User talk:Drmies/Archive 113

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

→

Archive 120

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Panzer Ace". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 January 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Diva Dirt - Is It Reliable?

There is a discussion currently ongoing in which we are trying to reach a consensus if Diva Dirt is reliable. You can view the discussion here. There has only been a couple of people who have responded. We need a wider input from more people. You're response is needed and appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wait--what? I commented there days ago. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ankit Love

Unprotection: Requesting temporary unprotection to create a redirect pending at AfC redirects. Or alternatively, create a redirect from this title (Ankit Love) to One Love Party.  samee  ^talk 16:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thank you Primefac. Would you please re-protect it to prevent it turning into BLP once again?  samee  ^talk 16:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks all. Can I just say that this isn't WP:ANI 2.0 anymore? I will gladly respond to queries and help out where I can, but please don't count on me for emergencies--on MLK day, we tried to do a few things outside the house. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  Heh, looks like you have a fair number of watchers though. Very possible that posts here will be seen faster than at AN, even if it's not by you. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• That's true, but I always feel bad when someone drops something here and I'm too late or too absent to do anything about it. Thanks for picking up the slack for me, Primefac, and all the others--I really appreciate it. OH! DOES ANYONE NEED GIRL SCOUT COOKIES? Drmies (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Drmies for inconvenience. I posted here because the instructions at WP:RUP recommends to contact the protecting admin first. Thank you!  samee  ^talk 17:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No Samee, no inconvenience--you did the right thing, I'm just more absent than I should be. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder about Blocking consultation

Hello again,

The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on English Wikipedia and is in the final days. Also there is a global discussion about the same topic on meta.

We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. There is still time to share your ideas.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sock

Hello Drmies, I believe our friend from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden jackal/archive1 in the section "A few more comments" is back again, active on my User talk:William Harris page down the bottom, and on the article Golden jackal. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User Maoler

Is there a SPI discussion somewhere? That's a very strange result and might suggest meatpuppetry. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Nope. Their edits were so odd and so not-newbie that I ran CU. If you compare their writing style you will see they have the same idiosyncrasies (and the same level of aggression) so I have no doubt they're the same. Oh, I asked on the CU email list if anyone recognized these editors; I have no doubt that they have been here before under other names, doing various kinds of things. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I was considering starting a SPI discussion because there's very obvious sock/meatpuppetry going on. Did you just check between the two accounts then, or did you look for other socks as well? --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz--there was nothing else, besides a few edits from the IP that I don't remember, so they weren't all that meaningful. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Joe Walz ongoing vandalism

Hello, Drmies. A couple of days ago, you responded to a polite warning I left on this user's page about vandalism done by that user in which Joe Walz was referenced, saying you were not as nice as I was and that you would just block anyone who continues this kind of thing. The editor that keeps switching the location from which such content comes has struck again, and, given your reaction to my polite warning, I thought you would like to know. This time, the problem went much deeper, in which libelous, slanderous, and false information was added to Dieter F. Uchtdorf, in which the offending editor again referenced Joe Walz. And if that weren't enough, there were two such revisions from this same address, which can be found here and Dieter_F._Uchtdorf&oldid=820875728. Based on what I saw there, which originated from the same user, I posted a very clear warning that I was reporting the conduct to you, and that any subsequent edits in which vandalism referencing Joe Walx were included could result in an admin (such as yourself) blocking indefinitely all such addresses from editing privileges. I thought you would want to know about all of this. I am sorry if I was wrong to utilize the muscle of your previous warning without your consent, but it has been ridiculous that this vandalism continues. And I know that you and I may not have always seen eye-to-eye at times when we have worked on similar pages, but I wanted you to know that I very much appreciate your warning on this subject, and hope that by reporting these latest violations to you that action can be taken once and for all to nip this in the bud. Also, please let me know if any of this is a problem, and I will try not to utilize the muscle of your assertions in the future. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Jgstokes, that's a lot of words--thanks for reporting. Please notify any admin immediately, via WP:AIV or here or at ANI, with all the diffs. This child needs to be blocked on sight. Berean Hunter, any suggestions? Can someone make a filter please? Drmies (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent range is blocked. zzuuzz would be the one to ask for the filter as that is one of his fortes. It should be an easy one to implement.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm just going to ping Cyp before looking at this any further, as I suspect there may be something already afoot on aisle 898. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There's not really currently much afoot, apart from what can be seen there already. I don't know if there's anything specific that should be targetted, apart from the obvious. Κσυπ Cyp   22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone, and thanks for the ongoing dialogue about this issue. I have opened a dialogue with someone from the location in which such vandalism has or

Linking to related thread for reference.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• What would be very helpful is jotting down the IPs when you see it and making a list. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you zzuuzz and Berean Hunter. So, Jgstokes, you can be of great help to us by a. reporting to AIV or ANI, with a brief note pointing to that Gerald Ford editor, and b. noting IP addresses. I can't believe these dickheads, by the way, who get off doing this. Do we have an LTA? Again, a list of IPs would be so handy. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for the feedback on this. My main reason for reaching out to Drmies in the first place is because, as I noted at the start of this thread, a subsequent comment I made after reaching out to someone politely about this issue featured a reply indicating that if Drmies caught the person doing this anywhere, he would act quickly to block such users. Even though I have edited here for a decade, I am far from an expert on the proper way to handle such things, so I apologize for not going through the proper channels. As much as I would like to personally keep a record of every instance of this issue, the only times I have reported it is when I have noticed it in the recent history of the pages on my watchlist. Additionally, in view of some personal issues, the amount of time I can commit to editing here on Wikipedia within the last year and longer has been cut substantially. I was recently able to spend slightly more time here than I have in recent months, but the kind of help you are requesting from me on this issue is something I cannot practically take care of at this time. I apologize if that is an inconvenience, but it's what my situation is right now. That said, I will keep the pages recommended in this thread in mind and will do my best to make an extra effort to report such instances as I come across them on those pages, but that is the best I can do right now. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone, and thanks for the continued dialogue about this issue. New developments in that regard: Someone posting from that same address who knows the individual behind this vandalism but is concerned for her welfare in terms of what might happen if we had a way to personally reach out to her about this has had a back-and-forth exchange with me in which I attempted to answer such questions. If I have been in error in anything I have said in that regard, please feel free to post follow-up comments to clarify or correct what I have said. Hopefully, if the person who knows the person responsible for this is satisfied with those answers, the problem will go away. Just wanted to pass along that update. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha, I saw, and I saw that you saw that I saw. I'm not sure I'd believe what that person said, but just to be on the safe side I left a link (as you saw) to our OUTING policy. Thanks again for the update, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I should just like to add that I saw that you saw all of that, and I appreciated it. I'm not sure I believe it either, but I am willing to give that individual the benefit on the doubt. Thank you for being there to emphasize the relevant policies, which didn't occur to me while I was going through that interaction. I would be perfectly content not finding out whether or not someone else was behind it, as long as the result is that it stops. I wanted to post this follow-up comment to thank you for all you did to help with this issue. I know we have had at least one (and perhaps more) personal disagreements, but I very much respect the help you gave me on this process, so I wanted to thank you. Some of those I have extensively worked with in my efforts to improve pages on my watchlist have suggested I should request adminship myself, but aside from the time investment involved (the personal issues I am having currently preclude that possibility), it's situations like this when I am reminded that I don't know nearly enough about Wikipedia to qualify for that added responsibility, and the longer I edit here, the more I realize how little I understand in that regard. Perhaps someday, but it's not in the cards for me right now. Thanks again for your help on this. I appreciate it. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Genisco Technology > deletion

Hello Drmies, sorry for my delay in regards to Genisco deletion. I have been ill over the last couple of years and have not accomplished much, anywhere! I have 40 full size xerox boxes filled with Genisco information and a qui tam lawsuit in 1986 > 1988. Please be patient and allow me to get back on my feet while digging through over 100,000+ pages of material on my own! I will be editing Genisco and two other unfinished sites that tie into each-other regarding the same subject matter. All three site are of historical value and need to be completed and I have all the verifiable material references to do so. Its a pleasure to meet you! Thank you for your time and patience. Qui Tam Relator 01:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

• Qui Tam Relator, the pleasure is all mine. Here's the thing: please don't go through such primary material and court documents on our account: we need secondary sources--books, newspaper articles, etc. Please see WP:SECONDARY. Thank you, and have a great day, Drmies (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Panzer Ace, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Reasons for redaction

Hi you redacted my comment about polluting a talk page with personal comments with a summary mind your language. I think this is excessive. The comments were on a personal level and nothing to do with the talk page in question. Redacting my comments suggests that they were offensive which they were not. please explain why you redacted them? Domdeparis (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Domdeparis (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Reasons as per WP:CRD I should add. I have read them a couple of times and I don't think that what I wrote enters into any of the criteria and if you had asked me and explained why you considered my language inappropriate I would have been happy to strike the comment or remove it myself. Domdeparis (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• You accused another editor of "polluting" a conversation, and you did so on an article talk page. And no, you should NOT add WP:CRD because that doesn't apply: I deleted your offensive remark, I didn't use Wikipedia:Revision deletion. So in short, yes that comment was offensive. That you don't see that is understandable but it's not my concern. All I can do, besides removing it, is hoping that you didn't intend to be offensive. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing offensive about saying that personal remarks that have nothing to do with the talk page pollute it. Can you tell me which policy you applied when redacting my comments? You are censoring my comments and if you are not applying a specific policy then I would like you to revert as your summary suggests that my language was inappropriate. Domdeparis (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You are just repeating what you said already. Policy? First of all, you cited the incorrect policy. Second, the "No personal attacks" section in WP:TALKNO is clear enough. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of making a personal attack? Now that you have redacted my comment which is in no way a personal attack I cannot defend myself. Redaction is an administrator tool that I presume must not be used unless there is a clear violation of policy. Please state which policy I have violated with diffs. Domdeparis (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The personal attack is the part of the comment that I removed. The diff is that edit in which I removed that comment. The policy against personal attacks is Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Such redaction is not an administrative tool; it is not, as you thought, Wikipedia:Revision deletion: any editor can remove personal attacks. Are there more blatantly obvious things I need to spell out? Drmies (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You know what I think I owe you a big apology. When I saw that my comment had been replaced with the word redacted added by someone with administrator tools I assumed that this meant you had redacted my comment. I am editing on my phone and I should have used the desktop version to check it out before getting on my high horse. I deserve to be soundly trouted for that. That said I do not believe that my comment was in any way a personal attack as the polluting with personal comments applies as much to anything that I might write in reply to his off topic remarks. As I said this editor was on a break for a couple of months having and his 3rd edit after coming back was to accuse me of lying and to complain about the conduct of an administrator during the deletion discussion on a petition page to condemn administrator abuse of tools. I ignored this but I was particularly vigilant about his edits to see if he was going to try and reinsert deleted material in which he has a declared COI. So once again sorry for not checking what the redacted comment really meant but as you can see I genuinely thought you had redacted my edit. As I said I will avoid pinging this editor or interacting directly with him but I will not stop watching and editing the different pages that he has a declared COI in just because he wants to avoid me. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Domedeparis, it is entirely possible that we disagree on whether a comment is a personal attack or not--I think that that phrasing was inappropriate, because that word carries all kinds of connotations. I really have no intention of policing interactions between people, and certainly not you two; I think you know I have spent plenty of time on it already and I have criticized that editor's behavior. That said, I believe they are here in good faith, just like I believe that of you. If you can not ping, not seek confrontation, etc., that is a small effort which might produce a big result, and I appreciate your willingness to give them space; I hope they will do the same for you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing a deletion decision

Hi there, I'm writing you (per the deletion review page which recommends that the matter be discussed "with the closing administrator [to] try to resolve it with him or her first") because some time ago you ruled that the result of this AFD discussion was to delete the article, despite there being 5 in favor of keeping and 5 in favor of deleting. It can currently be viewed in its original form at Draft:Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam (the formatting could be improved later of course). Regards, Yambaram (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think you will see that !voting isn't about the numbers, but about the strength of the arguments. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course, and this is why I am bringing this up here, because the strength of the keep votes was not weaker by any means in my opinion. It was a classic example of a discussion that should have ended in "no-consensus", or been re-listed at the very least. Not going into the WP:NBOOK debate, if after another look at the AFD you still disagree the page should return, that's okay, just inform me here so I will know I can post this at Deletions for review (for the first time, so I hope I'm doing the procedure right). Yambaram (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO, that was an exemplary close, reading a complex and nuanced discussion and checking against actual references to policy. This is a very difficult balance to strike where you have a subject that excites strong passions. So I would focus on collecting reliable independent secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've worked on related topics for quite a while, and I would decidedly endorse this close. This discussion is fairly typical of this topic, in that it has brought out a whole bunch of folks with an agenda, disruptive editors, and people with a "keep/delete at all costs" attitude. Discounting all of these arguments, you are left with a fairly clear consensus to delete. Vanamonde (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Your opinions are legitimate. Moving forward, if I am able to do what Guy suggested ("focus on collecting reliable independent secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail"), bringing the article's notability to Wikipedia standards, the more appropriate way to go about it would be through a regular Drafts for submission process, right? Yambaram (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A question about "The Tufts Daily"

