Wikipedia

User talk:Drmies/Archive 117

< User talk:Drmies
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Drmies in topic A cheeseburger for you!
Archive 110←Archive 115Archive 116Archive 117Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120

Account creation block

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Drmies - I've got the following message when I try to use account creator on my phone: "Account creation from IP addresses in the range 94.197.120.0/23, which includes your IP address (94.197.121.234), has been blocked by Drmies. The reason given by Drmies is Vandalism: a-holery persists in trolling unblock requests". I assume this is because my IP address on the phone is close to someone else's? I've never done anything with unblock requests before. Would it be possible to get this fixed, or to get my specific IP removed from the block please? Zeromonk (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Zeromonk, I am sorry for your trouble. The block log for that range is extensive, and that's not the only range this longtime vandal has been abusing. And their vandalism isn't exactly innocent either. I hope it won't happen again, but if it does, maybe you can coordinate in advance with an account creator who's on a "good" network? I've done that before when I had to create a bunch of accounts for a class. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Zeromonk: I had similar trouble last week at a WCC event. Myself and another organiser were providing wifi hotspots from our phones because the local guest wifi wasn't working. Mine was ok initially but then it timed out and the reset IP address was blocked from editing, even though I was logged in. In that case, the message was:
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.
Editing from your IP address range (94.197.120.0/24) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 06:49, 20 March 2019 by Tegel (meta.wikimedia.org) for the following reason: Long-term abuse
This block began on 06:49, 20 September 2018
You can contact Tegel to discuss the block and you may make unblock requests or file appeals at meta:Steward requests/Global. Your current IP address is 94.197.120.119. Please include all above details in any queries you make.
The network in my case was 3. The primary trainer was also blocked when using her phone. I was able to dodge the block by turning my phone off and on again, which demonstrates the futility of such measures. Drmies and Tegel should please not place such long term range blocks on major networks used by numerous good faith editors, event organisers and trainers.
Andrew D. (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies thanks for getting back to me, sorry to hear about all the trouble! I'll do my best to work around it (probably need to meet more account creators to manage as I only know a few!). Andrew D. thanks for the tip about turning the phone on and off! Zeromonk (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts...?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I reverted an IP user today who blanked an entire section of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. I then noticed in the history that during the past two weeks, this same section was blanked five previous times by three other IP users;

User talk:174.1.6.124 (x2) (Vancouver, BC)
User talk:99.203.29.143 (Olathe, KS)
User talk:204.239.253.218 (VIAA, Van, BC
User talk:216.81.94.75 (x2) (DHS - Wash, DC)

I also noticed that after the fifth edit, you increased the page protection, suspecting "trolls" As it seems to be continuing, and coming from varied IPs from various locations, do you have any suggestions for any actions that should be taken here? Either to further protect the page, or to deal with either this travelling troll or possible international ring of meat-puppets? Thanks - wolf 07:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If this is the removal you're talking about, I'd say the IP is entirely correct in removing it. It's unsourced, it's blatant puffery ("responsible for decisions regarding a staggering variety of merchandise"), it's plagiarised from the CBP recruitment website (federal government works can be re-used on Wikipedia per {{PD-USGov}} but the article needs to make it explicit which parts are copied from government websites and which parts are in Wikipedia's voice, particularly when the material is being taken from the website of the article's subject which has an obvious motivation for making themselves sound important), and as per the IP's edit summary it doesn't give any indication—let alone any third party reliable sources which give any indication—why this particular job needs to be listed in the article when the many other jobs and roles within the same organization aren't. ‑ Iridescent 10:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Iridescent--if the editor had said this the first time around I wouldn't have protected; Wolfchild, my protection was based on two things: unexplained blanking and a variety of IPs, which one sees frequently when a few internetters collaborate to mess something up. Funny thing is I saw an edit like this yesterday, which removed even more content, if I remember correctly. But I think Iridescent is completely correct in their assessment of the content of the edit, and I'm afraid I think you should revert yourself: the content is "verified", but only by reference to primary sources, and in language that is hardly encyclopedic. And if Iridescent is correct about the text having been copied, and I don't doubt they are, that's all the more reason to remove it as just bad writing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm....

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Does Filiz Odabas-Geldiay seem any notable to your eyes? See this thread for the origins:-)∯WBGconverse 05:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Patrick O'Connor (Massachusetts politician)

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Relatively new editor who obviously is affiliated with O'Connor adding promotional material to the article. I've reverted twice (my limit) and plastered warnings on his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

"...When Patrick first went to Beacon Hill to serve as the Senator for this District, x was one of the first constituents he met with. She had recently lost her son x' to an overdose and shared his story with Patrick..." Oh dear. This a Democrat? Drmies (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Ha! Republicans in Massachusetts run on very different topics than they do down here. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
As our dear friend Ponyo would say: ta.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh she came up at dinner time, when we were talking about ramen noodles, with ham and a boiled egg. I *heart* Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
...and Ponyo *hearts* ramen, so full circle on all fronts!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Recently, you've deleted my sandbox page under the justification that what I typed was a "blatant hoax". Although it is fair, I made all those changes in my sandbox, where I assumed it was all right to basically do whatever you wanted as long as it didn't break Wikipedia's rules. Could I get some clarification on this? Thanks. Fernsong (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  • The sandbox is for practicing, not really for funning around. I was struck immediately by the picture of the Soviet soldier in Stalingrad, which you had turned into a Nazi after a fictitious battle. That is not cool in many ways, but the most immediate one was that you let that was a pretty old edit and was thus obviously not intended to practice Wikipedia editing. One of the rules is WP:NOTWEBHOST, and it sure seemed like that's what you were doing: imaginary history. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I see, thanks for clearing that up. Although I don't really see how what I did was "not cool in many ways." Fernsong (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, there's over two million casualties, including half a million Soviet deaths, the entire city was destroyed, maybe 40,000 civilians died, and the course of the war changed--at enormous cost to the Soviet army and population. To turn the heroic resistance of the citizens and the Soviet army into a kind of joke strikes me as distasteful: that image is iconic. There is much in this, including some words from someone who was a ten-year old girl when the Nazis started bombing. History isn't over just yet... Drmies (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
History isn't over just yet.

Generalizing by ethnicity

Latest comment: 6 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

Hi again,

Will you please help me?

I remember this edit of yours diff. There you referred to generalizing (by ethnicity, class, gender, etc.) connected with wikipedia editors. If I can interpet your statement, you basically stated that generalisations about wikipedia editors based on their ethnicity are very, very problematic.

I always thought that this kind of generalisation on wikipedia is valid not only for wikipedia editors, but for everybody, including authors of sources used on wikipedia. If they are alive, statements about their involvement with certain political movement might even be violation of WP:BLP?

I frequently encounter generalisations about wikipedia sources, based on the ethnicity of their authors.

I began to question myself and my position having in mind that:

  • my report about it at ANI (diff) was ignored
  • that many other editors routinelly use the same rationale when they want to discredit some source,

Will you please be so kind to clarify if generalisations about sources used on wikipedia based on the ethnicity of their authors are also very, very problematic? I sincerely apologize if I am wrong with something here.

Best regards,--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Hmm I'm not really sure what you're asking. My comment was in the context of the old "you can't be neutral cause you're Dutch/Serbian/Slav/Yugoslav/Belgian/Flemish" kind of argument--note that I was talking about generalizing, here in terms of motives and neutrality and whatnot.

    The diffs you were pointing at in that ANI report (I wish I had seen it at the time) are invalid but not because of exactly that reason. I suppose we can talk about Albanian sources and Yugoslav sources, if indeed the sources are from those areas when they were countries with those names, etc., but I don't understand that editor's reason at all and unless there's something I'm missing, this is a problematic edit. This, on the other hand ("Serbian authors thought he was a Serb"), is in principle a valid edit summary. I hope that clarifies? Drmies (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my question I will use a couple of statements for example:
  • "this source is unreliable because it was written by author who is Scot"
  • "If you want to write an article about WWI topic you have to use sources written by non-Germans (Russians, British, Italians...)
  • "Those sources are unreliable because they were written by the Kurds"
wp:RS says that reliability of some source can be affected by three factors: reliability of the author, work itself and the publisher. It does not mention nationality or ethnicity of authors.
I am simply asking exactly what I wrote. Summarized it goes like this: "Having in mind your statement that generalisations about wikipedia editors based on their ethnicity are very, very problematic I simply asked for your opinion if generalisations about sources used on wikipedia based on the ethnicity of their authors are also very, very problematic"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah but now you're talking in relation to RS. That's a different thing but even with sources it's complicated. If you write about the Siege of Sarajevo and all you cite are Serbian sources, one might expect that someone will challenge that. But if someone says "you can't be neutral on that article cause you're Serbian", that's problematic, yeah. And no, I wouldn't discredit some article on Sarajevo because the author was a Serb, but it is possible that the article is biased because the author has Serbian sympathies. Or the author doesn't. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I already know that you find generalisations about wikipedia editors are very problematic. Now, I am talking only in relation to RS. Can I conclude that you think that sources are a different thing and that under some circumstances wikipedia editors are entitled to dispute reliability of the source based on the ethnicity of their autor(s)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but this is very much context-bound, and one is frequently wrong. For instance, typically 19th German Protestant writers don't look kindly on Saint Boniface, and one should take their comments with a grain of salt, and Catholic authors, by the same token, have a tendency to overplay him and his veneration. Yet it's Albert Hauck, a German Protestant, who writes what one might call the first objective assessment of the saint and his work, in 1885. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I really appreciate your effort to write explanation to me but I don't know how to interpret it:
  1. The first word of your answer says yes (to my question if wikipedia editors are entitled to dispute reliability of the source based on the ethnicity of their autor(s))
  2. then all other words you used to explain why it is context bound and .... frequently wrong, presenting example which completely refutes "yes" answer.
If it is necessary to take care about the context and consider situation case by case, regardless of the ethnicity, then your answer to my question is actually no, isn't it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Your question included the words "under some circumstances", so Drmies answer "Yes, but ..." was exactly what he meant. He did not mean no, or he would have said "No, never, not even under some circumstances". Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
My reply pointed to the fact that after but is necessary to consider things regardless of the ethnicity, then your answer to my question is actually no. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You understand what the word "but" means, right? It means "except". So Drmies did not mean no, he meant "Yes, except for the fact that ...", or or "Yes, but only in some circumstances", or "Yes, except you have to be very very careful". This is because your question deliberately included the phrase "under some circumstances" [1]. If you had not deliberately included that phrase, then his answer might have been something like "Usually not", or "Try to avoid doing it except in rare cases". Softlavender (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand what the word "but" means. But, my question deliberately included the phrase that if after but is necessary to consider circumstances unrelated to the ethnicity, then your answer to my question is actually no. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Then either your logic is faulty or your command of the English language is insufficient to carry on a discussion of fact and logic, because your question has been answered and the answer has been explained twice, and the answer is still the same: Since your question used the phrase "under some circumstances" the answer is "Yes, but ..."; the answer is not categorically "No". If you ask the question again, and omit the phrase "under some circumstances", then the answer will be different. Softlavender (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
It was Drmies who introduced some circumstances in this dicussion, not me.
Here is another example: link. The editor says: This page uses Serbian sources and should be removed. What circumstances can justify generalization about the reliability of the sources based on the ethnicity of their authors? Am I really the only one who think that something is wrong with writing this kind of comments? Would my faulty logic be more apealing if I use some other ethnicity as an example? Here let me try with this example:
  • If you want to write an article about Facism you should use sources authored by uninvolved (ie non-German) scholars.
Am I the only one who thinks it is disguisting to write a comment which would imply that all authors of German ethnicity are inherently involved with Facism? If your reply will again be about my faulty logic and command of English language, this will be my last comment in this discussion on this talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Let me try a couple of examples. If someone were to say "Antidiskriminator sounds like a German name so obviously all edits the editor makes about WWII are Nazi propaganda", then the person saying that would first be regarded as an idiot (probably your name isn't German anyway), and secondly probably blocked for personal attacks (i.e. being "very, very problematic"). If, instead, someone were to say "Wolfram Wette is German so no books he has written about WWII can be trusted", then the person saying that would first be regarded as an idiot, and secondly reminded about WP:BLP (Wette is still alive), and thirdly eventually topic-banned from that topic area for an inability to make sense. So this second case is only "very problematic", not "very very problematic". One case is about saying silly things about a Wikipedia editor, and one case is about saying silly things about an author of sources. Sorry for the contrived examples, but perhaps it illuminates something? MPS1992 (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and saying silly things about sources (but based on who wrote them) is another step further removed, so perhaps that's only problematic, not even "very problematic". But if people keep making problematic edits, eventually someone will stop them from doing so, I think. MPS1992 (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not quite sure why AD went from discussing people to discussing sources. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't notice that until I'd already written all those things :) But yeah, if it's not OK about people, then it's not OK about people who write sources, so not OK about the sources that people write. Maybe? MPS1992 (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the actual ANI thing is definitely the last thing that anyone should do, so I just did so. I am completely unclear as to how the diffs there relate to the claims here. Antidiskrininator, what are you on about? MPS1992 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Christ's Hospital

