Hassan Rebell, since he continues "exactly" (even worse) the same behavior/edits that was led to the block and he is still active though he edits when logged-out. Also, I request hard-block for his impersonator accounts Lrednuas Senoroc and Kinetsubuffalo, since it is not a "coincidence", but a tactic.
I'm sorry, but what am I supposed to do that wasn't already been done at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc/Archive? And please don't say those editors/admins don't care: they all work much harder than I do on this project. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
OK so I looked at a bunch of things, including Kurdish women, which you want me to protect. Perhaps this IP is your guy--maybe, maybe not. Their edits do not strike me immediately as disruptive or worse. The most recent spat there involved you, restoring content removed by an IP. But that's all the action there in the recent past, so I don't see much of a reason to semi-protect that article. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies:, so you think that everthing is OK! I BET you don't even read the case, and even what i have wrote above. Just read the case thoroughly and the contribs of him. Many users, including admins, noticed his disruptuve edits many times! This is really unbeliveable. 46.221.168.189 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I spend my hours and provide dozens of diffs, mentioned the problems regarding the SPI case and you simply reject all of them even without reading it. This case is complicated and you cannot understand it by looking just a " bunch of things". And yes, i do believe that many of admins are just careless. 46.221.168.189 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said many times, this vandal is a "professional" and knows well how to escape hard-block. I suggest some solutions and i hope an admin, who read it "thoroughly" will do what need to do. You said that "it wasn't already be done on SPI?", and the checkuser told me that " it is not the work of checkusers". This is really weird. 46.221.168.189 (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
There is little point in running CU on those IPs. Blocks have to be behavioral. What I looked at was already a few days old and many of the diffs are much older--there is no point in blocking old IPs. I didn't say "everthing is OK"; don't put words in my mouth. And I did read the case, and what you wrote above. But let me ask you, why do you come to me? You got a half dozen people working on this already--am I like the Lady who helps those whom no one helps? You asked for articles to be protected--I looked at two articles and saw no need for protection. If you think admins are just careless, don't waste your time--judging from your words I'm no better than the lot of them. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Sigh...I did not even request "blocking IPS". In contrast, i have said that it doesn't work, since he has plenty of ip ranges! And can't you see, i have showed that he is still active "now", not stale. Also i have provided those "OLD" diffs to make you see that this user has been editing wikipeia for a long time with the same racist agenda. Plus, even the checkuser agreed that they belong to Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell. Is this a JOKE? Are you sure that you really read it? And I came to you because I noticed that you are online and admin, ok? But it was a mistake, i do accept it. 46.221.163.219 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Give me a recent IP with recent disruptive edits and we'll talk. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Doktoro
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Mascitelli, Bruno; Mycak, Sonia; Papalia, Gerardo, eds. (2016). The European Diaspora in Australia: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN9781443894197. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
The flagporn is obnoxious. LadyofShalott 21:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
My dear Uncle, what a joy to see you here: it is a day of happiness--I also just got a record player! Anyway, as far as I know "Diaspora has come to refer particularly to historical mass dispersions of an involuntary nature", so the word is not appropriately used, in my opinion. And Cambridge Scholars Publishing is not widely accepted as a righteous outfit... Drmies (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I have found a source that calls it by another name. It is however, published by people almost as disreputable as the Aussies. As I am sure the good Onion Lady will agree, we are of course writing an encyclopaedia for people who do not read books. That is why we have all of the flags, to make it easier to not read. Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Altman, Ida; Horn, James P. P., eds. (1991). "To Make America": European Emigration in the Early Modern Period. University of California Press. ISBN9780520072336. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
"Writing a New Caribbean", three-part series on BBC Radio 4 (available online). I heard the first one on Trinidadian literature and was entranced. Sorry about the plug- looking at the blue-on-blue map in that article at the blue-and-grey Hispaniola put me in mind of it. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
You've been reported.
Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion
Dear editor:
As the rules require (and as a courtesy), I am notifying you: You and 2 or 3 other editors have been reported:
Best luck in getting resolution.47.192.18.128 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea what you're trying to achieve here. You must have too much time on your hands. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Florida, the place to be for both of you. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I looked at it, stopped at the Daily Stormer, then checked the IPs: both locate to central Florida. Complainant blocked. Acroterion(talk) 04:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I had occasion to spend a good bit of time in central Florida about 20 years ago when I was running a field experiment. The overwhelming impression was that it was exactly like West Virginia, except it was flat. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
We West Virginians take offense. At least we were on the winning side in the Late Disagreement. Otherwise, spot on. Acroterion(talk) 04:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Country roads, take me home to Central Florida... it doesn't quite work does it :) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 04:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
West Virginia has 3500 year old cypress trees? And lovely oaks hung with Spanish moss. And crystal springs? Doug Wellertalk 06:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
"Welcome to South Florida the rules are different here
The government is broke
but that's just a joke
come back and spend some more money next year
South Florida, where they pay morality cops to go to topless bars every day
To watch women dance in the nude, what a great way to receive your daily pay
And welcome to South Florida
A drive by shooting can cost you your life."
Sadly I don't remember the rest of the lyrics (of a song played by a 1980s and 1990s radio talk show host in South Florida where I lived then and now) except "if you put your head in underwear you can be a county commissioner instead." 20 years have passed and I'm sure I botched some of the lyrics. I tried my best. Where's the woman in the thong bikini selling hot dogs these days?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Well that's lovely. In line with Boris's comment, I feel more justified than ever in saying that we (Alabama) should get the panhandle. Culturally speaking it's exactly the same, and we need the coastline. Florida has enough. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
But that's really just the southeast coast down to below Homestead. The center and warps bits are quite different as are the Keys. My dad worked in the Everglades for over a year buying land for the park. Doug Wellertalk 18:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I see Mlpearc likes to give his friends inside information. You cannot talk about me behind my back.
Stephaniesoftball (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, Stephaniesoftball, he can and he did. If you want to discuss article improvement, the talk page is the best place to do it. Oh, "He also announced on his talk page I was reported, trying to humiliate me"? No. I did not such thing. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Even worse article
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
NaadaKalasi. Please someone either help it or put it out of its misery. The only indication of what the heck the article is talking about is the fact that it has an article on Kannada-wiki. The article creator is a bit odd too. Softlavender (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is obviously User:Nsmutte. Would you be willing to check for any possible sleepers? Thanks! 172.58.41.159 (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Whoever it is is an idiot--and I already checked. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You were right, thanks. I keep forgetting I actually participated in that ban conversation, that's how exciting this person is. I didn't find anyone else, but hey, tomorrow they may be in Goa or Kerala. I'm glad they have a mission in life; I wish improving their English was another. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Uh sorry ...
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
... if my last interaction with you seemed a bit grumpy. Paul August☎ 16:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Haha, that's OK, thanks. I like to think of us as being in the beginning of a rocky but hopefully fruitful relationship. We've bumped heads once or twice at AfDs, but I do appreciate this note--you're obviously a bigger person than I am (since I could have said the same), and you have one of the coolest names around. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Pilling on nonsense
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I am not whole sure what you mean by my making nonsense allegations, perhaps you would care to explain?Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I meant to place that under your earlier comment, "He does not think the rules apply to him (that is clear form my interaction with him) and that he treats ANI's (and AE) as another tool in his pseudoscience. Frankly this is a joke", but accidentally put it under your proposal for sanctions. "Another tool in his pseudoscience" is particularly inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I left out the word "war", which might have made what I meant clear. And I stand by it, it was clear from his talk page comment [13] that he see's things in a battle ground light and reads to me just like that, he has fought this battle many times (and many of the users he has opposed have been banned), well it is how I read it (note this thread was in response to the question of should I be topic banned). So can you see why I might think this user uses threats of bans (and thus ANI and AE) as a tool to silence users with whom he is in dispute with over pseudoscience?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
That does make an important difference--but I am not going to accuse anyone of a battleground attitude unless I've seen the evidence for it, and in this case it really seemed as if you came by only to throw shade at jps based on an unrelated incident. But thanks for the clarification, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
COI?
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Doc and stalkers: take a look at the edits by Tariq Durrani. Seems they joined us February 24 and have been adding their own works as references to a number of articles, which articles typically don't need additional references. Note the heads up to the new user from @Ariadacapo:on the user's Talk page. Seems like a conflict of interest, is it not? Adding one's own works, I mean. Thought I'd check with the wiser heads around here before I reverted the rest. Geoff | Who, me? 18:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This is always tricky (or "trickig", as ABBA would say), but I think that, in this case, we are dealing more with promotion than with article improvement, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"Move along, folks. IP has stopped edit warring and has thus staved off a block."