Hi again, I have a small (oh, and non-controversial!) question, if I may, that relates to content I think should be deleted (because you have experience with such matters...) An article about some university's student newspaper, The Tufts Daily#Staff, lists hundreds of names of college students and their roles at that newspaper. This redundant information seems to have no encyclopedic importance at all. Before I go ahead and delete the entire section, I thought a quick opinion/confirmation from you would be in place. Yambaram (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I've deleted many such sections. It's understandable that people put them in there, but they should go. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Attention blocks

It's a style thing. I have placed blocks with a clear indication that the block can be lifted as soon as the user starts engaging with other people, which I think of as an attention-getting block but could just as easily be characterised as WP:IDHT or whatever. The main thing is that the block gets lifted once communication starts. But I understand your reservations and it's certainly not something I routinely do, especially with people who have been here more than a couple of weeks. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• I probably have too, Guy--I think I have, at least once. But as you said it's not a common thing, and one of things I don't like is editors asking on ANI for such blocks when they're not warranted, like they ratted out a naughty child to the teacher. In this case, well that editor was pretty hopeless, weren't they... Drmies (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A little problem with soapboxing and forum posting

There's been a bit of disruption at Talk:Fake News Awards, where an editor is posting in nearly every thread about how Wikipedia is promoting the liberal agenda and how they want unreliable conservative opinion pieces included. It's quite difficult to even communicate on that talk page at this point, as everything is intertwined with their lack of formatting. How would you propose treating the situation? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Parliament of Catalonia (possible sockpuppet)

Thank you for your advice. I should indeed take a break here, thank you for your intervention. Nonetheless, after seeing this edit, I fear this may be a sockpuppet of History 1245789. Probably WP:SPI would be more appropiate. Impru20 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, behaviour is similar, and he now seems to be using different IP accounts (editing the same articles using the notorious "added information/deleted information" edit summary text) from the 2601:44:80:8332 range. I suggest this to be taken to WP:SPI; here is the link for the previous cases: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Branflakes452701/Archive. Impru20 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The range is actually the same from previous IP sockpuppets reported at the linked sockpuppet investigation. The range was blocked for a month on 23 December 2017 (as reported here), and it seems to be returning to disruptive activity once the block has been lifted. Impru20 (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, I just came from Ad Orientem's talk page. OK, so we're all on the same page--yes, if you could add them to that SPI, that would be great. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Your The GA nomination of Dolly Rudeman

The article Dolly Rudeman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dolly Rudeman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I wish your good advice would be followed

Hello! Your constructive advice is not being followed here. As you've seen, I was hoping there would be no more mention of my name and no personal comments at all, and that that might lead to a tolerable work climate for all concerned. I have not actually expected to be criticized for doing what was proposed in the last sentence here. My note with that specific suggested wording was placed right there - at the top of my talk page - as helpfully given in an e-mail to me from Bishonen at that time. I've seen that you have now expressed the understandable desire not to be involved in this anymore (who would enjoy it?), and I'm sincerely sorry to bother you about it, but I honestly don't know whom better to turn to. What else can I do? My name is being posted over and over again, with no current necessity whatsoever and in wordy, repetitious, reproachful ways that have seriously exhausted and traumatized me before and made me completely lose interest here. I really thought your fair and helpful words lately would be the last in the matter, and that we all then could go about our Wikipedia business without the problem continuing. Any suggestion would be appreciated that might lead to a final and lasting non-personalization of the whole thing now, as in our guidelines' "Comment on content, not on the contributor", aligned with "Keep discussions focused" and "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

PS the guidelines I quoted are very good ones, and they apply to all of us, myself included, as far as our trying to adhere to them as well as we can. My quotes were not aimed at anyone in particular. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Look Serge--I can't fault someone for responding on their own talk page in a thread in which you yourself participated, albeit one that was started by the other editor. If Domdeparis wants to have a final response there, leave it be--remember, talk pages are public and so they may wish to say whatever they think is relevant for other editors to see. I see it, rather, as a sort of last word; perhaps Domdeparis will even archive that section. I suppose you also have a right to a sort of last word, but if you do that, then Domdeparis should have...etc.; I'm sure you see where this is going. I do not think their post was in violation of anything, nor do I think that anyone would benefit from sort of serious interaction ban. Sorry, but this is not something that we admins with our heavy-handed manners can do much about without breaking things. Well, Bishonen can do all kinds of things, but she's special. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! My last word will be here: if we could find a way to make my WP work bearable, by my name not being mentioned unecessarily, condescendingly and reproachfully all the time, I would be able to continue to contribute to this project. As long as my name and existence constantly are used in exception to the excellent guideline "Comment on content, not on the contributor" - which I try very hard ro adhere to myself - my situation here is hopeless. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

PS Administrators at English Wikipedia very rarely have heavy-handed manners, that I've seen. That includes you and Bishonen. I have never complained anywhere about any such thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Just to let you know the sections on my talk page are automatically archived. I have just changed the settings from archive after 90 days without a reply to 30 days without a reply. I tried to use one click archive before but never managed to get it to work so this thread will disappear in a few weeks. I think that all that needs to be said has been said by all. Anyway happy editing to both of you. Domdeparis (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Drmies: How necessary and constructive do you think it is that I be mentioned again reproachfully here? Same repetitious criticism of yours truly, dragged into into one discussion after another month after month in 3-4 languages over and over and over and over and over and over by same user. Will it ever end? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know if there is a history, and it is really not my business--I don't see you being dragged into a discussion (you're not pinged). If I were to follow editors to see if they're writing about me somewhere I would have my hands full, and there is nothing in policy that forbids someone from mentioning someone unless it follows a pattern of harassment, for instance. That brief comment (which seems factual, no? didn't you have a COI? weren't you banned, or at least indef-blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia?) does not constitute harassment. I do not quite understand: do you check in on the edits of editors with whom you've had a conflict? That seems unwise to me. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sad. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, I noticed this now, and I would like you to follow what you self told another editor on your talk page 22 Oct 2017: "It's good manners to notify somebody you're complaining about, not just the person you're complaining to." Except that you said like that it is also common sense to ping when you complain. I did not mention your name there, because you have told me to not do it, however now I ping you to make you read and follow your own advice. You do not have to answer this message, just please remember to ping me if you complain on my edits, not just linking to the diff so I will not notice it. That is unhonest to do, and i notice that even Domdeparis complained about the same thing here just five days before you did not ping me in this thread and three days before you did not ping him here either although you wrote about us. Adville (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adville: I really think everyone should follow the wise advice from Drmies and not check in on edits by those who you have had a conflict with and if you do avoid at all costs reacting unless it is a personal attack. This comment was made on the talk page of an experienced admin who replied by vindicating you saying that your comment was factual and not constitutive of harrasment. If I were you I would leave it at that and leave any coal raking to others. Please don't ping me again about SW I don't want things to get personal. Happy editing to all! Domdeparis (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about "wise"--I can tell you from experience that there's a couple of editors I simply avoid--first of all because they're always wrong, of course, but also because the heat-light ratio in such conversations is just not good enough. I always hope the joint is big enough to let us all play. WP:AGF, in my reading, requires us to do so as well. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

IP

Hi Drmies, Hope all is well,
Just thought I should make you aware inregards to this edit - The author has been doing his damned best to mass-spam himself across the project using various IPs, I've since removed all of his sources as the majority were unfortunately added by him,
Anyway just wanted to make you aware, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, I saw that big fat revert of yours and followed the crumbs. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:A very old guy

Speak fer yerself, young whippersnapper! ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

userpage

Thnx for the quick response, had to get rid of the clutter of unnecessary edits in my edit history. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• OK--but surely you're not done with the Acta. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm just taking a break. Still improving the ones I already created. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Wbm1058#Failed page-swap

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Wbm1058#Failed page-swap. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Very exciting. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Keith Abbis

He's notable. GiantSnowman 19:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks dude. I closed it. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Mail

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

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Voila. I bet Ritchie333 laughs when he sees this.

It has been rumoured by some that receiving a thanks from you is equivalent to roughly 9 barnstars. Just letting you know. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Really? Sounds like serious inflation. There's a counter for thankspam, so you can total up the barnstars I've given out...Can I just add that I wish IP editors could be thanked? Drmies (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Apparently you've thanked people 4,448 times. That's 40,032 barnstars. Really spreading the WikiLove. Also, yes, we should be able to thank IPs. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• I'm actually in a foul mood: I just got a brand new old CD player, only to discover that the first song of Inner Mounting Flame is skipping. I won't stand for that. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• CD player? Giggle. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Tascam CD-RW750, buddy. Goes well with the record player I got from the same invaluable friend--A FRIEND WITH A (terrible) WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE! Drmies (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Drmies, you really need to update your phone. Cool stereo though :D TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't want to, though I wish that it hadn't slowed down to a damn crawl after the latest "update". Drmies (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not to butt in... yes, precisely to butt in. I have 78rpm records from the 1930s with better fidelity than these phones, you can only do so much with MP3 format. I'm so proud of you, Drmies! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, exactly. It's the insistance on compression that ****'s them over (and rightly so). A lossless format: I'm out of touch, but some my old bootlegs, which—when I recorded em sounded like they were inside a sarcophagus!—with a good lossless format (.flac, I think almost to a man), can still sound like I was in the Mouth of the beast, MSG  :) .Mp3 is a product of the "Can we have it LOUDER and can we have it smaller generation. And with the price of terabytal storage going south, there's no excuse to hitch on to it anymore. Not knocking the hard formats: my blue vinyl Nevermind still gets an outing occasionally. Cambridge A&R set-up. The Old Gods Live Amongst Us Still. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You fancy, Cambridge boy. User:78.26, the turntable is above all that--a simple, lightweight modern thing, but it plays. As long as we have car payments and braces it won't get any fancier. I don't recall ever having owned a 78, though I did at one time have a huge stack of 45s out of some R&B jukebox--Little Richard, Fats Domino, James Brown--in the late 1970s. I wish I still had all my Miles Davis albums... Drmies (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Lightweight is good. Vintage (contemporaneous) equipment for 78s is fun and all, but I only play very common or junked records on these machines, they're murder on the records! Just as long as it isn't one of the Walmart Philco specials, whose non-compliant tonearms will damage your records (LPs, they can't hurt a 78) and can't track anything with heavy bass anyway. Whatever your preferred format, be it cylinders, MP3, reel-to-reel, etc. happy listening everyone! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Massimo Negrotti

Just as an FYI, I made similar edits to this page trying to trim out the fluff, when I finally decided to put it up for AfD. However, soonafter, an IP claiming to be the subject of the article started adding everything back. Since it was going through AfD, I decided not to edit war over it. Just thought you should be prepared in case User:2.234.169.168 comes back and reverts everything. Angryapathy (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• I see that that IP has indeed visited; fortunately User:Justlettersandnumbers seems to think we were on the right track. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I do, and thanks to both – I merely carried on with more of the same. However, I seem to be on the wrong track myself, as the lone voice maintaining at AfD that a senior professor in one of the most respected universities in the country is notable per WP:PROF. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia

I've found more disruptive material from IP 175.158.211.146 which looks exactly the same as what you've removed from the latest two vandalism edits. In addition, we should also remove the edit summary timed at 20:08 and 20:09 (UTC). Iggy (Swan) 20:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm out the door--Zzuuzz can also see what I've done blockwise and may have a suggestion if this comes back. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've also seen this "Lorem ipsum" vandal at 121.54.44.0/24, which has been blocked for four months. They've been behind the vandalism at Dragon Quest Heroes: The World Tree's Woe and the Blight Below as well and behavior suggests that they belong to sockmaster My Royal Young. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a joy. Thanks. Maybe you can add my recent range block to the list; maybe Zzuuzz or someone else should consider lengthening it. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

We have a list of pre-prepared ranges at the LTA page. It's really just a case of picking the appropriate range and hitting the button. Though I'd also recommend disabling talk and using one of the more useful ACC/CU block messages. Today's vandalism seems fairly limited, so I won't block the larger range at this time, but probably next time.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't use CU. Sure, I'll disable talk next time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Did some more looking around and found an almost definite association with My Royal Young. [1] –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Checkpoint Charlie redaction