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

What a silly name for a school! I actually reverted you....edit summary has the reasons, but we generally do not discuss sex abuse involving school teachers unless either it occurred at the school or there is clear evidence that he school had culpability in the matter. If that is the case, just re-write your copy and I'll leave it alone. If not and you wish to discuss it, you know what to do. You'd be surprised (astounded, appalled, disgusted) at just how commonplace this is. John from Idegon (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Help

Latest comment: 6 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

User I was told to not interact with is stalking and reverting my edits. [2] [3].--MaranoFan (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait. You were blocked, then you socked and got reverted, and now you're back. Hmm. OK, please give me a link for this "was told not to interact with"--thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
MF, look at your talk page and the message I have left there. Look at the edit summaries and the reasoning for the reversions and request that you start a talk page discussion before making huge, blanket reversions to your preferred version of articles. I'm not stalking you, these articles are all on my watchlist and have been for months, years. Please don't go this direction. Make the best use of your unblock and stick around this time, please? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @MaranoFan: First, welcome back. I'm not taking sides here, but you are proposing major changes and you may face some skepticism from other editors because of your previous block. Please continue to edit Wikipedia constructively, but implement your changes slowly and carefully, and start talk page discussions when appropriate. Try not to take things personally, and collaborate with editors when possible. Again, welcome back to Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Another Believer:. Its in my unblock conditions that I'm not supposed to interact with said user and now anything that I will restore (from that edit) will be seen as reverting them. That's why I need help from admins about whats the appropriate thing to do.--MaranoFan (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you simply go and propose your changes on an article talk page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and make smaller changes so editors can review them more easily. I have both articles on my watchlist, so I'll be following along. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Just started one @Gerda Arendt: [4] But the article gets no traffic so I don't think anyone will participate.--MaranoFan (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: Patience is a virtue. Take your time, and be open to suggestions and concerns shared by other editors. Again, welcome back to Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is all excellent advice and I have little to add. I just saw your talk page, and the condition, "You have proposed to voluntarily not interact with editors you have feuded with in the past". I assume Winkelvi is one of those--I remember now, fighting about these Meghan Trainor songs, right? Well, a talk page discussion can be started without really discussing the editor who reverted; after all, what one should really argue is why content should be in an article, not why editor X was wrong to keep it out of the article. And if editor X opens up a discussion and invites you, then that's fine. Also, while "editor X"'s comment on your talk page was a bit high-handed, IMO, it is certainly true that you cannot claim they're "stalking" you. Please remember that stalking is a serious offense, and that accusing someone of stalking is just as serious. Winkelvi is correct in stating that that is not the way you want to come back after a block, with an accusation that, without evidence, is a violation of good faith. All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Drmies. I really changed my outlook and don't want to mess anything up. You're gonna be one of the people I come to for advice if you don't mind.--MaranoFan (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure? I only listen to Hayley Williams these days. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
That's okay with me nnn. I like the song she did for Jennifer's Body.--MaranoFan (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
OK you called my bluff. I had never heard of her but read an article on NPR. I couldn't remember a Traynor song if my life depended on it, but I think that was the bubblegum pop idea in the first place... Drmies (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
this is that bop. And yeah Meghan is flopping now so I'll have to stan someone else, the fact that Treat Myself is still not notable enough to make an article...--MaranoFan (talk)
When Meghan Trainor was at her peak, commercials started using her songs. I wore the ink off my mute button. Now I just listen to my tinnitus. It’s got a good beat and you can dance to it. O3000 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
[5] Drmies (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, Lloyd Lindsay Young was a TV weatherman in the San Francisco Bay Area for many years. I often got a laugh out of the guy, but my wife found him very irritating. We only agree 99% of the time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
WHAT A WEATHERMAN SAID THAT??? Drmies (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for reminding me of Meghan Trainor as she’s 87 down in tomorrow’s NYTimes crossword. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
O! Drmies (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, you might be interested in this ANI thread. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Also spread to User_talk:Galobtter#Switching_interests?, for what it's worth. Annoying all around. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Forgotten something?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Good job you took care of this yourself, as otherwise you might have looked like the bad admin, and a good admin might have had to come to the rescue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Ha, that tells you I'm better at being the bad admin--I think that's the second time that happened. I should be unblocking more, just to practice. Thanks editor using the pseudonym JamesBWatson, Drmies (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for reverting my mistake edit at Adolf Eichmann! dmartin969   03:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Drmies. In addition to the information I outlined at Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy, I have found credible off-wiki evidence indicating which editor on Wikipedia is connected to the UDC. I have asked this editor multiple times (including two direct questions) if they have any sort of connection with the organization, but have not received a strait answer. I will respect WP:OUTING and not disclose the editor's details on Wikipedia, but if you want me to forward my evidence, ping or email me and I will email you the details. I'm also extending my offer to @Doug Weller:, if they are interested.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • SamHolt6, as curious as I am (as far as the identification is concerned), it's best if you submit this evidence directly to ArbCom (of which fine body Doug Weller is a member, as I'm sure you know). Whether they will want to do something about it is up to them. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Will Geer

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. You RD'ed the addition of an offensive remark just now at Talk:Will Geer, but left the revision that still had the remark after SineBot signed it. Largoplazo (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Turmeric

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I was in the process of filling in a report at WP:EWN about the Turmeric stuff, but there were so many diffs to sort through it was taking me ages. I see you have acted already so will leave it. A candidate for WP:HALLOFLAME perhaps? GirthSummit (blether) 17:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you didn't block Kbb2 too. Foodtraveller has expressed that they were unfamiliar with how things work here, which I give SOME benefit of the doubt, so the block might have been a bit of WP:BITE, where as Kbb2 is an experienced editor yet proceeded to violate 3RR and it was Foodtraveller who ultimately took the issue to the talk. I like Kbb2's contributions, but that was way out of line. Nardog (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Foodtraveller was warned and reverted again, and Kbb did not revert that one. Don't think for a moment that I am impressed with either's behavior, but seriously--editor is warned, says "I won't do it again", and then does it again? What I maybe should have done is warn Kbb as well, since Jytdog or Girth Summit (or anyone else) hadn't, but the point remains: they did it again after being warned and acknowledging that. You want to make an argument for them being unblocked, that's fine, but don't do it here. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for that - I did think about dropping a warning template on Kbb2's talk page at the time I made my edit (having seen that Jytdog had already put one on Foodtraveller's), but since a section on the talk page had been created by then, I hoped that my note in my edit summary would suffice. GirthSummit (blether) 20:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if my reply will work because I am currently blocked. I acknowledge that I made a change after the warning, which I have tried to explain, but which I understand warranted a blocking. What I don't understand is why Kbb2 was not issued a warning for being involved in the same debacle. Drmies also said in an Undo comment that *I* was the warrior. Again, acknowledging that I made a change after the warning, I don't understand how only one party is *the* warrior. Drmies revert was almost instant - the other editor would not have had time to revert it. Even if Drmies hadn't reverted my change, the other editor still could have because they hadn't received a warning. Most of this feels moot now as it looks like the edits have now gone way past this, and I can live with a 24 hour blocking, but I do feel the outcome was unfair, especially given that I was the (considerably) less experienced party. Foodtraveller (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You're obviously not blocked. I already unblocked you. It's on your talk page. You were more the warrior given the BRD cycle, which was explained to you on the talk page. And if you're the less experienced person, why should that make you pursue some path harder? I don't know how to behave in a place, and apparently two people think I'm behaving badly, and one of them warned me, but because I don't know how this place works I'm just going to do more of what I already did? Sorry, but that makes no sense. If you fart at a faculty meeting at your new job, and someone says "DUDE", do you do it again? Drmies (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:User:Drmies/A7