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is a really shabby way to close a thread where I was obviously being jerked around. I guess being an admin doesn't guarantee WP:CIVIL, eh? Pfft.184.145.42.19 (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You were edit warring. You would have been blocked. You weren't being jerked around. You can guess what you like--I'm a scientist and don't believe in chance. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about the words you used. Being a "scientist" (whatever the hell that has to do with anything), you should grasp that Wikipedia is pretty much entirely predicated on words. The ones you used tend to belittle others, and because you're an admin, you should use them more judiciously than others. Why don't you give it a try, champ?184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
This is wot I was thinking of; hope you can assist, but if not possible, totally understandable. On the assumption you don't want to spend your weekends doing other people's work of course :) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, that's fascinating. A quick Google search reveals some English sources. I'll get on it but not tonight--and I wonder if Crisco 1492 might have an interest in it... Drmies (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting indeed. Shame my own work's been keeping me swamped (POTD and TFA scheduling are behind, and Jam Gadang needs references). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna has a draft in user space. Let's see if we can get on it in the next few days. Nice to see you again, Chris. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
You too, Doc. PhD-ville's been crazy. I'm going to be defending my proposal on Friday, and then it's time to use all my "spare time" (HA!) to read and write. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
So I spent £13 Including P&P on a copy of her poster of Battleship Potemkin, thinking that if a monkey can do it, so can I ;) but apparently not. FFS! -to coin a phrase. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 21:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"This is where it started..."
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
No mas.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you had anything like a conscience, you'd have looked at all of User:Nfitz's comments (chronologically). Instead, you cherry-picked the first instance of me giving the slightest bit of snark while ignoring four instances of rudeness from the other editor. Disgusting.184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
What an eloquent lesson in civil discourse. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
No, IP, there were no four instances of rudeness from the other editor before your comment. "Disgusting"--what are you, the president? Drmies (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
A short block may be the solution...
Thank you for closing the second ANI thread in a row.
I'm gonna be honest, I didn't actually read him message on my talk page before reverting. The title and the single line that was visible in the notification was enough. I said in my edit summary that if he posted that again on my talk page I would ask you to block him, but now after reading the full thing I looked at some of his other edits after the most recent close, including here, and I think maybe a block might allow him to cool down a bit.
This assumes, of course, that what looks increasingly like WP:NOTHERE behaviour is just a frustrated reaction to the AFD not going his way.
Hijiri, I love you like a fellow editor, but please don't say "I'll ask Drmies to block you"--it makes me less likely to block someone. Anyway, that was a shitty remark, sure, and I'm out of patience too. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
(Double (edit conflict) followed by loading error that deleted this commented but not the one below that I had copied.) Yeah, I know. Normally when I say "If you do x I will ask an admin to block you" or some such, I'm not talking about you, since I know that would generally be your response. The reason I named you here is because you essentially threatened to block them a few hours earlier if they didn't drop the stick. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I've had a distinct sense of déjà vu from their WP:IDHT and WP:CIV issues. I'm all for giving a user a WP:LASTCHANCE; but at some point, the user is going to burn through community collective patience. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I had the same feeling. I went back and checked, but decided against mentioning it here until someone else did. I posted in a bunch of ANI threads around that one, and had read through it when it was live. It gave me a good chuckle, but I decided to avoid posting in it at the time. After going back and checking, I'm now pretty sure this is a NOTHERE case, but I too don't mind giving a last chance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This IP wore my patience out over a month ago, pretty much right after they started editing. Certainly a WP:NOTHERE case, with a good amount of WP:WL. Garchy (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I should have clicked Barek's link first - looks like they also posted to the ANI above. Garchy (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
IP Poker
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hmm. Thanks. Was not familiar with that poet or his work. (I just did some old man lecturing and bureaucrat hectoring...) The conclusion is a bit tricky to follow, in part I think because of that "otherwise". Thanks BrownHairedGirl. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Fuchsia
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry for changing the name of the article. I didnt know it was against the rules. I just thought it would be funnier with that new name.EbonyandIvory (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Thank you. Yes, it's weird--for some reason such vandalism is frowned upon in this joint! Drmies (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yup, I mean the edit by the IP as vandalism not Nfitz. I reverted it, simply because it was. Don't really have a comment on everything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Obituaries
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments (re Abasiono1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)). GABgab 15:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- Mlpearc (open channel) 18:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