Hi, thanks for taking care of the redaction on the Checkpoint Charlie Museum article. However, the original revision that introduced the copyrighted material is still there, 727198500 from 10:04, 27 June 2016. Also revision 822257239 from 09:20, 25 January 2018 has the material, because someone reverted the removal I'd done. I did put in the template the range of 727198500 to 822202065 inclusive when I added it. I updated it a couple of days later to also include 822257239, after the revert. I've never used this template before, did I make a mistake? --IamNotU (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• No you didn't, but I didn't go by way of the template. I deleted two more; check me, if you don't mind, to see if that covers everything. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are the two I meant, thanks. Looks like one got marked RD2 instead of RD1, but I guess it's not important. I did make a mistake though, because there was some additional material from another source that I didn't find until later, and I forgot to update the request. Maybe you could also do everything from rev 822220035 at 02:44, 25 January 2018 to 822528839 22:09 26 January 2018, inclusive? I think that should cover it. --IamNotU (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Almost there! I asked for the above range, because when I did the first removal, I left in some text that was from a different source, which I only found later. It's just a short paragraph, the description of the "From Gandhi to Walesa" exhibition, but it's a direct copypaste from the Museum's website, http://www.mauermuseum.de/en/index.html section "Further Exhibitions". Sorry about the multiple requests... --IamNotU (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologize: I'm always trying to not delete too much. I just did the one I think you meant--it had some material in the lead, no? Drmies (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember there being anything in the lead, and not quite sure which one you just did there. Revisions 822220035, 822257991, 822257991, and 822528839, still have the text about the "Gandhi to Walesa" exhibition. Basically, every version from 08:19, 28 June 2016 to 22:09, 26 January 2018, inclusive, contains some copyrighted text from the Museum's website or pdf flyer. It seems like a lot of history to be hidden, but I guess that's the policy? As I said I'm new to this redacting thing... --IamNotU (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead (still) has hot-air balloons, which I saw in one of the sources--please check if that material crosses the line. I don't do well with those diff numbers, BTW--I'm not that fancy. And of course I try to keep as much as I can. I just RD1ed another two including the 22:09 edit--part of my problem here was I was doing this in between doing other things, haha. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The two remaining ones, from 02:44 and 09:30 on 25 January 2018, still have text copypasted from the museum's website. It's just three sentences, the description of the Gandhi exhibit. I should have removed it but I hadn't realized it at the time. I think the lead is ok, the information is taken from the web site but it's not too close of a paraphrase. I'll try to edit it a little anyway. --IamNotU (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

02:44 and 09:30 are already gone. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I can still see them, here and here. --IamNotU (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

All done now, thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming Saylor requests

Hi Drmies, sometime in the near future I expect to have additional requests for the Michael Saylor article, and this message here is simply to ask: since you have become involved with this article, shall I continue pinging you, or not? If you've done quite enough already and would prefer to leave it behind, that's fine. If however you prefer to have oversight or feel responsibility, then I can. I'm always mindful of not appearing to canvass, but also not avoiding those with a vested interest. Figured it made sense to allow you to state your view. (And note, I'm leaving a similar message with TonyB.) Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I appreciate the note. I don't want to ascribe "oversight" to myself, but I know what you mean. Sure, go ahead and ping me, but I may not always be around--since, as you know, my labor here is unpaid (except for those 64,000 pounds of tungsten uranium or whatever it was, still clogging up my driveway; what are the odds Inlinetext would be driving by my house on the way it was delivered?). Drmies (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Totally fair, I'll give a courtesy ping on the next round, but don't feel obligated. And yes, please hang onto that uranium deposit for me—Mr. Manafort says he'll need it again once all the controversies are wiped from his page. ;) WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Would someone close...

Hey Drmies and any interested stalkers, would someone please complete the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Hester? The nominator withdrew the nomination, and partially closed it, but not completely. Since I am involved, I don't want to be the one to do it. Thanks, LadyofShalott 23:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

​ Done. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! LadyofShalott 23:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

You are receiving this message because you thanked me for this edit [2]. Per Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know, there is to be no alluding, joking, thanking, thinking, winking, blinking, nodding, or interpretive dance relating to Donald Trump and "the country of Russia". Seriously, can you remove this bizarre notice, please? EEng 17:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• I thought you were joking. I mean, with this template. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I was joking of course. What's gobsmacking is that Coffee wasn't joking. It's incredible, stunning, fantastic that he thought he could do something like that. I'm reminded of [3]. We truly live in dangerous times. EEng 17:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to be of service, though I hope you know I'm more sympathetic to Coffee than you are. Then again, I am probably also more sympathetic to you than Coffee is. Don't know about this strange Serial Number, below--what a character. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A is more sympathetic to B than C is to A, C is more sympathetic to A than B is to B... Is this one of these problems where I'm now supposed to specify the remaining Fascist? EEng 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What a coincidence--someone (a "liberal progressive") called me a fascist on Facebook this morning. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

<stops practicing his interpretive dance routine and walks away in a huff> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

At least I can have a rational discussion with someone about fair and legitimate arguments for Britain to leave the EU - I have yet to see a Trump supporter (as very distinct from a GOP despite Trump supporter) who doesn't throw around words like "libtard" and "snowflake" like they get paid by the bucketload for them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

<stops nodding in time to MPants at work's interpretative dance>... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother you, but this needs attending to as well: [4]. Notice the edit summary says "will also add to BLP log" so maybe that's some additional nonsense that needs undoing. EEng 18:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No bother, was just heating up lunch. Will you steer clear of the DYK? Drmies (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A bit late for that [5]. Why should I steer clear of the DYK? Maybe (and I wouldn't blame you) you didn't read the two threads -- one at the DYK nom page and one at T:DYK -- but I'm just one of the many discussants, just the one who stood up to Mr. Big Man Sheriff In Town. Tell Ritchie333 to steer clear -- he's the one that started this whole thing by making the original nomination with the original hook. He's a bad influence. EEng 18:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

He is, but he's a decent keyboard player. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but he's only got one record... :p >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody merge this notice with that one on Mr Pants' talk page, so we can have "You may NOT tell other editors to go swivel?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do. Please, god, I'm begging you, use my talk page edit notice for something official. It will restore my faith in humanity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• On an actual serious note (for a change), Coffee is also running for Steward [6]. I find this odd and concerning given the multiple instances of very heavy-handed and controversial behavior since his return to Wikipedia two months ago. Pinging NeilN, Winkelvi, and Cullen328. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: There's a sitewide notice about elections due to go up on February 8th. The notice does not mention candidate names so editors will have to be interested enough to click through to the election page and see who's running. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of folks who have a problem with Coffee. If they want to make their opinions known, there's a vote for that. There's no need to run a campaign for or against them before that time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I had noticed this too. As recent events IRL have shown us, it's a danger much closer to possibility than anyone ever dreamed that someone would be elected to a powerful office of trust and responsibility having no concept at all of the principles he's supposed to be uphold via that office. I think we should neutrally encourage others to vote (when voting opens Feb 8) -- no need to mention names, as I have little doubt people will know what to do when they see the ballot. Scary thought, though. EEng 19:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

User:OKAnotherAccount

I notice that a year-and-a-half ago, you deleted a bunch of subpages for OKAnotherAccount (talk · contribs). Are these pages (Special:PrefixIndex/User:OKAnotherAccount/) similar? --Calton | Talk 16:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just happened to see this, and took a look. It seems clear to me that this user is just messing around with no intentions of creating an article. So I've deleted a couple of the more egregious examples straight out, and have left them a warning. Hope you don't mind. Vanamonde (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks--gave me time to repair a fence. Now I just need to get my neighbor to pay for it. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Abbatai 11:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Public School

You know as well as I do that this is a no consensus, leaning keep. It is not really acceptable discount so many opinions as you seem to have done; if this carries on, we may as well just abandon AfD discussion altogether as outdated. Please reconsider or we will take this to DRV. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Necrothesp, I don't know that at all, and your conclusion is unwarranted. Feel free to take it anywhere you like. For the audience, I'll just state that this was not some automated, boilerplate close: these are decided on a case by case basis. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've tried to explain to you in the past that !votes such as your Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. should be discounted because they are effectively an invocation of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It looks like some other admin has finally had the guts to call you out on it. In that AfD, the same applies to, for example, Doncram's !vote. I'm not sure about him but you definitely took part in the recent SCHOOLOUTCOMES discussion and are aware of the consensus. My mind is boggled that you persist in invoking it and it makes me wonder whether you are fit to be an admin given such a failure to either understand or abide by consensus. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher)Hmm..Echo Sitush.And, Necrothesp, since AfDs aren't ballot counts and weighing of policy/guideline based arguments matter, the closure was perfectly valid.Winged Blades^Godric 12:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• It is amazing how often Necrothesp and friends try to ignore the RfC and claim a consensus that does not exist any more. Recently, more schools have been removed as administrators ignored the long standing shouting and roaring about schooloutcomes that were not policy and/or content based... It becomes time that you start to face the music. The Banner talk 13:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

—and dance, presumably  ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice when he first started listening to it instead of completely ignoring the inconvenient truth. The Banner talk 14:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is the case we may as well completely abandon the whole AfD procedure, because AfD has always been about discussion and opinion on a case-by-case basis. If opinions are disallowed and the minority are allowed to override the majority then I see little point in the whole process continuing. It's a very sad state of affairs that Wikipedia has come to this and that certain editors think it's an improvement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not the "minority". Why on earth are you suggesting that AfD is a vote? Honestly, the more you dig your heels in here, the more it seems that you have no right to hold the tools. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You, frankly, should be ashamed of your comments and personal attacks. Because I express an opinion that you don't agree with you don't think I have a right to be an administrator? Appalling. I restate what I said above about it being a sad state of affairs. What has Wikipedia come to? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You will also note that I was talking to Drmies on their talkpage. Not sure why you stuck your oar in in any case. If I take it to DRV you can have your say there where everyone can see your incivility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And where every one can see the flimsiness of your arguments... The Banner talk 14:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Honestly, if your skin is that thin then it is another reason why you should perhaps consider resigning the tools. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The sad state of affairs is in fact that a minority is fighting a losing battle to keep a non-existing consensus based on pov-non-policy-non-content-related arguments alive. The Banner talk 14:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This thread has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_invoking_SCHOOLOUTCOMES_at_AfD. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

So here's a funny thing: a different "Evergreen Public School" at AfD, a different admin (DGG), and a same-but-different argument, "on the basis of the schools compromise". In this case the argument isn't relevant because it's an obviously non-notable primary school. But what is this "schools compromise"? Isn't this just the same as arguing "per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES"? Seems like déjà vu all over again... --IamNotU (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• I guess the thing was that it was not clear what Northamerica meant with "per SCHOOLOUTCOMES"? Drmies (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify to anyone seeing it, it was my argument to delete/merge a primary school article (& the RfC closing did not even mention primary schools) , not and argument to keep a high school, and the consensus at the AfD closing was to do just that; I often specifically look for opportunities at AfD to try to find some common ground with people who disagree with me on a general issue. I did not quote anything, but I explained the compromise in my posting, and gave the reasons for it. The reasons remain a valid argument. Some people still follow it, & I've included in my comments on school afds yesterday that some people think otherwise.

People at AfD are allowed to argue their own interpretation of guidelines, like the notability guideline. (some of the earlier comments here and elsewhere seem to be under the impression WP:N is policy, but attempts to change it to policy have been repeatedly rejected by the community.

It is my consistent practice as an admin -- and I think required of all admins -- to make decisions in accord with consensus interpretations, and to give advice based on conservative interpretations. (accordingly, I frequently close afds against my own opinions, and my advice to anyone trying to write a school article would be to make sure to have excellent 3rd party independent substantial references.)

It is my consistent practice at AfDs to present what I think to be the correct interpretation . The latest schools RfC in essence amounts to two findings of non consensus--no consensus to use the school outcomes argument by itself, and no consensus not to routinely keep high schools. I consider that in practice contradictory, and a contradictory proposition logically implies anything. More specifically, it permits a wide range of interpretations. Any editor may argue for whatever interpretation they think appropriate--and, if anything, an admin has and should have a certain freedom to safely take unpopular positions, which is the basic reason given for our not requiring confirming RfAs.

It is also true I consider the first part of the closing wrong on its face. It was based on WP:Arguments not to use , which says at the top "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." To use that to imply a guideline or policy is an error. People too often quote things without reading them. To say, as I do, that WP, being an encyclopedia, should have a certain amount of consistency, and this is best done by keeping (or deleting) all of a certain class of articles is a perfectly valid argument. To say it is good practice to go on as we have been doing is the sort of conservative position I support.