Latest comment: 6 years ago39 comments12 people in discussion

  Template:User:Drmies/A7, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User:Drmies/A7 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User:Drmies/A7 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  • You were important enough to be scolded by a real arb on your talk page. Something about beer? I like beer. Don't you like beer? I drank a few beers. Sometimes I drank a few more beers. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Tony, I thought of you today, for the hook: DYK ... that every Wikipedian should recite Psalm 133 every time before beginning work? - Too bad that Yoninah expanded in August, and I now, and we are a bit short. Any additions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Pkbwcgs: Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu. A. Parrot (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
A. Parrot: Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon. Pkbwcgs (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pkbwcgs if you clicked on the link in my userspace, you’d see why this was a joke. Someone created a nonsense page on me and Drmies was kind enough to delete it. I mentioned it to him in passing in an email that I wanted a userbox that said this, and he obliged. It is literally the only thing on my userpage that anyone ever comments on and keeping the source around causes no one any harm and is nothing but a joke among friends. No ones mad at you, but you’ve drawn some attention to yourself by having twinkle template one of the most watched user talk pages on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I feel totally left out of beer conversations because I'm not really a big beer drinker, and I did nothing noticeably (or, in fact, even remotely) bad during high school, even though I went to a prep school. sigh (or sneer/sniff). Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • WELL I LIKE BEER DONT YOU I WONDER HAVE YOU NEVER BLACKED OUT DONT YOU LIKE BEER BEER IS GOOD IM A MAN I WORK OUT I MUSCLE FOR THE FOOTBALL TEAM YALE WORKED MY TAIL OFF BEER BEER BEER. My high school reunion was this weekend, but in the wrong part of the world for me so I missed it. I'm quite sad about that. There was very little drinking there at the time--it was a very Calvinist school, and while I may have been worse than the average kid there, I wasn't particularly bad, though apparently I was one of the bad kids according to my religion teacher's little black book. We smoked some dope every now and then, of course, but compared to what they do in the US, it really didn't amount to much. Anyway, I'm sorry if you felt left out--I am sure that most of the beer convos here are typed out while folks are drinking instant coffee, like I am now... Drmies (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Drinking beer and smoking dope is one thing, but INSTANT COFFEE??!!? We all know that serving a term on Arbcom takes its toll but how low can a man sink? You need professional help from a helpful professional lest you wind up huddled in a Motel 6 listening endlessly to Michael Bolton Sings the Partridge Family's Greatest Hits. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
        • In my defense, it is Cafe Bustelo, which takes some people 7 1/2 minutes to make, and I drink it from one of those flowery coffee cups you can buy at a discount store for .50c. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I think it just points up how boring we all are. For instance, I'm so boring that in high school I did not keep, much less save, a calendar of events. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
          • I bet you didn't have any friends named Squi either. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
            • Ha, Softlavender, I kept my old school calendars--journals, I guess, you'd call them? A whole school year in book form, with a week spread out over two pages? Schoolagenda. Some had pictures of rock stars, some had jokes, stuff like that--they were a big thing when I was in high school. My handwriting has changed. There's not a lot of exciting stuff in them, but every five years or so I glance at them and think about how fast time goes. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, Schoolagenda: [6], [7]. WTF? What is wrong with you Dutch? Even I didn't like school enough to enshrine it in a day-to-day happy-camper-log. Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think we're on the cusp of a new Godwin's law where any discussion, if long enough, will include mentions of "I like beer!"; "I got into Yale law school!"; "My beautiful, creepy calendars". SAD! --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Guess what--all but one or two of my students today new about this in the first place; no one had watched the hearings. No one was fully informed.
Drmies, parsing the statement above, it doesn't make much sense and it is unsigned. Is there a word missing or is it just mixed up? Do you like beer? Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
About the only time I ever got drunk was at Yale, but it was a bottle of Vodka, not beer. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Please explain...

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Please explain why “The Forward” would be an improperly sourced article on Las Vegas shooting conspiracies, when the article was about “Las Vegas Conspiracy Theories”?

The “High Incident Project” is being actively investigated by American LEAs. You don’t have to accept that assertion, it’s a fact. By supporting the restriction of well sourced claims and first order data, the other user is engaging in propaganda, and possible criminal conspiracy. Is that your intention as well? Xanderarena (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide far more than your bald assertion for the claim that The “High Incident Project” is being actively investigated by American LEAs. The Forward article clearly explains that the entire thing is conjured-up anti-Semitic nonsense from anonymous Internet forums without the slightest shred of evidence to support it. Accusing other users of "possible criminal conspiracy" is a one-way ticket to being blocked forever from this platform per WP:NLT. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes, me and Sheldon what's his name are involved in a scheme that will get us billions of dollars. (If you're seriously asking that question you shouldn't be on Wikipedia). There are two problems with your contributions. a. It proposes that the 4chan thread was somehow true: "A 4chan pol thread surfaced which had explicitly warned the public of a forthcoming mass murder event in the Las Vegas area". No, this is false. It was a bunch of typically cryptic antisemitic gibberish that fools interpret any way they see fit. In addition, what you claim Snopes said is false: "surprising specificity" is your term (editorial commentary) when the article actually says the opposite ("They gave the wrong date and didn’t refer to any specifics that would point to knowledge predicting the Strip attack"). b. Three of the "sources" are completely unacceptable. (And c., yeah, what NBSB says.)

    Now, it is possible that a neutral paragraph can be written about this disgusting conspiracy theory, but yours is not it, and if you don't understand my critique of your edit (or this edit summary by Ianmacm) then you're not the one to try. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

    • “The High Incident Project” was reported to numerous Federal resources apart from the compartmentalized FBI task force in Nevada. The mass murder of American civilians is a civil rights issue, homeland security issue, and national defense issue. Sheriff’s Offices in Counties outside of Nevada become interested stakeholders when their residents have been callously murdered, and a great many LEO’s understand that a city like Las Vegas may not beyond reproach. Citing the LVMPD’s FIT report as a conclusive and definitive source of reference is simply inadequate. For example, all ballistic data is being handled through the FBI, and all national airspace data is being handled by the FAA, the DoJ, and the DoD. Now, as I understand the wiki rules, this is not the forum for “proof”, so regardless of what data is produced to reaffirm these claims, it would appear they would be insufficient unless a major journal covered them. So we can leave these assertions where they stand.

      Now, with respect to the 4chan post. The behavior of the editors is irregular. “The Forward” explanation that the “The High Incident Project” was an antisemitic trope, is no more significant than the “Unilad” explanation that it was a surprising prediction. They are each valid media instances of reference to “The High Incident Project”, and it’s direct relation to the Las Vegas shooting atrocity. So why would the wikipedia page irrationally exclude mere mention of it, even in the “conspiracy theory” section? If the editor didn’t like the notion that I interpreted it to be surprisingly specific, than the correct edit would be to call it “vague” or something along those lines. Attempting to bury mere mention of it is highly unusual, hence the insinuation that wikipedia editors may be contributing to concealment and/or propaganda.

      Let’s discuss the 4chan post. Foremost, it’s no more antisemitic than an allegation against two bank robbers, who happen to be Christian, is “anti-Christian”. Nowhere in the 4chan post does the poster(s) say anything implicating or against the Jewish faith, Jewish people, Jewish values, etc. The fact that the two individuals mentioned by name, Michael Chertoff and Sheldon Adelson, are Jewish is completely irrelevant, and it is only “The Forward” and these editors who injected that anti-semitic filth into the conversation. Relevant to discussion is that one individual has major holdings in security system products, and the other ownership in the facilities in which those systems would be installed, as well as an alleged financial benefit from future corporate success from the products themselves. The Snopes article, and several wiki editors, have alleged that this is simply an instance of shift posting, and a common game amongst 4chan posters. Well, where is the proof in that? Can you provide instances of other posts predicting horrible events in a very public place, which happen to name specific individuals, specific corporate stock action, specific cities, and relatively accurate timeframes? Was there any other mass casualty event in America that this poster might have been referencing? Did any other mass casualty event occur between the time of the post and the time of the Las Vegas shooting? For low hanging fruit, how about simply citing another instance of “shift posing” generally. To dismiss the entirety of the claim, because the date was off by 5%, is incredulous. We’re not here to prove or disprove the validity of “The High Incident Project”, we’re simply talking about it’s inclusion in the bloody conspiracy theory section, because it is a relevant theory of conspiracy! Xanderarena (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  • In defense of the OP, it is always comforting when we find a new user who shows a mastery of our complex referencing templates on their second edit. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I did try to explain, both in the edit summaries and on the talk page. On 4chan deliberate shitposting is all part of the fun, and it shouldn't be elevated to a level that it doesn't deserve. I was looking for better sourcing than what was offered, and a clear understanding that this was a vague prediction that got key details wrong. It's like when people interpret vague verses by Nostradamus as predicting 9/11 or whatever.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I saw your explanation and I agree. But I don't think even Nostradamus couldn't have predicted Alabama would be up 28-0 in the first quarter, or the grace with which Jalen Hurts accepted his new role as second quarterback. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The Las Vegas final police report doesn't say anything about the 4chan thread [8] This pretty much rules it out from being mentioned in the article, because there is no evidence that they ever took it seriously.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Respectfully, you did not allow an opportunity for correction, but rather chose to censor/delete outright, thereby creating an “edit war” where none was needed. You asked for better sourcing, and I provided it. If your interpretation of the 4chan post is that it was merely vague, than it may have been appropriate to place that supposition via an edit to the wiki article, not to delete a relevant portion of text which included numerous documented references.Xanderarena (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For the integrity of an open source Wiki, consider an edit like this - * A 4chan pol thread surfaced which had preemptively warned the public of a forthcoming mass murder event in the Las Vegas area. The alleged criminal conspiracy was called “The High Incident Project”, whose motive was attributed to profiteering from future security regulations.[1][2] “The High Incident Project” claim was posted to numerous conspiracy theory outlets, and several smaller publications such as Unilad [3] and The Forward. [4] The surprising claim is still unproven, according to Snopes.[5]Xanderarena (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I don't think that either User:ianmacm or I need to be lectured on Wikipedia's integrity. Snopes is a great source, but using it to verify that something is bullshit is not the right way to write an encyclopedia; it seems, rather, like a way to draw attention to something which needs no attention drawn to it. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ref

References

  1. ^ "Anonymous ID:LAbNFEtv". 4chan. September 10, 2017. Retrieved October 3, 2017.
  2. ^ "Anonymous ID:LAbNFEtv". 4chan. September 10, 2017. Retrieved October 3, 2017.
  3. ^ "Las Vegas Attack Was 'Predicted Online' A Month Ago". UniladTalk discussion. Retrieved September 27, 2018.
  4. ^ "Las Vegas Conspiracy Theory Spreads On Web — Fueled By Age-Old Anti-Semitic Tropes". The Forward. October 5, 2017. Retrieved September 27, 2018.
  5. ^ "Did an Anonymous 4chan User Predict the Las Vegas Shooting Three Weeks in Advance?". Snopes. October 6, 2017. Retrieved September 25, 2017.

Possible R/D

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

Hello D. When you have a moment would you take a look at the edits by 64.134.165.121 (talk · contribs). While the vandalism is obvious I am wondering whether they (and the edit summaries) merit R/D. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 02:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As I look further this has been going on for some time. IPs 2600:1017:B82F:5DD:D4E5:4BAE:12CE:2E66 (talk · contribs) and 2600:1017:B825:C3F6:FC53:AE1A:1EA8:F077 (talk · contribs) have been at the same thing. MarnetteD|Talk 02:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Holy shit. What a page full of lame-ass behavior by our recent change patrollers. RHcosm, why did you not report this--and why did you call this racist BS "Unconstructive editing"? Willondon, WTF did you call this [Unconstructive editing "unsourced"] for? You've been here a decade and you still can't recognize racism, and act accordingly? ElongatedMusketeer, this wasn't worth reporting? You all should take this edit by JarrahTree as an example: they obviously looked around in the history to see what all was going on, and they acted on it, with a note added to their AIV report. KGirlTrucker81? Dimsar01? Thank you Marnette--and by the way, pretty shitty on the part of the AIV admins too, letting that sit there for a half an hour, but then we're all volunteers. Materialscientist just beat me to it: I edit-conflicted on the block. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You challenge my actions. I am a volunteer, and can withdraw my efforts at any time and for whatever reason. From a few months ago, I have regularly inspected new changes, but I have placed no badge on my page, nor expected privelege, nor accepted more obligation. I suggest that in this case, and many others, non-admins may have been dispirited by the unresponsive result of an insufficiency of resources. You are but one admin, and I am but one editor. I suggest that the solution here depends on a systematic change: perhaps recruiting more admins across the time zones, and perhaps allowing partial admin powers to various editors according to how they could and would wield them. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
That is to say: "unsourced" is the most honest way I could describe my revert, without looking foolish. Willondon (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Willondon, "RV RACIST TRASH; ADMIN ALERT" is, in my book, a perfectly acceptable edit summary--"rv unsourced" is not, since the idea of sourcing that a certain ethnicity or nationality stinks is repugnant. Take it as constructive criticism with a hint of rage that this racist trash was added a dozen times or more without any meaningful action being taken. I also think that blocking admins need to look carefully at what they're blocking for. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
We well understand the repugnant nature of hate. At question is the slow administrative repsonse on this, and other issues. Everyone is challenged by a shortage of resources, so don't shit all over the volunteers who are trying. Willondon (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Do you see how there's no other power than to say "unsourced" for us? Willondon (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC) And of course the responsible editor would never express things in all caps. Willondon (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Willondon but I call BS: "rv unsourced" is HARDLY the only thing you can do. You can write an edit summary by yourself. You can use the entire dictionary if you want to. Nor do you have to tell me what the "responsible editor" would do--the real responsible editor, faced with a disgusting racist remark, would try to get an administrator's attention, and doing that in all-caps might make it stand out enough in Recent changes for an admin to notice. Saying that I'm the one shitting on volunteers is kind of shitty, given that I actually did something to scrub racist trash from the project, and suggesting that "rv unsourced" is all you could do is simply not true. Don't they teach you all about AIV? About ANI? About AN? About looking through Recent changes to see what admins are around so you can leave them a note? Drmies (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Points taken. I will continue trying to get an admin's attention. But I don't think I'll ever be able to steel myself to express in all caps. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this one edit slipped through the R/D Drmies. I know it is late where you are so if you are off-wikiP if one of your TPWs can nuke it that would be great. MarnetteD|Talk 03:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Done; thank you again Marnette. Just got done assisting my daughter with a school project...at 11 PM... Drmies (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I thanked for your suggestion on IP's talk page but when I see your talk page, I'm really frustrated by your comments. I'm relatively new editor and I don't know all the policies of wikipedia. I placed level 2 warning on that IP's talk page for their bad edit. I really didn't know to report for very first edit. You are sdministrator and I respect you but you could have used soft words for my first mistake. Thanks--RHcosm (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
RHcosm, see it as constructive criticism, or an attempt at it. Look, if you're hanging out with some people or you're at a work meeting or shooting pool, and someone says "Oh yeah, [name of group of people] really stink and they totally stink up the sea they swim in"--I hope you don't tell them, "hey, sorry, I think that comment is not constructive" when it's blatantly racist. I have a feeling there is way too much reliance on automated tools with their pre-set edit summaries and rationales. You always have the opportunity to click "undo" and to write your own edit summary, and to write your own warning on the editor's talk page, and to file a report or seek an admin's assistance. I have the feeling that racist bullshit shouldn't be on Wikipedia isn't really taken seriously, and obviously I'm not just talking about your one edit: there were a whole bunch of them. But seriously, level 2 is "Oh, I'm sorry, but I think you may want to reconsider what you just wrote"--when they were obviously being a racist dick, and a look at the history would have made clear that it wasn't the first time.

For many editors, it seems to me, it's a case of editcountitis: revert as much as you can, as quick as you can, and let the Twinkle machine take care of the paperwork. It's a great machine but this was a case where editors should have gone manual. Listen, I'm a volunteer too, but because this wasn't tackled earlier I had to revdelete almost an entire page out of the history, and maybe that article should have been semi-protected earlier, and etc. And in the meantime, the racist BS was there in the history still, and some little prick was giggling over it, having his little friends slap him on the back. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"editcountitis: revert as much as you can, as quick as you can, and let the Twinkle machine take care of the paperwork" That's not true for everybody. See one editor's response to Rollback. Some of us just don't like to make statements that we can't back up... without the help of an administrator. Willondon (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your service. There are too few of you. Willondon (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
But that's the thing, Willondon: if you say something like what I suggested, first of all I will trust you, and then I'll look. Otherwise it's just another vandal edit. And judging from your comments, I'd trust you with rollback/Twinkle. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Out of idle curiosity

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What did they have to say about me? The notification only hints at its colour and metaphorical depth  :) —54129 12:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

ANI

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mentioned you at ANI in relation to this thread, I imagine you already got the ping. Yunshui 雲水 08:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Check your email

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
 
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. — ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
You get $5? Man, I only get a dollar in my emails... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Aww damn it... *Oshwah empties wallet*. No cash - do you take a check? lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Mansfield College, Oxford‎

Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

I'm a childish vandal. The article has very few watchers; maybe it needs more. The material at issue isn't as bad as stuff I've reported here before, but it still strikes me as off. Besides, shouldn't editors be sanctioned for writing books in their edit summaries? Oh yeah, this is Oxford. We must be high fallutin'. Where's Elgar when you need him?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps things would have gone differently if we had been a little more civilized to him in the first place? We're well on our way to chasing off yet another possible contributor. His first good faith edit was labelled vandalism; when he does the same thing - from his experience, that's how people talk to each other around here - he's threatened with a block. Things would admittedly be easier to manage around here if we had a "all new editors can fuck right off" notice above the edit window. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I may not have been warm and fuzzy (not my style), but I wasn't "uncivilized"; nor did I label any of his edits as vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say you did. I said his first edit. Look at his contributions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what you meant, but you seem to be far more concerned with keeping a new misbehaving editor than keeping low-quality material out of articles. Read his comments on my Talk page if you haven't already. It's clear that he wants to do what he wants to do and damn everyone else. Does this sound like a potentially good editor to you? Plus, he knows far than he should about Wikipedia. He knows what a minor edit is, which is more than many do.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is related, then I'm super confused? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Floq: this leading to that. That World of Books article is a regularly reoccurring tirritant, and I assume that Xanthomelanoussprog is killing two birds with one stone. Bbb23, I've had it with this dude. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for all the trouble. You tried your damndest (which is way better than good) to talk to this, uh, whatever, and you pretty much proved what I said above: he doesn't give a rat's ass about Wikipedia, its "manual" (as you put it), or anyone who disagrees with him. Hopefully, he'll go away; if not, maybe someone will block him. I would if I could. G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't see the fuss myself - it's certainly true & I would say relevant. Is the source actually a "brochure", if p. 61 is still discussing the early plans? Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Coffee table book? But I was reading a document online of that title, without any information at all. In the absence of bibliographical information... Drmies (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Oh - no, it's a 176 page book, written by an outsider who writes this sort of thing. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it's a coffee table book, "published" by a company that publishes "high-quality, beautiful books in partnership with you". Come on Johnbod--that "outsider" is a hired gun. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It rather small for a coffee table book. All authors are hired guns. I'm still not seeing the problem - it is a most unusual feature for an Oxbridge college before WW2. Johnbod (talk)
Come on. Being paid by a publisher or out of royalties, or publishing an academic book, isn't the same as being hired to write a celebratory volume. But have it your way. If it's so unusual, I'm sure you can find a truly independent source that makes the general statement and argues that this is unusual. I don't need an update, Johnbod--thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Promote Your Book and Encourage Early Alumni Investment". Like many organisms, the book industry has a front end and an arse end. "Your book" will enter the front end and come out the arse end, which is a volunteer working in a charity shop sorting through several tons of donated books, bagging them up and dispatching them to World of Books, who will either sell it for a penny or send it to be pulped. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    "My book" will be brilliant and beautiful, and judged to be so by all five of its readers. I promise you one thing: it will be very expensive, both at the front and the arse end. I once ran into this off-print academic publication on Ebay or Amazon, you know, one of those books that's $140 when it first comes out; the seller wanted, I can't remember, $300 or so. I offered $10 and told em they either accept that or they're stuck with it forever. Never heard back. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I bought a 1930s book on signwriting for 50p from a market stall; sold it to a Swede for £30. Somewhere in Sweden there's a man up a ladder, clutching a paintbrush and swearing, as he's just painted "IKAE" in ten-foot-high letters. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Must introduce you to the Reverend Timothy East, highly-regarded author and supposed Chartist, who managed to ingratiate himself with George Mansfield's dimwitted sisters to the point where he could take over inept businessman George's inherited wealth, parlaying it into founding a religious college, and an independent fortune for himself. So… the college is named after the victims of a fraudster. East appears to have some "subversive" credentials (promoted separation of church and state, and this supposed Chartist connection). Makes me wonder whether he doubled up as a government spy. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Why was the page reverted