My way of dealing with persistent disputes is to try to compromise them, not exacerbate them. I see posting this here as an attempt to do just the opposite. I have of course no need to respond here, but I don't like to miss a chance to explain how I see things. I don't expect to convert my opponents, but I do hope to convince the audience. And perhaps then I can persuade even my opponents to compromise. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I may be misreading this but it looks like you are basically doing exactly what Necrothesp has been doing and which he has been told to stop? And you are trying to justify it even now? Why are you different? - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I am just going to answer your question,not argue general issues: I was suggesting how to deal with a particular article on a subject that was not covered by the relevant RfC: the close did not discuss primary schools. My recommendation was exactly how the AfD closed. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause stress, nor to make an accusation of wrongdoing at AfD. I posted here because I'd been here for a totally unrelated reason (the section just below this one), and I saw this, and I thought it was all sort of a funny coincidence, with the identically-named "Evergreen Public School", just a couple of days later. Just idle chat really, and also wanting to understand the issue better. If there's any difference between arguing "on the basis of the schools compromise" (whatever that is) and "on the basis of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES", I can't see what it is. So I asked some people who obviously know more about it than I do. To be honest, I find calling me your opponent and accusing me of attempting to exacerbate disputes (if you were talking to me), just because I asked a question on someone's talk page, seems a bit ironic. One other thing, there's now an example in "arguments to avoid" that specifically says not to use WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in connection with primary schools, so it's not accurate in general to say that the RfC said nothing about primary schools. In any case, I didn't come here to participate in a dispute, I was just curious to hear what people thought. It's interesting to see how things get worked out and to hear the different opinions. Thanks DGG for taking the time to explain your point of view. --IamNotU (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

{{U|IamNotU}. I apologize--}I'm sorry if I implied you have been principally involved in pushing the viewpoint. You have not been. I wrote my response thinking more generally. Controversies tend to overgeneralize, and this is an example. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case reminder

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Alabama Land Change

DrMies, there was never a reference on the original land measurements for Alabama. I also got the information off of census.gov, an official website. I'm not the best with Wikipedia so I do apologize but it was a minor, but correct, change. 2013AtlantaBraves (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter, Braves fan--you made a change (actually, you keep making changes) without a. leaving an edit summary and b. providing a reference. See WP:CITE on how to do this. I blocked an editor today for making unverified and unexplained changes (indefinitely--it was a chronic problem), and an IP got blocked yesterday for the same thing. I don't like placing such blocks, and I did see you were warned for this before. I mean, you can at least just give an edit summary, can't you? And if you know the source, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to do this, and there's plenty of editors who can help you with this. Plus, you'll be an appreciated member of the community and if anyone reverts you, you have the high ground. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• I see you just reverted again--just don't do that. The next admin may not look very kindly on this, and your edit looks like, well it looks like it could be made by a vandal, since nothing signals that you're editing in good faith and with good sources. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Okay, I understand. I will learn how to cite better. My apologies for not being able to right now. I do appreciate you being kind to me, it will be remembered. You have a good day! Oh, and Roll Tide. I'm ready for the 2018 season with Najee Harris and Tua Tagovailoa :D Roll Tide again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2013AtlantaBraves (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Doc James, Doug Weller, what do you think? You two left notes on their talk page; certainly their heart is in the right place. Doc, how many downs on a final drive does it take Tua to win a national championship? Drmies (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe one more... But Yah references are needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @2013AtlantaBraves: yes, references are vital, and edit summaries are a key form of communication. You say you understand, so I think we will expect to see edit summaries and sourced edits. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Now! 52 (UK)

I created a new page for Now! 52 (UK), then it got redirected. I'm trying to know why the final decision was to redirect the page same thing with Now! 51 (UK). Please reply ASAP. Thanks! Dat!45 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• That doesn't exist. I don't know what you mean--what I do know is that those compilation albums are a waste of time and server space. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, you know this better than me, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Close on Racial views of Donald Trump

You had a few questions it looked like in your closing statement here that I was hoping to address.

He said she said. That was in reference to Durbin vs Kirstjen Nielsen (The she who was at the meeting), Tom Cotton, and David Perdue. Cotton and Perdue both confirming "sentiment [attributed to Trump] is totally phony"

With regards to Graham's statement, Graham refused to confirm or deny hearing Trump's words stating "[I] said my piece directly to [Trump]."

The denied vs recalled, Cotton and Perdue's first joint statement was did not hear him say that. Which they later clarified to it's totally phony.

All this information is currently in the racial views article in the "Shithole countries" countries section with appropriate sources to each. Does that clear some of that up? PackMecEng (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. If you have another go at it (obviously many editors had a problem of one kind or another with your phrasing, but that's easily handled) it would be a good idea to include relevant evidence when you make your case, yes. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User: Ehtech2000

I'm a relative newbie to the community, and I've read a lot of Wikipedia policy documentation recently, yet I admit I'm not cognizant of a lot of the 'community' based stuff. Forgive my ignorance of the norms of editors in this community. I am learning as I go.

I made an addition this evening to the Patchwork Man article, that I thought would benefit other users. The edit added note that a character called "patchwork man", having many similarities to the DC Comics Patchwork Man appears in the new Netflix series Altered Carbon. Within less than a minute -- in fact, it was probably less than 5 seconds -- my changes had disappeared, even though Wikipedia responded with a success message. I made the edit on my phone, I clearly explained in my comment the what and why of my edit. After about 2 minutes, I discovered that the edit had been reverted. This segment shows the pertinent revision history including my comment on what I contributed:

• (cur | prev) 02:01, 10 February 2018‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,662 bytes) (-41)‎ . . (→‎Plot: the usual verbosity) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 02:00, 10 February 2018‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,703 bytes) (-450)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 805533963 by Jtalledo (talk): Rv: unverified trivia. (TW)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
• (cur | prev) 01:59, 10 February 2018‎ Ehtech2000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,153 bytes) (+450)‎ . . (→‎Plot: Adds popular culture section and reference to patchwork man and Russian twins in Netflix series Altered Carbon.) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)

So, now I have a few questions:

1. I have visited both user Talk pages for User:Drmies and User:Jtalledo and they both are very confusing in their structure. For instance, as I believe that my contribution should not have been removed, I am trying to find away to communicate with the user that removed it.
2. Where is the appropriate page to ask the user (in following the advice of this help post: https://ask.wikiedu.org/question/175/my-edits-got-deleted-what-do-i-do/) why they reverted my edit? In normal society I would try to communicate in private channels, but I can see no way to do that here (no 'message user' or any such thing).
3. It appears to say that Jtalledo reverted my contribution, but the comment left is very terse "'unverified trivia'". This requires clarification. It is not trivia because it IS important new information.
4. Based on the " TW link, I think some bot/software/app auto-reverted my change and left the 'unverified trivia' comment. How do I tell a software bot that it is wrong and that it may not be 'verified' information, but I'm watching it unfold in front of me??? Yes, that is frustration ... but, as long as Wiki has been around, I'm sure I'm not the first wiki editor to be frustrated because a robotic software zapped them.

If I did something wrong, please let me know clearly so that I can avoid that mistake in the future. Also, how do I cite a TV show I'm watching right in front of me? I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm not asking for pity. I'm just trying to understand.

Any help is appreciated. -- Ehtech2000 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything is a Hungarian invention!

And I am a spammer...[7]

I suspect that User:InterCity(IC) has his edits set to default to minor, which is annoying (I like to turn them off on my watchlist). Is there a template for this? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Guy Macon: there's {{uw-minor}}. clpo13_(talk) 19:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Just what I was looking for. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ha--sweet. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

He is at is again.[8]

That article says:

"The turbo generator was invented by a Hungarian engineer Ottó Bláthy in 1903. Unfortunately for Bláthy, Parsons had already demonstrated a DC steam-powered turbogenerator using a dynamo in 1887, and by 1901 had supplied the first large industrial AC turbogenerator of megawatt power to a plant in Eberfeld, Germany."

And (big surprise here) he continues to mark his edits as minor after calling the warning template spam.[9]

I am going to correct the unsupported "The turbo generator was invented by a Hungarian engineer Ottó Bláthy" claim in the article, but I would like some advice about how to deal with InterCity(IC). He clearly is not here to make the articles follow the sources, but rather is here for the sole purpose of attributing as many things as possible to Hungarian inventors no matter what the sources say. Should I take this to WP:AN and ask for a topic ban? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hey Guy, I suppose that would be a good next step. I reverted a few of their edits again considering their personal attacks, the edit warring, the poor sourcing and explanations, and the obvious POV editing. (You can quote me on that on AN, if you like.) Martinevans123 could weigh in as well--thank you Martin for your work. InterCity(IC), you really have two option: either you continue down this path and I or another administrator will likely block you, for a shorter or longer period depending on your other edits; or you explain your edits without the rather silly personal attacks ("spam" makes us question your competence; "idiot" makes us question your team spirit) on various talk pages or in an AN thread, if Guy decides to go that route. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just tweaking, really. Sorry to say, my hovercraft is still full of eels. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not much to explain, it deserved to be removed

I've read too much crap lately and ran across yet another opinionated piece disguised as facts. I don't care enough to explain more and certainly don't want to waste more time on wikipedia, feel free to do whatever. Btw if you don't think NYT publishes some fake news, you are just ignorant. AnthonyCheng (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, thanks, I suppose, that you cared enough to leave me this. You don't seem to understand what "fake news" means. Errors or whatever aren't fake news--deliberate falsehoods, that's fake news. And the burden would be on you to prove that that particular article was incorrect, but I see you didn't care enough to make that case. If you change your mind, you can explain the matter on Talk:Hong Kong Canadians. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Örebropartiet

Hi. Sorry to disturbe you. I am too new on enwp to know where to ask for an article to be deleted (I do not know the procedure). I found an article about a very small Swedish party not updated since before last election and it have never had an article on svwp because it does not meet our standards. If you agree with me on this talkpage, please help me. Else tell me and I understand. Best regards Adville (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is no disturbance. I'll have a look and go to the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Summary of the book

"Provocative and highly controversial, The Nazi Hydra In America presents an overview of the fascist influence in America. While Eisenhower's troops defeated The Third Reich on the battlefields of Europe, the war against fascism was lost on the home front, to the same cadre of American elitists who built Hitler's war machine. At the center of this small confederacy two firms stand out: Brown Brothers & Harriman, and Sullivan & Cromwell. At the very eye of this oligarchy one family name stands above all others. Spanning over 90 years and 4 generations, the Bush family has chosen to ally themselves with Nazism and warmongering at home and abroad, ever willing to advance the Nazi agenda of global corporatism."

These days anyone can publish a book, you just have to know how to register on Amazon or Smashwords. The publisher of that book "Progressive Press", should be known as the bullshit press.

You can find "sources" like these all over Wikipedia. Instead give me a statement of reference actually involving Henry Ford where he shows his pro-fascist credentials.

It's interesting that this book states that the "oligarchies" in the US are due to fascist influence, when Henry Ford was against patents, he was against state intervention, etc etc.

I'm not too familiar with the talk pages I'm afraid, so yeah, not sure how "respond" to something other than edit. Wikipedia adventure is just too silly for me. And I don't use wikipedia a lot, for obvious reasons, Wikipedia told me that the Battle of Camden was an American victory among other things. Chronicler87 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting one. If a publisher is a "vanity press", i.e. will publish people's nonsense in print form just because they pay for it, then one can usually confirm this just with a Google search. But I'm not finding anything of that nature for "Progressive Press". So seems like a legitimate publisher...? MPS1992 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I see the discussion is at Talk:Henry J. Kaiser regardless of the comments about talk pages above. MPS1992 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

MPS1992:

I'm not sure a publisher that calls themselves "Conspiracy Realists" and mostly seem to publish books online (and only about the "new world order" should be considered a good publisher, or the people it publishes should be considered authorities in their subjects. Anyhow, I don't care if someone is an authority or not, I care whether or not what they write is based in fact, and if it's even something that's possible for them to know.

There are too many anti-fascist instances in Henry Fords actions to accuse him of being a fascist. Mussolini basically shut down Ford in Italy after Ford refused to deliver trucks to him after the Invasion of Ethiopia. Rabbi Franklin also got Ford to sign a protest against Nazi actions against Jews in Germany (another example), etc etc. Ofc people cherry pick, Fords pacifism and isolationism made him refuse to make Britain war materiel for example (he was also opposed against imperialism), and people use that as an "instance" of him supporting fascism.

Ford even opposed patents etc, and invited people to see how his plant functioned. He opposed the New Deal, most state intervention, was a republican in the Coolidge mold.