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, I was wondering what is wrong about the page (Tan Jianci) that I have edited yesterday. Katieliao (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Esther (1986 film)

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Drmies and Drmies talk page watchers. Was wondering if some others would take a look at Talk:Esther (1986 film)#Excessive citations and provide some fresh guidance. A new IP editor (the article’s creator) apparently doesn’t like others trivializing his/her work by posting legitimate comments on the article talk page, so he/she just removes them. I’ve already tried explaining things at User talk:87.70.97.132#Removing article talk page posts made by others, but wasn’t very successful. Anyway, some fresh eyes on this would be most appreciated. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks like someone was trying to write a Master's Thesis but ran out of interest in actually writing. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks stepping in and posting what you did on the article take page. We edit conflicted, but you basically posted what I was going to post. The IP was starting to move in a WP:PRAM direction, but maybe now they’ll be more open to feedback from others. IP did something similar on Berlin-Jerusalem, but I figured it’s probably better to try and cleanup one article at a time. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure thing. It's a fascinating topic and the IP collected some great source material. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Marchjuly, I'm tired of that person. If you want to go ahead and work on it, expanding text with sources, let me know and I'll be glad to help. Or if you want to prune the list of references, I'll back you up. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
        • The IP does seem to be missing the point on a pretty much everything. Their uber-defensiveness is something which seems to be a common trait by of COI editors, but the IP said there’s no connection. I’ve made some improvements, but I can’t verify all of the sources. There’s a movie poster on the IMDb which mostly likely can be uploaded and used per WP:NFCCP, but I’m stuck editing using my smartphone so can’t do that right away. I also asked at WikiProject Film for assistance, so maybe more editors will get involved.
          I need to go to sleep now since it’s way past my bed time. The strangest thing about this whole kerfufle is that the IP seems especially concerned about the article talk page becoming uglified by people posting on it, but that’s kinda the point of talk pages. People are supposed to post on them. — Marchjuly (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
        • IP displaying the same behavior at WT:FILM. — Marchjuly (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
          • I don't know about a COI--if they really had one they would probably act differently. Oh, they think the talk page is ugly? Sheesh. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
            • IP has reaffirmed there’s no COI, so no reason for me not to WP:AGF on that. It was very late/very earlier when I made that post and was probably something I shouldn’t have brought to the table for discussion. I didn’t realize the IP is unable to edit here, and they couldn’t really respond themselves to comments like that. I’ll be unable to edit from anything other than my phone for a quite a bit which makes major clean up stuff kind of hard. Would still appreciate your assistance as well as the assistance of any of your many tpw’s on moving the article slowly, but steadily in a positive direction. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

That LTA

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just dropped a new range block on 121.54.32.0/24

It had expired Oct 2nd. -- ferret (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Ha, bigger is better. I revdelete as well, since that Facebook page is either a BLP violation or masturbatory. And block TPA, while you're at it. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Acroterion#online? its urgent

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Acroterion#online? its urgent. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I can't tell what you did wrong: the "original" ends up at [[Santa Teresa CD], no? (Plus, I have to admit I have no clue about this round robin thing.) Drmies (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Episode Short Summaries for Non-fiction programmes - Do's and Don'ts

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. In your opinion, what are the right and wrong things to include to a plot summary for an episode of a Non-Fiction show, like a reality programme? GUtt01 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Well...in those reality shows, I suppose I know what not to do. Whatever one does, it should be kept short, and it should steer clear of interpretation, like ascribing emotions and such. They need not follow the chronology, and good summaries, esp. if they're short, frequently benefit from having a summarizing topic sentence. And typically one should decide which events are worthwhile mentioning given the length one sets--not all of them are... Hope that helps. Some people are really good at it, and it's probably helpful to look at an FA in that area. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

At it again

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hello D. First has 'bama had a game this season that they weren't ahead by more points than minutes played in the first half? Next the racist trolls are back at it on the Indian Ocean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. They have also targeted India (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Here are the IPs that I could find 184.147.122.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 38.99.190.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). While I was typing this Favonian zapped the edits and summaries on the Indian Ocean article but the DAB page still needs some R/D. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You rubbed the magic lamp, oh Master! Favonian (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Favonian. Speaking of lamps with trapped people inside Bernard and the Genie is a little gem and a holiday season tradition in my home. If you can find it seeing Alan Cumming so very young is worth watching it alone. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. WTF is wrong with some people. Marnette, Tua threw more touchdowns than incompletes. I'm just surprised by the defense giving up these big plays. Wait, they got 31 points? (I admit, I went and did some dishes, worked on our Pinewood derby cars. I can't tell you what my car is going to be; it's a surprise. At least we didn't miss that one field goal. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Just be happy you're not a Cornhusker fan. Ugh. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Southerner by the grace of God, as the saying goes... Drmies (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Ouch, 0-4? Drmies (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Extremely problematic material that involves you

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Please remove the TPA of User:205.134.252.60 , delete the talk page, and get the edit summary of the talk page creation revdel'd. It also involves User:L293D, but I'm contacting you first because you are an administrator. Thank you! Diamond Blizzard talk 00:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems another admin has already done so. Diamond Blizzard talk 01:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Next time, just remove it. Saying an editor raped another is a commonplace LTA insult and everyone knows its false. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Real subtle L293D... you've been doing a bang-up job of shouting things like that to the rooftops lately... it is a commonplace LTA insult but that doesn't mean you keep spread it around like the garbage it is. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that it's routine and I see no strong reason to Revdel. Asking on talk pages for revDel is just feeding the trolls. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Racist BS is routine too. You revdel it, and if you're not an admin you help with finding an editor. Thank you User:Diamond Blizzard--this is just another sad little person with no life seeing how far he can go. You can post this on AN too, which is full of admins with such tools. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies. Also, L293D, I understand what you mean, but I've seen revdel requests on talk pages and even ANI before with no one complaining. I thought only oversightable material should never be discussed at all on Wikipedia. I don't have an email address registered as well. And after all, if I'm dealing with trolls, I wouldn't want them to be able to email me. Diamond Blizzard talk 04:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Steff Fontaine

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Drmies. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Steff Fontaine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: article is a mess but performing with multiple notable bands and musicians indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 09:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, tsk tsk. How will you ever pass RfA with a CSD decline? Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll just use CU to unmask all my opponents as part of a grand conspiracy, and then I'll post it on Qanon's YouTube. Thanks SoWhy, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
All you need to prove a conspiracy is a post on 4chan, no CU evidence necessary Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Drmies is the healthiest editor ever.

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

And his hands are perfectly normally sized. Who would even suggest otherwise? MWGA. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a question

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey there, I noticed a recent revert edit you made on the Eagles of Death Metal page, and I had an inquiry as to what "prune spam" means and what it has to do with the specific link that was posted by 508blackhawkdrive. If you could explain it'd be greatly appreciated, thank you! XXCochiseXx (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Sure--look at the user's contributions. They've been adding links to articles from the same website in a whole bunch of articles, links that first of all aren't really OK per WP:EL, and since they've done that more than once it's obvious that they're just spamming. (Earlier sets of edits were similar, just for a different website, if I remember correctly.) It's possible that the link is to a reliable source, and that it has something to say about those topics--but in that case they should be used to verify information in the text. Hope that helps, Drmies (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pretty sure 109.92.24.218 is evading your block of 109.245.0.0/16 – same types of edits, even the same page in at least one case... Modernponderer (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Block on AttackTheMoonNow

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

I'm wondering if you could explain to me the WP:NOTHERE block on AttackTheMoonNow. Normally with such a block, there is a long-term pattern of edits that demonstrates they were WP:NOTHERE. In this case there was a total of 19 edits at the time you blocked him. Such an early indef block without prior warning is generally against WP:BITE. I understand that there were suspicions that he was a sock, but I assume you were not able to find him to be a sock as a checkuser or you would have blocked him for that instead. I also understand that he seemed to be a WP:SPA so far, but as he had less than a dozen edits this is understandable. Almost any account with less than a dozen edits is a SPA at that point. -Obsidi (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I think there was a pretty clear consensus that this user was not here to improve the encyclopedia. Their very first post called for the head of an administrator, with little in the way of specifics about the administrator and much in the way of forum complaining, and so did the subsequent twelve edits. I didn't run CU but I assume nothing was found, and I didn't consider socking as a reason for blocking. I assume you've seen Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Banned_from_a_page_without_due_process, so I don't have to go through to count how many admins and how many other editors thought this user wasn't here to improve our beautiful project, and of course three different admins refused to grant an unblock request. So, no, the account was not blocked for being a sock, or for being an SPA. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably much less relevant than anything above, but I think it is important to mention that attacking the moon now, or in any foreseeable timescale, is foolish and counterproductive. There's no infrastructure or military targets to attack, for one thing. If we were to attack the structure of the moon itself, firstly we have no weapons capable of doing significant damage to it, and secondly, destroying the moon would do more damage to us than it would to any opponents this fellow has in mind. (See The Wanderer (Leiber novel)). MPS1992 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The dishonesty in the post above mine is sickening. It's almost as if that editor is trying to convince the rest of us that there are no reptilians living on the dark side. We absolutely should be attacking the moon right effing now and we should be doing it with out entire nuclear arsenal. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Luckily, our fine government isn't asleep on the job. As far back as the 1950s, the US had surprisingly well-advanced plans for a nuclear attack on the moon. (How these plans came to light - only made public fifty years later by someone researching a biography of Carl Sagan - is an interesting story in its own right.) ‑ Iridescent 23:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Iridescent, it's on Wikipedia so it can't possibly true--or, wow! That is fascinating. And to think that we could have done this centuries ago already if only The Man in the Moone had been taken seriously. MPS, I don't quite know how to respond, but on the whole I agree. I can't help but think that perhaps the username was hyperbole? Just a thought. (And Mpants, I think I saw you earlier--I hope you didn't revert that removal of "theological".) Drmies (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Did you see the edit summary of the removal? lol ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
In (almost) proper iambic pentameter, Henry VI, Part 2: “First thing we do, let’s ban the Moonie paper”. Something like that; it’s been a while since I slept through English lit. O3000 (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I got an email today from one of those sleepers, following the midterm. They want extra credit. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Showing Up Is 80 Percent of life. O3000 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
You blocked him less than an hour after the thread was even opened and a handful of involved editors had commented. Are you really claiming to just be enforcing community consensus after such a short period of time with so few comments? At the time you blocked it looks like 3 of 10 users in the discussion had called for a block (none of those calling for a block was an admin), and one additional person endorsed it after the fact before it was closed. I wouldn't call that small number community consensus that quickly, would you?
And I would note that he raised a fairly good point, he was effectively banned from a page (ordered by an admin from editing ANYTHING to the page under thread of block), in which the admin did not have the power to ban (per WP:Banning policy). power~enwiki said it was "probably permitted under discretionary sanctions" but as far as I can tell it is not. There is no discretionary sanctions authorized on MfD that I am aware of (and even if there was, this was not logged as such). I am aware that his first edit was to call for the desysop of an admin. While I do not agree that what was done rises to the level of a desysop, I don't think the point is entirely unreasonable. (And no, he is not my sock feel free to check.) We had an admin effectively publicly claiming that anyone who thinks Trump is a "good President" should probably be banned. I know he latter said he wouldn't actually do that himself, but still this this is a threat over the heads of anyone who thinks Trump is a good president. I don't think its unreasonable for people to call for a desysop for such behavior. It was stupid for him to do so in that setting given no one there had the power to do so, but he probably didn't know that.
As to the other admins refusing to unblock, I think that is obvious why, each of his unblock requests were complaints that he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place which I think we both know that no other admin is going to unblock for that reason. Especially if the blocking admin (you) is saying this was imposed as a community sanction in which case they wouldn't even have the authority to reverse it.
So as he wasn't blocked for being a sock, I assume you must have WP:AGF that he really is a new editor who has made less then 20 total edits. Then please explain to me why is this block without any prior warning was not in violation of WP:BITE?-Obsidi (talk)
I said it was a community sanction? The other admins assume that I made it as a community sanction? Is that the third reason you incorrectly ascribe to me? I blocked him per NOTHERE, because I judged that the user was NOTHERE, based on their comments in that MfD. That in itself is separate from what Bbb said; I didn't block him because Bbb said this or that. If you have a problem with what Bbb said, take that up on Bbb's talk page. Or take it up at WP:AN. Or ask a clarification via ArbCom. What else? When I blocked one admin (Seraphimblade) had already suggested a block (you missed him, and he has a lovely head of hair), and three editors supported it. But the block was mine, I placed it, I didn't make it a community block. Are we done? If you wish to continue, please do so on the appropriate noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
You said there was a pretty clear consensus at ANI for the block, I took that as a description of a community sanction. I'm sorry if that isn't what you meant. I did not count Seraphimblade as he did not mention WP:NOTHERE, he did suggest that I would not be averse to blocking this account as a likely sock, but you said that wasn't the reason he was blocked, so I didn't count him. I still wish to know why this doesn't violate WP:BITE. -Obsidi (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It was a perfectly reasonable block, for the reasons Drmies has already stated; trolling is a blockable offense. If you disagree, you're welcome to take it to ANI, but an angry horde will likely call for boomerang sanctions against you there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed the block/unblock request and endorsed the block. This was clearly an account created solely to grind an axe against a single editor, and more than likely is a returning sockpuppet account with a grudge on a mission to troll. We are not obligated to AGF until it hurts, or give airtime to an abusive account in the name on not biting an editor whose blindingly obvious single mission is to attack another editor from the get-go. Real live brand new editors don't make their first edit to demand a scalp on an obscure messageboard known only to WP regulars. Their unblock rationales were disingenuous and mostly devoted to demands that we reinstate their editing privileges so they could go right back to complaining about Guy. Consensus on a noticeboard is not the same thing as a community sanction. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Frankly as for being a likely sock puppet, he quacked like a WP:DUCK to me, had that been the reason for the block you wouldn't see me complaining. But that wasn't the reason given and explicitly disclaimed as the reason by the admin above. -Obsidi (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I would have blocked maybe with a custom summary as a disruption-only/attack account, with added flavoring as a likely sock. To use the templated summaries, that's either disruptive editing or not here to improve the encyclopedia. Take your pick, it's not worth thinking about for very long, they're blocked either way, and you're reading too much into the block summary. We try to be a little careful about tagging block evasion unless there's a decent hunch about who it might be. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

User:DaiSaw

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can you make this user disappear?

He already seems to think his account has been deleted. He has never edited a mainspace article. He posts walls of text to talk pages, and he insists that ALL_CAPS is 'texture', not shouting.

[[9]]

And he admits that he is here for one reason, and that is nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia.

Thanks. MrDemeanour (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll take your rollback advice. I'll file the names of those 'real mean' guys, just in case... Thanks. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Big mistake

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Sorry, Drmies, but I am trying to correct a big mistake. The original title was "Italian colonists in Albania" that was changed to "Italians in Albania" as a mistake weeks ago, because it deals with ONLY the 20 years of fascism. I want to create now the article "Italians in Albania" that will deal with the centuries of Italian presence in Albania, from the middle Ages to our times. And this is the reason why I tried to return initially the old title to the one of the Italian colonists in Albania, that was changed by MISTAKE some weeks ago as I have said. And when I found blocked this return, I tried to do this inside "the Italian irredentism in Albania". Sorry if it is not easy to understand, but I can explain better if you want.--Esauster (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • No, you don't have to explain this to me--you have to explain this to the other editors who have an interest in this article. You may think that what happened is a mistake, but I bet the party that did it doesn't think so. Seek the article talk page for a consensus and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD don't go around moving pages and then copying and pasting content. That just creates more work for us administrators, and that part of our job is unpaid. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I think Esauster is making a valid point here; the article was entirely about Italian colonists until two weeks ago Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter, no content discussion on my talk page please; it's covered by discretionary sanctions pertaining to the Balkans and I don't want to make any more enemies. Before you know it someone makes a false move and invites everyone over for Doner kebab, and then the one says hey what about gyros, and some Canadian says no no no donair, eh? and another goes y'all are a bunch of fascists by excluding Dürüm, and of course I demand Kapsalon, and next think you know we're at war again and someone gets shot in Sarajevo. Do you see the madness starting? No, we're strictly business here--and no jokes, please. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Esauster, if you are unable to move a page, you can request a move at WP:RMTR. Anyways, I have moved back the page, and you can now create the article at Italians in Albania Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. No problem. Sorry again for the mess……...But the article is wrong right now, believe me. The 20 years of fascism irredentism and colonialism are not ALL the history of the "Italians in Albania". Anyway, have my best salute.--Esauster (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC) (Oh, sorry again, I see that Galobbter has written that I can write the "Italians in Albania": thanks again and.....sorry again for the mess, Drmies....(;-D)…..)
The article was named Italian colonists in Albania till some time ago. Creating a separate Italians in Albania would be a good idea. However, I'd suggest Esauster gain some experience before moving and redirecting pages, everyone needs time to learn all technical aspects of Wikipedia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Esauster, again--it's really not about content; I have no content dispute with anyone, as long as I get mayo on my kapsalon, and Louisiana Hot Sauce instead of sambal. It's all about technical stuff: us admins HATE having to deal with page histories.

And now wait for it--I give it five minutes for User:Xanthomelanoussprog to make a pun, ten minutes for User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris to connect doner and hot sauce to some topic from 19th-c Russian history, and in between User:Martinevans123 is going to drop a link in small font to some YouTube video containing five minutes from Benny Hill. Mark my words. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Did someone say The Italian Albanians Job....?? [10]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I was going to make a pun, but a search led me to some YouTube Serb nationalist nonsense about Kosova/o, and then I started thinking about the Croatian Franciscan monks who organised murder competitions in the WW2 camps for exterminating Serbs and I thought screw it. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Ugh. Man. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry about undoing your merge. Someone kept vandalizing and blanking the lead section, so I was trying to restore it and remove the vandalism that user left. Just letting you know my intent was to revert the vandalism, not the merge :) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Vox Article on Deep State

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Did you read the whole article in context? I understand why first impressions without reading the whole context might seem like that they didn't mean it. -Obsidi (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You must read this 1,700 word blog post in full before stating that blog posts aren't WP:RS. Didn't you know that? Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no dispute that it is a reliable source, the question is what did it mean. Obviously he doesn’t need read the whole thing to have an to have an opinion on that. (Which is why I asked rather than assume he had.) Still context can be helpful in understanding the meaning of a text. -Obsidi (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted some clarification.