Anyone can make books, we can discuss what makes a publisher legitimate all day long, it's obvious however that Progressive Press is mostly just publishing people that cherry pick things to suit their conspiracy theories. Chronicler87 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Geoff actually made a good post now in the talk section of the Henry Kaiser article. I didn't realize the book was actually self-published and then republished by Progressive Press. Chronicler87 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

Cordless Larry (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Refreshments

[10] got a good laugh from Mme Acroterion. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Request

I've just gritted my teeth and rewritten our article on Atheism Conquered, including bringing back a point and reference that were present in the first versions and had been removed. Copyvio from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was introduced beginning with this edit. Could you or one of your admin talk-page stalkers please check that I've successfully avoided it and if so, rev-delete from there through my second edit, with the edit summary starting "Began rewrite"? It should be ok again from my third edit on. I hope. Thanks in advance, Yngvadottir (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Revdeld. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Yngvadottir (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Admin status

This'll sound like a loaded question that is being asked to try and set up some sort of ill-planned "trap" for someone, but it's genuinely just a point of curiosity for me. Yesterday I saw a long-term editor, with whose (good) work I'm well-acquainted, described as an admin. The editor has no admin template on their user page, but when I checked the admin list, sure enough the name was there, as were some other folks I know but hadn't realized were admins. I had always been under the (obviously mistaken) impression that admins were always identified on their user pages, usually through an admin template or with the "Wikipedia Administrators" tag in the Categories list on their page. Now that I see that's not the case, I'm curious about the reason, if there is one. Is there some rationale or discussion that resulted in a deliberate decision to not require admins to self-identify, or (more likely) is it just a case of "it never really seemed necessary so we never worried about it?" Grandpallama (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It never really seemed necessary, so we never worried about it. Some admins self-identify and others don't, but as you've already discovered there is an inbuilt method for checking whether any account has sysop rights (or any other set of userrights) so forcing admins to self-identify is redundant. If you're very concerned about knowing whether or not any user you're interacting with is an administrator, you could try out the adminhighlighter script, or I'm personally fond of userinfo which has more links but requires you to click. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Another tool is Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups which gives the same info as userinfo but on hover.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! Not "very concerned" or concerned at all, and definitely not looking for any tools to monitor, but just curious about the philosophy around identification. I always knew you could check the list, but only yesterday did I find my own assumption that all admins announced their status to be wrong. Grandpallama (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The majority of administrators do self-identify. I speculate that those who don't, and many of those who do, are welcoming of the concept that the administrator bit is merely a set of administrative tools and is no big deal. Administrators do not, after all, have any special say in content disputes, and content is the most important thing here. And there are some other limits and expectations on their actions. Using the "mop" analogy that I don't see explained anywhere, the janitor doesn't need to wear a big label saying "JANITOR" so that one can see she is the janitor when she is not carrying or actively using her mop. MPS1992 (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

These scripts are fun. And will help protect me from an egregious error recently where I confused an Admin with someone more dubious (is that possible?). 20:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

110.54.164.75 and 110.54.150.220

Sorry to bother you on St Valentines Day, but I have noticed that the contributions to these two IP addresses (both used by the LTA My Royal Young) has made the same disruptive behavior as the ones you've removed earlier on this year. I am requesting the revisions to be moved from public view in case that they would be seen in the future by others viewing the page histories of those affected. Iggy (Swan) 17:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Really, what we need is a filter that heads that child off at the pass. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  [11] needs some updating. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Zzuuzz, Jimmy should put you on payroll. With the new Trump tax, perhaps we can even scrape a bonus for you off of the corporate gains. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

In the mean time, two revisions are still viewing the same type of editing as the ones which were removed today - this and that. Hopefully the filter will prevent that from happening again. Iggy (Swan) 20:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you GB fan. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Problems with Gerard Corben

I have been going through articles with multiple issues and this article came to my attention. There are eight issues mostly related to referencing and content. What do you think will be a good fix to some of the issues in this article? Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Or, do you think it should be nominated for deletion? I don't think it meets the general notability guideline at the moment. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know--it looks terrible. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be notable with quite a few hits on Google. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

NOLYMPICS

Artikelen over deelnemers aan de olympische spelen zijn toch altijd bekend genoeg onder WP:NOLYMPICS? Kan ik wel in het Nederlands schrijven op deze wiki? --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 16:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Van mij wel, but for other readers you're putting up a barrier. I know, every civilized person should know the language of Slauerhoff and the Statenbijbel... Yes, I agree. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Are you talking about stuff you ran into on Sander van Ginkel's page? Drmies (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I am more concerned with that mass-deletion, and currently there are a bunch of AfD's I've been participating in for a couple of days and I saw that you had an interest in the subject. Als je Nederlands wil spreken kan dat ook op Wikimedia Commons, maar ik zie dat jij geen fotograaf bent. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 16:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Donald, you are in fact protecting a blocked sockpuppeteer with a whole history of sloppy work. They needed to set up a whole project to check each and every article written by Van Ginkel for copyvio, sources not mentioning the subject etcetera. And Van Ginkel used deliberately sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny of his articles. There is no need to play Mister Nice Guy towards Van Ginkel. The Banner talk 17:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
      • User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines The Banner talk 18:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • My interest was in speed skating. Nee hoor, ik hoef echt geen Nederlands te spreken, en op Commons doe ik eigenlijk niks. Banner, I'm always in favor of keeping good article content. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Yeah, today we had to do with a gold medal for a semi-Dutchman and a silver medal for a real Dutchman. If you are not 150%, you are done in this field of supermen. The Banner talk 18:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I can fully understand why quality checks are needed, but the question was regarding notability. Obviously today's gold medalists fully fall within the notability guidelines. 😅 --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 19:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
          • The policies regarding copyright violations and WP:BLP (i.e. effectively unsourced BLPs) overwrite the notability guidelines. The Banner talk 20:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• If I may .... yes, I can read the Dutch ... several of Sander v. Ginkel's articles were so sloppy, they accused living athletes of committing crimes, with absolutely no justification. I sympathise very much with the desire to keep articles on notable topics, and although I am not a sports person at all, I've edited two Olympians' articles today (or maybe today and yesterday, I lose track of time here) because the sports experts are stretched thin just updating infobozes and tables. And I believe I fixed up a couple of v. Ginkel's articles back when this was happening. But look at it this way. If there's an inaccurate, unsourced article about a notable athlete, whether malice was involved or just incompetence, it just does harm to their reputation and misinforms our readers. If on the other hand there's a red link, those who know how to create referenced and accurate articles on athletes know they need to do one for that person. The same as with all the Olympians from earlier decades who don't yet have articles. (I did one once.) Either improve an article so it can be saved, or write a new one, or add prose and a reference for someone's achievement in this Winter Olympics. Sander v. Ginkel meant well, but messed up. Notable doesn't mean any old article will do, especially for a living person. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

About deletion of few contents from page Kuldeep Pai

Sharan (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Hi there,

I see that you have deleted few contents of page Kuldeep Pai- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuldeep_Pai.

1. Referring to the Titles, Awards, and Recognition- you have deleted them due to insufficient proof to substantiate the same. How did the wiki admins approve pages of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Subrahmanyan hailing from the same genre of music? There seem to be no citation or proof for any of the awards received by him? (Just 2 citations for 40 awards mentioned?). There is only a warning note on the page...but the contents have not been deleted.

2. Even the 'Touring' content mentioned on the page has been removed by you quoting - 'not a resume'. New writers like me look at pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahathi with similar background and genre for reference purposes. Why was the touring bit not removed from these pages while similar info was removed from the page I created?

Please may I request you to revert the content back to the page, please? Sharan Sharan (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sharan, thank you for your note, and you may request that but I won't grant it. I have addressed these matters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuldeep Pai. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Please see these edits. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• And these. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Geo Swan strikes again

See Talk:Helen S. Mayberg#Expert witness section. Just FYI. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.- ^theWOLFchild 01:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:International microbiology.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's an issue which you may be better able to address than I am

• 1) Hi, DrMies, sorry for taking up your valuable time, but I wanted to bring to your attention a (possibly unwarranted) concern that I have but which I no longer really feel willing or able to handle myself.
• 2) Judging by the latest trend in its survey, it now looks like this proposal is now in danger of passing, seemingly without any notification having being given to the affected Wikiprojects (at least where and when I have looked), basically the Wikiproject for every country whose national variety of English is about to be more-or-less-banned by the proposal (India, Pakistan, Jamaica, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, etc, with the only varieties being kept being American, Canadian, British, and a non-existant variety called Commonwealth, whose Commonwealth English article says there are a great many different varieties of Commonwealth English).
• 3) Other projects that should arguably also be notified are WP:CSB, and WP:WER, at least if we don't want to unnecessarily lose editors from places like India (as well as damaging Wikipedia's reputation in those countries and inviting in a lot of angry disruptive ultra-nationalist editors from those countries, etc).
• 4) Despite this being more-or-less stated in the proposal, few supporters seem to have noticed that a similar proposal was passed a few years ago and then acrimoniously reversed when those affected found out about it. Presumably this will happen again, but we will presumably get acrimony and disruption whether it gets reversed or not. Or at least that's how I see the issue.
• 5) As I have mentioned there, I originally thought the proposal had no hope of succeeding and that notifications to the relevant projects would probably just unnecessarily inflame the situation. But now that it looks like it may succeed I think that they should be notified but I am not sure whether this would be banned under WP:CANVASS.
• 6) I also don't really want to waste any more time on the issue myself (I took it off my watchlist a few days ago for that reason), as my involvement to date seems to have been ineffective and perhaps counterproductive, and I also think this is something that won't affect me, but will affect other editors as well as admins who have to deal with any acrimony and other damage to Wikipedia if it gets passed. And I may well also be worrying about something that is just not worth worrying about.
• 7) So I thought I'd bring it to your attention, as the admin I respect most, and let you decide what, if anything, should be done about it.
• 8) Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "The admin I admire most took the last train for the coast," with apologies to Don Mclean and Drmies - I just couldn't resist after reading trying really, really heard to read the whole RFC. (Whew!) Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm, admiration? You don't have to put butter and syrup on a reasonable request, as far as I'm concerned, though I appreciate it. Look, I rarely deal with the MOS, unless it's those damn flags. I always overlook those ENGVAR templates on purpose and try to roll with the flow of the article. Likewise, I am not as aware as others about Wikiprojects and stuff. In other words, I am really the last one who should comment, certainly when it comes to procedure. But having looked over the RfC (not all of the discussion), I do have a comment or two to make, and I will leave them there. Geoff, did you leave any thoughts at the RfC? Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. And my apologies if my attempt at an honest explanation for why I was picking on you came across as butter and syrup - next time I'll try to think up a dishonest explanation instead . Not that you should let my explanation go to your head - being the admin I respect most is not necessarily much of a compliment if there's not much competition for the title . Also I'm afraid any mention of admiration was not by me but by your friendly local page stalker, who, unlike me, also at least appears for some unknown reason to be hell-bent on implicitly comparing you to the Christian Trinity (if you don't get it, just check out the lyrics of Don Mclean's Bye Bye Miss American Pie and look there for the word 'admire'), though I'm not entirely clear why anybody would think you deserve to be compared to 3 beings whom I am unreliably informed are hell-bent on inflicting eternal agony on me and everybody like me . Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, that RfC, maybe it's not a foregone conclusion yet. I was just very surprised at its tone: the first rule of RfC is "write it up neutrally". And it's not even clear what kind of proliferation we're talking about: how many of these templates are there? how often are they used? And that, as I indicated, should be followed by a serious discussion about the validity of them individually, and a conversation about how appropriate the "overarching" (more general) ones are. So I'm really quite puzzled by the whole thing--and typically if there are such problems, the RfC won't be taken as a valid conversation that leads to a valid consensus. Speaking of American Pie, I was in Lubbock one time, where three very American things happened to me: I had a limo ride and a hot tub experience, and I saw that the grass in people's lawns was dead and so they had painted it green. Exceedingly strange. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I learn something new every day - I thought Americans only painted things green for St Patrick's Day . As for the Rfc, I never thought it was a foregone conclusion that it would be passed (as distinct from thinking it was no longer a foregone conclusion that it was going to fail). My own admittedly very limited experience of Rfcs is that once there is a 2 to 1 majority in favour of a dubious proposal, the decision as to whether there is a valid consensus for it seems to be a rather unpredictable and subjective one by a self-selected 'uninvolved' closing admin. (The admin's decision can be appealed, but I suspect this hardly ever happens). But that should no longer matter to me, as this entire issue shouldn't really be a concern of mine any longer - your comment at the Rfc describes me as 'desperate' but a more accurate description might be 'feeling guilty at irresponsibly just walking away from a possible problem'. If I hadn't been walking away from it, I would have had to ask some admin (almost certainly you) for advice on what I should do. But since I was (and am) walking away from it, I just felt the responsible thing was to mention the perceived possible problem to the most suitable admin I could think of (as I have now done above), and let them in their wisdom decide whether or not anything needed to be done about the matter - but the matter should then cease to be a concern of mine. After all, it would be very foolish of me to in effect say "I neither know (nor greatly care) what to do about this possible problem that doesn't really affect me, so I'm walking away from it, but I'm still going to try to backseat drive what others do about it". (Incidentally, I don't mind either way, but please feel free to refer to me as 'he' instead of 'they' if you find 'he' more convenient). Thanks again, and regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you OK?