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For a few days, I’d somehow found myself universally blocked for a month by you for “Disruptive editing and socking, going on for a while.” Rather bizarre, considering I’ve never been guilty of either in eleven years as an everyday editor. Stranger still, I tried filing an unblock request via Wikilabs (couldn’t even add an {{unblock}} tag to my page), and was told neither my account nor IP was blocked. The block quickly vanished within a few days, and I’m not holding any grudges; but, I was just wondering how this manifested? KirkCliff2 (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Username

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

<whimsy>Interesting, I never considered my username exceptionally odd... nor did I consider usernames in general very functional as mood rings.</whimsy> VQuakr (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Article history query

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I was wondering if it would be possible for the history of Kim Dong-han to be deleted prior to the latest edit, or for it to appear as a new article completely? I moved the article to namespace from my sandbox, but forgot about it's history until I checked after the move, and upon reflecting think it would likely have been better for me to have started as a new article rather than moving my sandbox. Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, I wasn't sure where would be appropriate. Alexanderlee (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock on Qigong

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a heads up Drmies, I have filed a a SPI report on this user about vandalising but suspecting under different offensive usernames. Sheldybett (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Look

Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

3RR or more, too many anyway, - I tried on the IP's talk, but what does an IP know about talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Next look please at Talk:Arvo Pärt where some including me were called nationalists, which probably is not a personal attack but feels like it. (warning: waste of time has been mentioned, several times. Short way: join RfC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Although Gustav Holst is "English" (unlinked, as are the ethnicity of RVW, Elgar, Davies, Berkeley, Delius and Ireland), his mother was "mostly British". Luke Bedford is British, as is Ronald Binge. Maybe as composers rise up the ranks they transform from being "British" to being "English"; Binge was born in Derby, which is 20 miles from the centre of England, but maybe his mother was "all British". If people don't know what the difference between "English" and "British" is, why not help them. :) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I re-ordered no. 6 in ascending alphabetical order of conductor's surname. Reverted No. 9 'cos the only source I can think of for that kind of stuff would be BBC Radio 3's Building a library. I mean, this is not the Grateful Dead; one performance of a symphony's going to sound pretty much like another, unless it's Toswangler or Fürtcanini conducting. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Another IP not understanding the concept of no edit war. One word, imagine. - Different question: Francis Schonken undermind his authority enough that you don't have to look at his contribs for a year. I'd like to see some older ones reverted, this for example, where he reverted a compromise, by misunderstanding the discussion, or just counting votes, even some that were modified. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The Discography Anorak's back. a) Make up a nonsense word b) Revert using the phrase "Edit to remove [nonsense word]' c) Learning through stress- the reverted editor will now have the nonsense word imprinted in their brain. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

My Username is also Odd

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I actually just had to add a comment to a Wikipedia page for a college class. So don't take my critique too seriously infact I may delete my whole page after the class has ended. But I thought I should let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JO88888888 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • JO88888888, I know: I saw, which is why I left you the comment. But I have to take this seriously, just as you should take the class seriously. NOT THAT WE WANT STUDENTS TO ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING--let alone enjoy themselves! And the more you put in, the higher your grade will be. It's all good. But yeah, I can't possibly see how many 8s there are in your name. Thirty years from now you'll remember I said this. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I take my class and my education quite seriously actually, so I reject the fact that you assumed otherwise. I honestly don't see what was so horrific about my suggestion for someone to add citations where they were requested. I am new to Wikipedia, but I wouldn't assume that that was that abnormal of a thing to bring up. Keep in mind this is all just one girl's opinion. And there are eight, eights with my initials. It was something I could easily remember, but I do apologize for all the trouble my username has caused you.JO88888888 (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

arbcom statement

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

That was quite daft deft of you.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thing was, I read her comment twice and found myself in complete agreement. Weeeell she praised the prose a bit too much, I think, but she said it very nicely, and of course this being Wikipedia Bish can't claim ownership. Note that I provided attribution. Srsly I had a thing or two to say about the matter in the ANI thread, but yeah, this is not for ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Mystery Case Files

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, can you merge List of Mystery Case Files games with main article to stop thé war i create and clean the mess over the Two articles? Please and thank for understand my regrets of the situation.Anonyme1989 (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Yep, we've been conversing on it as the day went. I think we're landed where the user wanted. That article needs a lot of work still but for now, it's all together. -- ferret (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Batun Nur temple

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Drmies, please respect my edit and take it seriously. If you see any errors with the actual format please kindly fix them DO NOT REWORD THE Sentences. I have done that for a reason.

Ok well someone already banned me IDK why?? Im just trying to prove a point here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffykin1 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffykin1 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

85.242.48.58 evading block

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

85.242.48.58 (talk · contribs) is evading its block with IP address 85.243.168.182 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Now it's using a new IP address 83.223.243.120 (talk · contribs) (same edits as 85.243.168.182). SLBedit (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Drmies- I'm posting here for some advice, because you did happen to drop in and make a passing comment on this users talkpage not long ago during a discussion about the BLP Kate Fischer. Original issues were lack of sourcing, then bad sourcing combined with way to much detail and trivia (at one time it took up half the article). I thought just improve the sourcing and limit to a paragraph, but after looking at the refs available- theres not much that isn't tabloidish, even the RS that cover it are clearly using stuff straight from the tabloids in an "according to an interview in " sort of way. Discusson has not been constructive- I realise the editor is new, but I am starting to wonder about CIR and NOTTHERE. There is a constant flow of snark, aspersions re my supposed COI and paid editing; he posted a malformed protection template to the talkpage yesterday and doesn't appear to be at all interested in trying to understand how BLP, sourcing and refrencing, or even Wikipedia, works. I was composing a post to WP:BPLN for some outside input, only to find he is now being pretty uncivil to another user, telling them I'm a paid editor on the talkpage, loading up the article with probabably BLP violating edits that have not gained consensus, while apparently insisting editors need to discuss any reverts on the talkpage first, otherwise he will put them right back in! The whole thing has been going on off and on since June. So now I'm not sure what to do. Ignore and just post to BLPN- is Ani too extreme? or am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Curdle (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Holy moly--I just looked at the history. Yes, this needs something, like dispute resolution, but BLPN is a really good start, if you happen to be posting when the right editors are watching, the ones who aren't afraid to dive in and actually work on the article. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

User:Northatlantic320 has been edit warring on 2018 Pacific hurricane season and created a similar title article to avoid the full protection on Tropical Depression Twenty-Three-E (2018). Im fairly certain that Oshwah is offline now. FigfiresSend me a message! 18:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

He violated the full page protection on the Tropical Depression Twenty-Three-E (2018) redirect by creating this. Appears the user who was reporting him at ANEW wants me to report the edit warring part now, but I thought the part about violating the page protection deserves mention here. FigfiresSend me a message! 18:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
By the way, Figfires, my Twinkle wasn't working, so I couldn't get the ANEW report up. Sorry about bothering you. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 18:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Its just that I'm fed up of users removing information from articles I have created. Northatlantic320 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Northatlantic320: Please read our general notability guidelines. You're welcome to contribute, but not on unremarkable tropical depressions that are already covered by a larger article. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 18:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Q.E.D.

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I think his comment you called him out on rather supports the meaning of the message of the essay in question.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • For starters it begs the question of identity. Being a Trump supporter isn't much of an identity either. Generalized or even stereotyped condemnation of a group of people, if that is even what JzG would be doing, isn't the same as playing "identity politics", as he is being accused of, unless "identity politics" really means nothing at all. At the very least I want Masem to recognize that using loaded words is simply not helpful (and you may know that I thought that having that content on JzG's user page was problematic...). Drmies (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to agree. because they have put so much weight on standing steadfast on policies and guidelines related to reliable sources. is another problematic quote. Is it really an issue that we stick to reliable sources? Y'know, our policies regarding reliable sources and using them only happen to be the core content policies or non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker)I just saw what this was about thanks to the link above. I agree that that is an odd use of the phrase "identity politics", but I would point out that conservative commentators use the term as a bit of a catch-all: Since political opinions are part of our identity, they can get away with labeling any political opinion they don't like as "identity politics" (a term they established during the first decade of this century to be a Bad Thing™) and that seems to be exactly what Masem was doing.
The only thing I find truly confusing is the notion that a Joni Mitchell cover of Unchained Melody is somehow intimately associated with middle-aged, middle-class white guys. After all, I'm a middle-aged, middle-class white guy and I'd rather listen to this.* ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
*

that link is probably NSFW. Blurry boobies abound.

Me too. where's my geritol?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Just imagine, "my child's a stranger, I bore her...but I could not raise her." I have never heard more truth in any black metal album than is in those lines. It's not an "association"; rather, it's a statement, an identification. You may not like it, but I believe there's some accuracy to it. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Ahhh, I see it. I saw the title and assumed it was a cover of the classic made famous by the Righteous Brothers. But it's a completely different work that does speak to middle-aged middle-classness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Bahun

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for the assistance at Bahun - I'm attempting to hammer out a compromise solution between the two disputants, but so far it's very early days. Honestly, fascinating things like this consubstantial funeral ceremony are exactly what gets me excited by Wikipedia so I hope we can do something better than just deleting the topic. Probably a good idea to keep half an eye on this one though. Anyway, thank you again.

Reporting Vandalism, etc

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, I hope this isn't wasting your time. User:ElCucuy1981 has been here for nearly two months, during which time his Contributions indicate the only things he has done are create his userpage, create a draft article about himself(Draft:Cian Gleeson), and make one vandalistic edit, in which he gratuitously reversed the result of the only opinion poll in that article. The edit was reverted by another editor a minute later. (Incidentally, both his user page and his Draft, tho actually rather amusing, are such that an unwary or naive or very young reader might at least arguably confuse them with a genuine Wikipedia article, perhaps especially if reading from a mirror site.) I am insufficiently familiar with disciplinary matters to know whether this kind of behavior needs to be dealt with or is best ignored, so I thought I'd mention it to the admin I respect most, and let you decide what, if anything, should be done about it. Once again, my apologies if this proves an unnecessary waste of your time. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and Regards.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

OrCAD

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Drmies, I wonder what's your beef with the OrCAD article to revert me twice on what I would consider restoring the "status quo" by undoing a careless if not near-disruptive edit by the editor who removed the history section recently - he thereby destroyed what has been the actual core of the article so far. It was quite informative and stable for many years. I am not involved with OrCAD and it is decades ago that I used their tool myself, so I am not prepared to write an article about them or it. Also, I have only contributed some minor stuff to this article so far. But I'm interested enough in the topic of EDA tools in general to not like seeing such info being destroyed - in particular not by drive-by-editing. I expect to find exactly this kind of encyclopedic information (and more) in such articles - we are doing the same for other EDA tools.

Yes, it would be possible to split out the company info, but at less than 15 KB the article is very far away from actually needing a split - it might be necessary in a couple of years, when enough information has been accumulated, but not now. For as long as we don't need to disambiguate different articles, I think, a title "OrCAD" is also appropriate for a company named "OrCAD Systems Corporation" (we have lots of company articles residing under commonly used but shortened company names). We even have a redirect pointing to it. So, I really don't see the pressing needs to perform a split now, and even less to remove the info altogether. This is opposite to our normal procedure of incrementally growing an article over years in collaboration until it is really ripe for a split.

Anyway, for some reason you seem to have a strong opinion on it, otherwise you would not have reverted your fellow editor twice. I would appreciate your reconsideration (perhaps after checking the article history), in particular as normally a stable status quo stays when a bold edit isn't meet with agreement - and I do not agree with its removal.