I think that the recent Florida school shooting has effected you more than you realize. I think that you are no longer acting in the fair and impartial manner that is expected of an administrator with over 100,000 edits. Your recent edits to the Colt AR-15 pages indicate that you are frustrated and angry with your follow editors. That you have decided that criminal use and mass shooting must be added to firearms pages at all costs. That your now willing to add contested information to the article, while its being discussed on the talk page. It also appears as though you intend to use discretionary sanctions to silence fellow editors whom you know will oppose your position. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sipos111 for WP:NOTHERE and WP:OUTING myself and Niteshift36 you flipping blew-off compelling evidence that banned user and outside agitator Lightbreather recruited Sipos111 because he's on your side. Sipos111 (with less then a dozen edits) adds mass shooting info with summery like "Kids are dying and it's important for people to understand a problem before it can solve it." Sipos111 then targets user Springee and Niteshift with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:7%266%3Dthirteen&diff=next&oldid=826025253 as if he expected to encounter them. Lightbreather has targeted me and Wbm1058 as well https://lightbreather.com/wikipedias-promotion-of-pro-gun-lingo-more-about-ar-15-v-modern-sporting-rifle-e3b6a7625621 While we disagree on this subject matter, I have never seen you act in this way. It's almost as if your computer has been hi-jacked by another person. I think it would be best if you take a step back, maybe recuse yourself from this topic for awhile. Perhaps take a Wiki-vacation. I know your amped-up right now, but I am trying to be helpful. --Limpscash (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Why u mad bro?
• Hmm have you been told that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website where you can tout your love for guns? I just saw your user page. Drmies (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CBAN for Krajoyn

On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I have started a discussion of a potential CBAN of Krajoyn which you might have been involved in.

The discussion is linked at WP:CBAN for Krajoyn. Iggy (Swan) 19:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just in case

Hi, Drmies. My notifications told me that you thanked me 3 days ago for this edit. Thanks are always appreciated, but the Thanks system is currently suspended while they fix this bug which was sending Thanks to the wrong people. So I thought I should let you know about your Thanks, just in case you really wanted (and presumably still want) to thank somebody else. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's working! And I've been putting it to good use. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

More info

This isn't a bad read and has some perspective over time.[12]. It correctly labels the Orlando shooters Sig MCX as a competitor to AR-15s type rifles and also has some history. Understand that there is no way to define an "AR-15" in a way that isn't later corrected to a model. Legal attempts to regulate it don't actually make attempts to define it rather they lump them into features. --DHeyward (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• DHeyward, do you think, besides a couple of caliber counters, that anyone really cares? Do you not see the point at all? Consider it a kind of metonymy, which is what it is for a yuge number of Americans, who call ALL these things "AR-15". And y'all keep saying that it's not a Colt. Well. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What is wrong with placing the general term, "assult" or "military style" rifle to the type of weapon used? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, please calm down - I have a lot of respect for you, and it's difficult for me to see you acting like this. Remember that one New Yorker article you used on...I think Colt AR-15? Did you read the articles that the relevant section linked to? This one is IMO a very important read for anyone who wants to participate in gun politics and related areas. As I'm sure you know, we're trying to build a neutral information source here at Wikipedia, and that means that we have even more of an obligation than typical news media to get things factually correct. To your question "do you think that anyone really cares" (which I'd be careful asking, since it's all too often used as code for "I don't care and neither should you"), the answer is it doesn't matter if anyone cares. Does anyone care about early 19th century cricketers, tiny Russian villages, or obscure mathematical theories? Well, we strive for factual accuracy in all of those things, and I don't see why firearms should be any different. ansh666 05:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

ansh huh? "Calm down"? Don't talk about "respect" when you're talking down to someone: you can't have it both ways. If you really think that "Colt AR-15" should talk only about the Colt TM, you are not considering our readers or the reliable sources that discuss the matter. [13]--make something of that, in the Colt AR-15 article. The Sandy Hook shooting, surely an important event in recent American history, was done with the kind assistance of "Bushmaster AR-15 style rifle" (to cite our own article, which cites this BBC story. Now, you can go and call that some error by one of the "typical news media" because, you know, the Colt has a TM and its stock is made of walnut and the Bushmaster's of ebony, but then you are still missing the point. AR-15 gives rise to AR-15 style. The AR-15 is in large part infamous because of the massacres committed with AR-15 style rifles. That is hard to deny, as hard as it is to deny that because it's not a Colt it shouldn't be talked about in the Colt article. Of course it should. (DHeyward's argument "that it's synthesis of two articles" is bogus: it's from one and the same article in the NYT. Colt AR-15 still gets over 50,000 hits per day, compared to a smidgen of that for AR-15. Now on behalf of those tens of thousands of readers, who you and other gun editors seem to think are all mistaken, you may well thank me for the hatnote I placed (no idea why none of y'all never did that), but to leave out the Colt AR-15's recent claim to fame from the lead is simply disingenuous, I have no other word for it. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And I got another question for you and the enthusiasts: how many AR-15s (in all of its exciting flavors and varieties) did Colt sell? It's odd that I can't find that in the article: the NRA has "about five million". Drmies (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't conflate me with the others. I agree that we should have information about the shootings in the Colt article. But context and specificity are important. We wouldn't say that the American Revolution happened in England, just because it was a colony of the UK at the time. ansh666 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, the previous person who patronized me here was a gun lover. The American Revolution has nothing to with this. That it happened in England is false; that the AR-15 derives its popularity/infamy from those shootings seems to be a very well-verified fact, such a huge fact, in fact, that it is deceitful not to place it in the lead. If you want to draw comparisons, we have a somewhat similar note in Luger pistol--and that one isn't even verified. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

ansh, how many? Drmies (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of that - the vast majority are probably in use in militaries around the world (the M16 rifle and M4 rifle - both derived from the AR-15 - are the service rifles of the US Armed Forces, after all). If you can find a reliable (i.e. non-NRA) source, please add it in; I'd be interested in seeing it myself.

Anyways, I've said my piece and I'm going to get out of here. Clearly neither side of this debate is interested in what I have to say. ansh666 19:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

ansh, I am just asking a question cause you seem like you know your stuff. Do you know how many AR-15 and its calibered and other variants did Colt make? Our article doesn't say, and I find that a lack, and I would like to know. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I get most of my information from Wikipedia references, so if it's not on here, it's not likely that I know. ansh666 20:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, same here. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Just to make things more fun, even my fellow gun nuts often mistake my Six8-SPR for an AR-15. Well, not so much the real knowledgeable ones, but the newbs often do. And I've seen M6's photographed in the news and identified as AR-15's or even M-16s. But sorry, I can't answer the questions you asked, either. I know a lot about my guns but not a lot about the gun industry. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Karli June Cerankowski

Does this person meet WP:NACADEMIC?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see how. I don't think you get (or should get) notability with just an edited volume; one needs a monograph, or two, which has received significant review, so that one can argue that the person has made a significant impact. (And none of the other requirements are met.) Drmies (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Wait--besides this very friendly page, there are no secondary sources, and the primary ones--well, that's resume material, of course. There may be reviews, of course, and job number one would be to add those. What does Randykitty think? Or DGG? Drmies (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability in her field could be authorship of books, highly-cited articles, or a combination: Looking at Google Scholar, there is one book co=edited,Cerankowski, K. J., & Milks, M. (Eds.). (2014). Asexualities: Feminist and queer perspectives (Vol. 40). Routledge; one well-cited item (64 cites), Cerankowski, Karli June, and Megan Milks. "New orientations: Asexuality and its implications for theory and practice." Feminist Studies 36.3 (2010): 650-664. and a few poorly cited items. Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Unless, of course, it's a book on a kick-ass saint published by the highest-falutin' academic press in the business...that's instant notability...but we're running late with the editing... Drmies (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Unless that saint would be somebody like Boniface, that wouldn't fly either! --Randykitty (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• What about Allen Toussaint? Ain't no more kick-ass saint than that. Even the man's name says he's the saint of all saints. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ha yes--no, I was thinking Toussaint Louverture. Or am I listening to Santana too much? (Psst...Randykitty...you got it.) Drmies (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years!

Precious

Six years!

I advertise dissipate, sorrowful shades, my days are bright on vacation, but looking at two strange blocks in two days, despair is a term that comes to mind. Enjoy music! Life is too short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Gerda...but who did I block? Drmies (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If you had made strange blocks, I would have skipped the memory (at least until next year) ;) - Ceoil was blocked, and Martin still is, unless something happened while I was out looking at fish. One blocked for defending a friend, the other for sharing music, more or less. Things got worse, so today I made my edit with the so far highest rate of thank-you-clicks, and admins rushing to my talk. I took "despair" from your edit notice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah...Martinevans...over YouTube links... Drmies (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. We are soooo serious, teh rulez. Now PamD's user page was trolled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Moar music: can you (and watchers) please help me keeping an eye on Vilde Frang? That was a sourced DYK article once, and somehow was changed to something without any reference, reading like from a management bio. I reverted to the old sourced version, - something that can get you banned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that does not get you banned. Come on. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Aha. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We'll see. Returning to a sourced version got someone banned. - back home, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I read the ANI discussion--that was not the reason, and certainly not the only reason. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

InfoWars

Hello, The description of InfoWars as a "conspiracy website" (haven't ever heard of such a thing) is WP:FRINGE. One of the authors of the book was Jeff Schantz. His personal bio on his website calls himself an "anarchist community organizer." It also talks about the "state murder" of two anarchists who were convicted of murder. If anything, that is a conspiracy website. As for the other author, I can't find much about him, so I would assume he isn't really notable. Let's leave it the way it is - there is a entire section of the article dedicated to controversies, including InfoWars giving air time to conspiracies. Describing InfoWars as anything other than a right-wing news site, radio broadcast, etc. may infringe the broad purpose of the introductory paragraph, especially when that section also summarises InfoWars-linked issues. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) A Google News search for Infowars conspiracy reveals literally thousands of reliable-source articles discussing the fact that Infowars spreads conspiracy theories. There can be no debate here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Others offered more sweeping condemnations. Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist behind the site Infowars, suggested that the mass shooting was a “false flag” orchestrated by anti-gun groups. (The New York Times) Infowars, which is headed by conspiracy king Alex Jones and has claimed the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, notes that Hogg has become an "overnight celebrity." (USA Today) In the aftermath of a deadly high school shooting in south Florida in February 2018, conspiracy theorist web site Infowars offered speculation about the suspected perpetrator’s ideological affiliations... (Snopes) - I could go on, but there's plenty here. The description is impeccably-sourced and will stay. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, your personal opinion about an author is entirely irrelevant to whether what they wrote is a reliable source. The book in question is published by a respected academic press and thus presumptively qualifies as a reliable source; it would be incumbent upon you to provide evidence that the work in question should not be treated as a reliable source, and your personal opinion of the author's personal opinions is in no way "evidence" of anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Hard to argue against a plethora of reliable sources--newspapers, fact-checking websites, books from a university press. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Eye Industries for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MT Train^Talk 17:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Romeo Castelen

Hi there MIES, all well?

Can you please be a sport and translate this chap's reference #12? Not quite sure what's trying to be conveyed.

All the best, thank you very much in advance and take care! --Quite A Character (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Can you please redirect me to another user with good knowledge of the Dutch language? Thank you. --Quite A Character (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Quite A Character, sorry I missed it--haha, I'm going to the talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Per my talk page notes, i inserted the expression in italics. However, i do not know how one goes about linking to an article inside the fields of a reference; that being said, thank you both for your assistance. --Quite A Character (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

school shootings

You will notice that User:23h112e has again trashed the list of school shootings article that you recently fixed. Hmains (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• The editor is determined. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Tenure

• 
  Da category police, at the scene of the latest fun-crime

My tenure was taken away, too. My reaction was different from yours :-). If you look into the history of my user page, it has received several such edits from some humorless people that really want to apply the letter of the policy against "useless" cats. Category:Wikipedians who should probably stop screwing around with categories, lest they draw unwanted attention from the Categories Police is probably next. --Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, It's happened a couple of times to me--User:Marcocapelle, what problem do you think you were solving? Drmies (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The "problem" was that the CfD discussion required closure. And if you think the closure is wrong per WP:LOCALCON, please go to WP:DRV instead of shedding tears on this page. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• And that closure, of course, forced you to edit somebody's userpage without having been invited there, as you've done with mine in the past. Right, got it. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• "tears"? Marco, can we have a minute and 35 seconds of your time? Lay off of other people's user pages. 17:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Far as I understand, they propose for deletion any cat that isn't dry-serious per WP:USERCAT, then delete them from userpages because they come up in a list of redlinked cats... Good use of editor time and a huge improvement to the encyclopedia! --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, the "consensus" that decided that humorous usercats should be deprecated by policy was two editors over the course of a single day. Virtually every "delete" !vote on a humorous usercat since then has either been an WP:IDONTLIKEIT !vote, or referred to that "policy".

In other words, this is exactly the sort of situation WP:LOCALCON was written to address, but nobody gives a shit enough to do anything about it, so every time I've tried to get this policy changed, the only people involved in the discussion were the same people who hate humorous usercats. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, strangely, there are some who give a shit. Some of my thoughts might have been immortalised here, but sadly I conflicted with the "Purple Hat Which Must Be Obeyed" and got reverted. Gerda cares too - she and I go back a long way on this one, right back to [[Category:Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians]] and [[Category:Awesome Wikipedians]]... -- Begoon 16:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"... as we are sinking deeper into despair": I made the red cats police angry when reverting them for Pablo X, they then came after me, and I now found a way of pretty red "categories" on my user page which are no true red links. I had enough of the dispute. Thank you, Begoon, for pointing me at some more edits to click thank-you to ;) - You are all welcome to copy the red cat design. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Proletariat must become aware of own power and rise to throw off yoke of oppression. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, you sound wise. Maybe you're wise enough to help me with Eldorado (poems), which sorely lacks content and is disfigured by pedestrian Steenkolenengels. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have often been told that I am a wise guy. Will take a look at the article. I know a lot about poetry, like that limerick that starts "Whanne Aprille with his shoures soote, something something something." Well that's most of it anyway. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Begoon:Sorry for saying "nobody gives a shit", I was being hyperbolic. I'm aware that there are plenty of editors who do care about the category police dictating policy to the rest of us. There was another interaction, during which I learned about the "consensus of two" thing while interacting with the category police and their anti-fun campaign. Nobody but me opposed their actions, though I think I might have gotten a bit of moral support from one cat-space regular. The problem was that any notification I passed on to interested editors would have been considered canvassing, because all of the interested editors I'm aware of would fall squarely on the "Fuck tha Police" side of the issue, and there's no noticeboard for this kind of stuff, except for the cat board talk pages, which would have entirely attracted editors who fell on the "I am da luwah!" side of the issue.

But for anyone interested, check out this edit, in which I outlined the history of the "policy" against joke categories. The short version is: Someone proposed such a proscription, but it failed to gain any attention and was archived. Two years later, Black Falcon took it upon themselves to recreate that same proposal, while lying about a "consensus" in the edit summary on a WP space info page. A bit later, another editor merged that info page into the policy page, with only Black Falcon's input on the issue. A grand total of two editors expressed support for this becoming policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Judge Dredd
• 
  Red cat

Funny you'd mention Dredd and red cats again, this has been on my talk page, in a conversation with Gerda, OID and Roxy ever since that ANI discussion I linked...

Yeah that's bullshit for a "consensus", but I think Boris has it right. Time to look again. Canvassing be damned, there's no policy I can see that says that participants in, let's say, this 'ere discussion right 'ere couldn't decide that they agree it's time to reassess the "consensus" by starting a new RFC to do so. Probably best just to frame it that way, otherwise it'll just get bogged down in a back and forth about how the existing state of affairs arose - we genuinely just want to see how the community feels about it now, don't we?

I mean, if this were done and it turned out genuine community consensus was against it, then fair enough, that'd be the way of it. I don't expect that, but I could certainly accept it more than the current situation. I wish I'd seen the other discussions - I'd have been delighted to participate. -- Begoon 00:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• sigh, does this mean I should expect a visit from da category polis getting up in my grill? I shall prepare the welcome doberman. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

online? urgent

are you still around? kindly ping. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This has been dealt with on my talk. I should note for future reference that the Streisand effect is a real thing, and if you're really concerned about not making things widely-spread then contacting two heavily-watched admins on their talk pages about it might be problematic... Primefac (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Primefac: Yeah. I was here to let him know that it has been taken care of. :D
Sorry for the trouble. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Re: the above, @Usernamekiran: install this script, it's accurate to ~10' ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@54129: Hi. I already have User:PleaseStand/User info, which does even a few more things. But sometimes, (i have experienced this), the recent edit turns out to be the last edit of the session. :D And then it is difficult to visit everybody's userpage to see if they are active. I use this tool to find out online users. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I won't bother next time. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh, didn't realize one could opt out of that. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Glad I could help! Drmies (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

online? not urgent: some rather new user moved long standing Johann Walter to Johann Walter (composer) and wrote about Johann Walter, a painter. I moved that guy to Johann Walter (painter) and changed it to a redirect, but prefer if that could be the page for Luther's songwriter, as it was. - It takes an admin.

(talk page watcher) Reverted. The composer is clearly the primary use. ‑ Iridescent 21:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I should have signed, before. Look at "my" Hidden Valley, as a token of thanks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What did I do?

What serious BLP issue did I commit here? [14]? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It wasn't you, it was Tomwsulcer and Wikizenx. ~ GB fan 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ok. I saw my name in the list of redacted comments. I presumed Drmies would tell me if I did something that serious. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

When you revdel something you have to delete all versions from where it is inserted to where it is removed. So in that case it was added at 16:47 and Drmies took it out at 17:47. All the edits between them contained the offending text so they all have to be deleted. ~ GB fan 21:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep. I left the user a warning. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the least of Wikizenx (talk · contribs · count)'s problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Personally, if most of my last several hundred edits were either about National Rifle Association or List of bank robbers and robberies, or things like Lucchese crime family, then I would worry about myself. But perhaps we will all learn to help each other more. MPS1992 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. I see now that I had some minor dealings with the master on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming (which maybe should go to AfD again), and oddly enough also with the nominator for that AfD, also involving the BLP--it's still there on User talk:Rusf10, with censorship complaint and all. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Syed Ali Nawab

Regarding my edits that you have disallowed, such as the incorrect date of death and that the subject’s father was an influential Senior Sessions Judge from the landed aristocracy rather than a cab driver in the late 19th and 20th century in British India etc.

I believe PeerBaba is playing with Wikipedia. The so called “source” for the date of death is a list of names of influential officers with dates in front. The book doesn’t claim these are dates of death. Also notice that none of those dates are dates of death for any of the other officers on the list. To verify this, you can examine the Wikipedia articles on those other officers and see they didn’t die on the date listed in this source.

Similarly can you seriously believe that the son of a Muslim cab driver in India managed to earn a BS in Physics. Then stayed in college for another two years to also earn a bachelors in Electrical Engineering? Then joined the army and was sent to US and UK by Pakistan? Then, was trusted by Bhutto and his generals to lead their clandestine nuclear weapons program with unlimited access to power and influence? This type of upward mobility in the early 20th century would have been impossible. These are modern western ideals. Even now it is very difficult for western children of cab drivers to get a quality. Your article is suggesting that Muslim Indians and Pakistanis were doing these things in the early 20th century. They were not. This officer was from the landed aristocracy. So he had all the time and money to study what he wanted in college. He was a good student and ended up joining the Pakistan Army at a time when the first Prime Minister of Pakistan- another landed aristocrat, had clerked for the subject’s father. Since he was a bright well connected student who also topped his class at the military academy, he was sent to England for further training where he earned his MI MechE. In Pakistan he marries into an educated family. His wife is a physician. Her family members are senior military officers. So when Bhutto needs a highly qualified administrator for his clandestine nuclear program, our subject is the natural choice.

He was able to get the job done because he was a technically educated intelligent man who also had the full support and trust of all the generals and the landed aristocracy class that ruled Pakistan at that time.

On the other hand, if you think the son of a taxicab driver in India, migrated to Pakistan and given these opportunities and responsibilities by the Pakistani landed aristocracy and generals, because csuch enlightened people and Pakistan such upward mobility then be my guest and let PeerBaba’s laughable version of events stay on Wikipedia.

Regards Bob chasm (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't follow. We're talking about this revert? You can talk all you want about history and context and other editors and class and degrees and engineering, but in the end you removed what appears to be sourced content and a relevant part of his life (military service and a job) saying "irrelevant". Drmies (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing a page

You sent me some comments about my editing. I said I am new to editing and hence trying to learn on the way. I appreciate feedback or additional info. I added more info on my talk page. Thanks TheInfoUK (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My former sandbox

Hey, you said you could send me the text from my sandbox. I believe I've attached my email to my account. Thanks. Baconheimian (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Undoing a page move

Hi Drmies. I was wondering if you or one of your many talk page watchers could help sort out a page move (actually undo a page move). Some was WP:BOLD (a little too bold perhaps) and moved Shogi to Shōgi without any discussion. The page move was subsequently undone on the main article, but a number of other pages (for example, Japan Shōgi Association) were moved in a similar manner and I'm not quite sure how to move them back. The intial move also led to numerous category pages, etc. being moved/changed to reflect the main article's title change. Is there a simple way to move things back? Some of the article may have been edited since the mass move, so I'm not sure if that means an administrator is needed to help clean things up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I also urge you to solve our conflict here. I'm already at the boiling point! Many thanks for any neutral input.--Biografer (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

While we disagree, I wouldn't refer to it as a "conflict" so to speak; moreover, it's not really related to what is being discussed in this thread. However, if Drmies and any others want to pipe in, they are welcome to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly, it's gotten to the point (in particular with Shōgi) that you're hitting "move war" status. I think it would be prudent to hold a multi-page RM regarding if it should be Shōgi or Shogi across all articles in order to standardize all of the pages. If you need assistance setting it up please let me know. I think it would be best to hold the RM on the Shōgi page itself, but include pages like the JSA as well. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks for the suggestion Primefac. It does appear to be heading in that direction, which is unfortunate. I'll ask for suggestions at WT:JAPAN as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Primefac: that is good advice. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:JAPAN#Date formats

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:JAPAN#Date formats. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Eldorado (poems)

Hello! Your submission of Eldorado (poems) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Right--I need to do a QPQ. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm about to approve the DYK hook. Regarding the QPQ, do you have more than five DYK credits? I've poked through your talk pages some, (but not all of them!) and didn't see any. You might be exempt from the requirement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks--I wish. I'm #24 on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs, haha. Trying to catch up with Gerda and Blofeld! I just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Su Bingqi, that's taken care of. (Oh, I thought of you yesterday--I was spinning The Man Who Sold The World; my friend was nice enough to give me a 180g version of it. Sounds awesome. OH! And I thought of you two days ago--I saw somewhere on Facebook that some archive now had access to like 70,000 78-records; you probably know this already.) Thanks User:78.26! Drmies (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ha, I do have a list, I remember: User:Drmies/DYK. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! You're probably thinking of the Great 78rpm Project at archive.org. There's also the National Juke Box at the Library of Congress. The copyright status of most of this is rather murky, I won't link to them lest I get blocked. Re Bowie: Nice gift, a lot of 1970s pressings aren't that great, even if in near mint condition. Thanks for writing the Eldorado article! All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Petecover.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Air your thoughts?

Would you like to take a moment and describe your views on the topic of quality articles vs. quantity at User:Eddie891/sandbox/Quality v. Quantity for a Wikipedia Signpost Report? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Eh, well, I have views but nobody in their right mind should care for them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Styling Garage

Drmies, there has been a reply to your post here, but the ping went awry. Please stop by when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Legacy

I have two legs that I can see... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa look who's here! How is life on the outside? I'm not on ArbCom anymore so I'm kicking back now that I don't have to mind my manners so much anymore. I'm going out to shoot some guns next week, hoping to restore my manliness. In other news, I discovered there's a gay campground in Geneva County, Alabama--bears, if any of you read this, every third Thursday is bear day. LHvU, nice of you to come by. Is there anything I can do for you? Coffee? A joke? An article? Need me to block someone? Drmies (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Not doing too much outside of work (I am a business owner these days) - dropped in to check out something, edited a spelling mistake, thought I might as well log in but got distracted by some alert thing that is new to me and saw you mention I had a legacy... so, hello! Social visit and all that. Enjoy your bear wrestling! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Bit of a stereotype to call gays camp. Bears too is gay code. In addition to the link "Random article", I think we should have "Random block". Egalitarianism!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
      • They have a hot tub, Bbb--I'm sure you saw the pictures on Facebook after I started following them. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you know...

I came across Beb (now a redirect) and nominated it for A11 but Amory with all good intentions removed the speedy and redirected it to Babi (mythology). I explained why it should be a speedy (as a hoax, actually) on her TP and now I'm waiting for her response. In the interim, I went to the user page of the article creator User:TUF-KAT and saw your name at the top of the TP, so here I am. TUF-KAT used to be an admin. but the last activity in his user contribs dates back to September 2009. His TP is filled with a long list of articles, etc. for deletion. Whassup? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, it's not particularly surprising to me to see a long-gone user with a bunch of notices on their talk page. The guidelines and quality criteria for articles have changed dramatically since '09, so it's probably to be expected that a prolific article creator might have a fair number of pages being nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thank you Primefac. I agree. Atsme, I don't think I know this particular editor at all... Drmies (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thx, Drmies - we got it worked out. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lesbian Flag

Hello Drmies. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lesbian Flag, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject is not obviously invented by the page creator. Thank you. —Kusma (t·c) 14:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK on Dirt Candy

Reception: this is way over the top: promotional

This is your edit summary for Dirt Candy, which is a DYK now. You are brave. I am timid. I saw the article and thought it looked promotional but was timid enough only to remove the exact address and whether reservations are accepted at the restaurant. Thank you for showing me that I should be a little stronger. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't know about that--maybe I'm just asinine, or I hate vegetables. I saw your note on TRM's talk page go by in Recent changes and thought it was an interesting thing to look at--and I saw that you were absolutely correct, and I thank you for it. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• "…creative dishes which often focus on a single vegetable". That's a bit confusing- do the customers get a lone tuber or is it more along the lines of baked potato with sides of frites du liberté and creamed mash? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can't believe they put that stuff back in and ran it on the front page. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can. This is Wikipedia. BTW, those damned pictures are fuzzy. If you're gonna advertise the beauty of presentation, you'd better do it professionally or not at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It's artistic blurring, totally... Primefac (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

FloridaArmy

Can you take a look at Talk:Walter M. Digges, the history of the article and the talk page of the only other contributor, please. They're making my life a misery with crap editing from the very creation right the way through to now. I'd rather they didn't edit the article and confined themselves to the talk page because, despite being around for a while, they're not learning much. - Sitush (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• User:FloridaArmy, I was happy to see you expand your interests, and we appreciate your contributions, but you have to play by the rules. For instance, that means that citations have to be complete (for verification's sake), that you don't use Google snippets (we have a guideline somewhere, I'm sure, but it's good practice), and to use reliable sources (FindAGrave is not). Especially Talk:Walter_M._Digges#From_the_Cyclopedia is a bit disconcerting. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I've no idea if they saw your ping or not but it didn't change their attitude/making of errors etc. I am rather concerned about their other articles, given the state of this recent creation. Anyway, thanks for trying. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'll try again later, Sitush, after Sir Gawain. If only that Serial Number user were here to take over my class, then I'd get some real work done. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

...if I didn't get us both banned from the faculty first  :) ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ha! FWIW, they're still being pointy there, Blyew v. United States was a mess of close paraphrasing, and Abel Crawford seems to be full of problems due to misreading of the source. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have got time for FloridaArmy because they got shat on from a great height by some trigger happy deletionists (and where the subsequent AfDs closed as "keep"). That said, disruption is disruption, whichever way you slice it, so I've got to do something. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

RUMAG

Hi Drmies. Any chance you could cast your Dutch eyes over this? I came across it here linked to a big UPE farm and I can't work out if it is notable or not and it's time for bed. SmartSE (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Smartse, are you familiar with the term steenkolenengels? "...and started out as a blog but later their regular blog posts were substituted with quotes and also shared on Facebook"... Drmies (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• The most reliable thing is a bloggy thing for teens linked to NPO, and the most relevant thing about the subject on that page is this, "Sinds kort is Nienke Plas het gezicht van RUMAG, het merk dat bekend is van de grappige quotes. De oprichters willen graag dingen gaan doen met beeld en ze zijn dan ook druk bezig met het schrijven van programma's." Poor writing, no depth, no nothing. Now there is some coverage of their popularity (on Instagram, for instance) here and especially here. If one and a half decent articles make for notability, it's notable. Natti natti, Drmies (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Nope afraid not! Despite my proximity, Dutch is still gobbledygook to me. Thanks for taking a look. It is more notable than I expected and looking at those sources, I guess if it's been analysed by a professor, it's considered fairly important, so I think AFD probably isn't justified, but I will get out the hedge-trimmer. SmartSE (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Ph.D in Bio

...did not take anything on board and continues to toss those fish [15]. I suggest smiting as indicated. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Did you see that other edit they made? A real case of wtf. But I'll let another admin look at it. How strange. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Two for the price of one. The first blocked for 24h for edit-warring. The second blocked indefinitely for fishing without a license.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and thanks. You know I'm very curious. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Ph.D in Bio didn't happen to be a certain other editor who made multiple sockpuppet accounts in order to vandalize, brag about imaginary credentials, and attack other editors, did it?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm sort of waiting on Bbb23's subtle hint or detailed email. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
          • I didn't know you were waiting on anything. As usual, your "curious" statement was too cryptic for me. I've always thought of you as curious. Anyway, just take a look at the history of List of largest fish, and it should be fairly obvious. I didn't tag because although Ph.D is technically the same as Mjt0604 (talk · contribs · count), it was only  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) for Matt4398 (talk · contribs · count). Finally, there is a possibility that the IP they used belongs to a school, and then they could be jerky classmates. I have no idea who Mr Fink is talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Oh. The history. Yeah. Duh. Thanks Bbb, haha. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Many of the various socks of Architect 134 would brag about nonexistent credentials as the main/sole reason why the vandal's vandal edits had to be accepted: "Ph.D in Bio" made me think of that.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
              • What is it with these d-bags? Drmies (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Mizrahim, Mizrahi Jews in France

There are certain discrepancies on these pages relating to “World Jewry” Many Jews in France are of mixed Sephardic-Mizrahi heritage sometimes these two groups are even interchangable, a point should be made of that as many of the famous and notable Mizrahi Jews in this page are from France and listed as such but France is not mentioned in the population section. On another matter is the topic regarding Iraqi Jews I regardless of what the article might state, Jews in Kurdistan are almost entirely mixed with Muslims so the families numbering over 100 in Iraq would come from Jewish families mixed with other faiths. Dont belittle245 (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for your note--but we really just can't do without sources... Drmies (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the article you recently deleted

You recently deleted an article I created (you know what I'm talking about and I don't want to violate any policies by being more specific than that). Would you be willing to restore it without the content that is problematic with respect to privacy? Given that you have expressed notability concerns about this page, perhaps you could restore it in the Draft namespace, or maybe email me the content. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, but no--your subject does not pass the GNG (there can be little doubt about that) and privacy is a greater concern here: the very identification is the problem, coupled with its easy accessibility on one of the most popular websites in the world. You are welcome to discuss this with others, for instance ArbCom; Callanecc is aware of matters, for instance. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I understand. I think I'll drop this now. Every morning (there's a halo...) 05:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

continued

"... deeper into despair": thank you for "waar er twee vechten hebben er twee schuld". Arbcom saw it differently for Joe (although I used the word "despair" on an arb's talk), resulting in a blackish page. Recovery in progress = article writing in collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Well, unless one of the two is me, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

After replacing the black version of despair by grey, I turn to someone about whom I find the most precise account in Dutch. Please watch Willem Ravelli and correct if necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I found one more ref in German, so the question is more if the Dutch has something that absolutely should be mentioned. - Next q: what's Royal Oratorio Society in Dutch, and is there an article in Dutch? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Dutch source cited first in the article mentions a Koninklijke Christelijke Oratorium Vereeniging Excelsior. This is a redlink here on nl, with a slightly different spelling. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I am very much for original titles, but how about Dutch Royal Oratorio Society for this one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I looked to see whether there was mention of another Royal Oratorio Society in the Dutch Wikipedia, and actually they do have an article: nl:KCOV Excelsior. So I just made a redirect. Both the "Christian" and the "Excelsior" appear to matter. So I will now defer to Drmies :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Quacking duck

Some time back you indefinitely blocked Killian James (talk · contribs) who did edits to Mercy College and Iran related topics. There is a fairly new editor Impactraw (talk · contribs) with the same habits. I suspect sockpuppetry. Would you like to handle this or do I need to open a SPI?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a third suspect account also. It is Kylamyla (talk · contribs). Who entered Cynthia Rubino to the Mercy College article only about a half hour after it was created by Impactraw....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Both accounts plus a bunch of others blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb. I had quite a busy day, but none of it was computerized. We're grilling now; chicken and corn are almost ready. Come on over. (Yes, we're out of bourbon, thanks for asking!) Drmies (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Eldorado (poems)

Hello! Your submission of Eldorado (poems) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ahem. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Did some very light concisification. Hope you don't mind. Never had much of a fancy-brand bent for my word turning, so if I messed up anything just roll me back. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Wonder why it's "French, romantic" but "German Romantic" in that hook? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:Gerda Arendt: My knowledge of English is very poor, but I think it's because of this. See the examples they give are not that disimilar to what you quote just there  :) —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that tells me about a comma between adjectives, but the basic question is why is one lower case and one capital? I see that "romantic" needs to be there for German (or not?) but can't be there for "Calvinist". Ideas? - Learning English II today, ask Gatoclass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, "German Romanticism" is pretty much a proper noun, as is "Dutch Calvinism". In this case, the sources didn't allow me to say "French Romanticism"; French + romantic does not equal "French Romanticism"--"romantic" here was a more undefined kind of adjective. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Could then both romantic be lower case, - as "spirit" has to be added (in thought) for all 3 terms, no - or am I the only one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Excessive amount of quotes on Firepower (Judas Priest album)

Hi Drmies. Since I do like the way you're able to cut down some long/unnecessary parts of articles to the essentials, would you be able to go over Firepower (Judas Priest album)? I've already cut down what were huge blocks of quotes that were just puffery and "this is so different from our last record" over and over. It appears some heavy metal fan has gone in there and just piled quotes upon quotes, even inessential stuff that every musician always says about their new album, so if you could go over it even more, it'd be very appreciated. Thanks. Ss112 23:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, I appreciate that. Hey, I'm a huge metal fan. Let me get on that, after I'm done headbanging. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• User:Ss112, I'm going to have to come back to this later, but I will. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey man, all these bands're jus' rippin' off Judas Priest...

Look, Serial Number, the day I learned that Unleashed in the East had been dubbed was a very sad day. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Who wrote that shit? Drmies (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Eldorado (poems)

On 19 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eldorado (poems), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Flying Dutchman-related poems in J. Slauerhoff's 1928 collection Eldorado are more likely inspired by a French romantic spirit than a German Romantic or Dutch Calvinist one? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eldorado (poems). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Eldorado (poems)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Gatoclass for your continued dedication to our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeking advice/help

Hello! I'm hoping you can either advice me on the correct thing to do or help in the situation. The article for Lee Da-in (actress, born 1992) was recently moved from the name Lee Da-in (which has since been made in to a disambiguation article containing only a link to the first page I linked and a red link) because of what the Korean Wikipedia says, however in the English Wikipedia there is only one article for a person of that name and the new disambiguation article. Is this an okay move on Wikipedia?

• Well, in principle that's the way to do it, it's just that it's pretty meaningless as long as there is only one person with the name. The thing to do, for User:Kenny htv, is to write that other article--that's the easiest way out. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I think that the English page title should be synced with the original language page title (in this case is the Korean Wikipedia page). The English article was originally created with an incorrect title by User:Duy Khoa Nguyen (currently blocked). If you don't agree to let the red link in the disambiguation page, I can create a new article for it by translating ko:이다인 (1985년), it is easy but it will take time. Kenny htv (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"should be synced with the original language page title"? Sorry, but I don't know what you mean. The original title was fine because there was only one Lee Da-in. The redlink, well, it's not a matter of agreement or disagreement: the very idea of a disambiguation page is that there be something to disambiguate, and in this case, as long as there is no second article, there's nothing to disambiguate. So if you could translate that other article, that would solve all our problems the easy way. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ha, I was just about to see how rusty my Korean was, but I see you beat me to the punch. Well done. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)