Thanks and greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't have "beef", and I simply disagree with you completely. I think the argument (keep the company history in there) is not a strong one, and thus I fully support the edit by Toddst1, an editor with plenty of experience. You are welcome to make your case on the talk page. But here is something else: this article is such a god-awful mess, with histories and chronologies that don't seem to match very well, because none of the "product" entries have release dates or other indications of chronology. The history of PSpice is broken up in two parts, with the more recent part coming first. Layout is discontinued, but it never started; CIS has a "latest iteration" but comes ex nihilo. If you want that lengthy and highly confusing company history in there, you'll have to do a lot more than just revert me, and one of the things that should be cleared up as well is the lead, which right now uses "the company" as if this is simple, and it isn't, since that company is no more. But the fact remains that this combination of basically product description and poorly-matched (former/founding) company history is a very poor match. Creating a separate article, a content fork, is a very simple thing, BTW. And if you want to keep what you call the "core" of the article, fork off the product suite, which is owned by a different company anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have nominated this promotional article for deletion after searching for indications of notability. Bongomatic 02:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This is Not A Booty Call

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. DoctorSpeedWant to talk? —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

local sea lion

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Hey. I guess you're referring partly to me with the local sea lioning comment. I hope this isn't how you view me as an editor. Bishonen has recently made a comment about me here which somewhat surprised me, given that I don't think I've ever interacted with them. I have biases. They influence my editing, no question about it. I can only try to accept where I've been wrong and try to get better. In the case at question with Ingraham, I misunderstood the sourced article. I didn't get the sentence structure in the source - I thought anti-immigrant referred to Trumpism, not Ingraham. I asked a couple times for clarification but didn't get any, until a few replies later from Snoogans where I finally got it. Sure, that's my fault for not understanding, but I'm trying. I don’t have a lot of time to spend on Wikipedia, but I edit Wikipedia because I think it is important. I believe in the core values, and I told all my friends and family how an article I started was recently feature on the front page. I think I'll take some time off political topics on Wikipedia, due to the direction it is heading. For example I find this diff to be particularly ridiculous. Here we have a claim against a living person - that he was involved in drugging and multiple gang rapes over a 2 year period - and I called this claim "wild," which was redacted per BLP against the claimant! If this is how it works then I don't understand the policies enough to participate. Maybe the Vols can bring me some joy tomorrow, but it seems very unlikely. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have biases. They influence my editing, no question about it. We all have biases. If they affect your editing, try editing articles where you have no biases. [12] O3000 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with you. Everyone's biases affect their editing. As long as your editing follows policies there's no problem. Most editors edit topics they are interested in, and have biases about. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Interests may very well affect, to some extent, your choice of articles; but biases should never affect how you go about editing them. I have an interest in music. But when Meghan Trainor appeared in the NYT Sunday crossword three weeks back for winning an undeserved (IMO) award, I didn’t go edit her article (which I assume exists) to try to find WP guidelines to change anything. (Although I did add a spoiler here. ) O3000 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep. Everyone has biases. And if you're honest enough to admit them, you can get dragged off to Arbcom. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, maybe they didn't get that you didn't get that. It did look a bit like you were stonewalling, intentionally or not. That is the kind of thing that makes for difficult editing, and I remember editors being topic-banned for doing that all-too regularly. Speaking of stonewalling, your Vols aren't doing so well--I missed a touchdown while I was putting up dishes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, that is an interesting case. I noted in the ANI thread that I think it weakens the admin's position--of course he did a bit more than admitting his bias, and admitting bias wasn't really his purpose anyway. (Wow, Mr Ernie, and now one of your guys is ejected. Can't see the actual infraction.) Yeah, JzG is outspoken, but I've never doubted his judgment, though I think (and I think he agreed with my saying that) that it hampers him when adminning in that area, and God knows we need admins in that area. OK Mr Ernie--I'm watching these Alabama players perform at a level I've never seen college players do their thing. Tua is great but holy moly he's got a set of players around him who make him even better. No, I wasn't in the stadium in 2004 or 2006, though I was in town when we beat Peyton, and when I was at Tennessee as a lecturer the football program was waning. Knoxville was a nice place to live though I blame my daughter's asthma on it, on those sixty lanes of interstate running right through it. OMG that was touchdown no. 4. Boris, I think we're getting the ball from the one place to the other place. Take care, Drmies (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, Mr Ernie, I wasn't really thinking of you, and maybe it wasn't really about any single person. I don't know about the Kavanaugh thing, though I understand that that claim (the Avenati claim, right?) was indeed wild...*check*...no, "wild claim" was certainly no BLP violation, IMO. As for the Vols, HA! What was it I saw...no one has ever been able to post a Tennessee victory picture on Instagram? (Unless it was an old one.) Oh! Vol fans sing "Rocky Top" all the time, since if they only sing it after a victory they'll forget the words. And you've seen this? No, I take the Vols seriously; this is never easy. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Re your ping, Mr Ernie. Well, we have sort of interacted. I hesitate to link to our point of intersection in 2017, since it was quickly and for good reason blanked by a clerk. But it hasn't been oversighted, so what the hell, here it is. You're probably right that we haven't interacted, though — you were the only one who acted — since I preferred not to reply to that, and have in fact tried to avoid you ever since. But it was a long time ago, I'm over it, and am now considering resuming — or indeed beginning — relations by putting some comments about your recent editing at Talk:Laura Ingraham on your own page, which is obviously a better place for them than here. I'll just have to see if I find the time. And also to see if maybe the way you sound so sad above spoils my taste for upbraiding you. Bishonen | talk 07:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC).
Thanks for the response - I had forgotten about it. I'm glad you are over it. I'm not sad, far from it. Things are going better than ever (except for football, although last week was great). Don't let me spoil your taste for anything, and I would welcome your comments about my editing. At this point, however, I think I'm going to steer clear from political topics. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You couldn't make this game up. TN keeps the follies going and AL looks like they play in the NFL.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Another r/d request

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello D. Please take a look at this edit and see if the revealing of info merits r/d. As ever thanks for you time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Compuserve!

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Well, you did ask....
Message added 15:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GABgab 15:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Richard Witschge

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey there, how's it going? Hopefully well...

Just finished cleaning up/sourcing more this article, but can not quite properly translate the reference #13 (hopefully, all the other in Dutch i translated well)... And this, my dear wiki-friend, is where you come in if you please!

Continue the odissey, pleasant and stormy, regards from Portugal --Quite A Character (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Restoring trolling means you own it

Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

I have a lot of respect for you, but you should stay out of areas you don't know or care to know about. [13] 72bikers lost their talkpage access because they restored that attack post, after I replaced it with "personal attack removed". They regularly clear their talkpage but preserve attacks against me there since April 2018 while insisting I can't post any response. You reposted that nonsense, so effectively you made it yourself. Would you appreciate me posting a bunch of lies about you? Would you appreciate an Admin coming by and making such a post about you? Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  • If you do that on your own talk page, and what you say isn't racist or whatever, yeah, I couldn't care less. And no, I didn't "make it myself" but if that makes you feel better, sure. BTW they really told you to stay away? And you didn't? You know we block for that, right? Drmies (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    (talk page stalker)I was recently described as a "horrible admin". I feel kinda proud of that. I worry little about what a problematical editor thinks. And I certainly don't brawl with them on their talk pages. I would ignore them and let them alone. They've got enough trouble.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly. What's funny, though, is that I just ran into Legacypac, where they had the misfortune of running into a sock of a particularly d-baggy editor, on Talk:Corporation--in 2013. These socks are persistent. Now, Dlohcierekim, reliable sources say I'm the only rational editor here, so there you go--and since I don't think you're that horrible, I'm going to leave the place to you for the night. Or you can hand over to Cullen328, if he's already up from his post-lunch nap. BTW, a little birdie asked me if there were editors around who'd be good RfA candidates. Any thoughts? Drmies (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Drimes not only restored the attack that 72bikers lost his talkpage access over, and added on the suggestion I did something wrong. Drimes has no business reposting lies about me. Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, as Elsa (or the other one?) famously said, "Let it go". Drmies (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Since even Drimes is not immune from making mistakes, might as well nominate me for Admin. I've got a hell of a track record on cleanup and my block log is proof even some of the most well known Admins make really stupid mistakes. I'm a little sensitive to being pushed around but that will change when I get Super Mario powers because I'll not care anymore. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
See that is the issue, you have to start by not caring. PackMecEng (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, I recommend that you cool down and read Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be). Then listen to the song, about seven times. Calm down and move on. That editor is blocked for a month (though I concede that Drmies has asked for clemency). Upon unblocking, I recommend that they stay away from you and you stay away from them. As for the severity of the personal attack, gimme a break. He called you a liar? Some creep threatened to kill my infant granddaughter for some routine Wikipedia editing that I did. He even attached a photo of her to the threat. As for you, Drmies, you know how cute my granddaughter is. I am 66 and self employed. There are days when I work hard three hours and then take a nap. I am the boss. Today was not such a day. My son and I completed a difficult project near Stanford University. That involved about six hours of driving and five hours of hard work. So, no nap for me today. Next week, maybe. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure your grandkid is cute. I'm not heated up at all. As a responsible editor who has a deep understanding of the issues they cause from dealing with them for 6 months, I'm a useful part of the solution. I dislike Admins that assume BOTH regular editors are part of the problem and NO Admin ever is. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, the grandkid is adorable. In my case, it's my daughter who is threatened by various trolls, and one of our LTAs wrote to denounce me to the president of the university system, the chancellor of my campus, and my various other bosses. It took me a few days with HR to convince them that it was just a disgruntled idiot. So being called "liar" really means little, in the scheme of things. If you run for admin, and you get those special glasses, you can read the rev-deleted items in my talk page and user page history, for shits and giggles. And then imagine how much worse it gets if one is an editor or admin with color and/or without penis, cause comparatively speaking Cullen and I have it easy. User:Dlohcierekim, I see those names. Hickory is on a roll. Binksternet is an old-timer with solid knowledge. CLCStudent is in the Hickory/Oshwah category, as far as I know, and shows good judgment too. Serial Number probably has too good a sense of humor to ever make it through RfA, but I'd support them. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Admin candidates-- we have many that would do a great job. None I'd subject to an RfA in it's present condition. HickoryOughtShirt?4, Binksternet, CLCStudent, Home Lander, Robert McClenon (tried not long ago) and Serial Number 54129 all come readily to mind. Trouble is if your RfA fails, you are required to wait like 20 years before you try again. I'd hate to ruin someone's chances by having them try too early.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What PackMecEng said--. Even back when I was an aspiring Admin candidate and it was fairly easy, one needed to demonstrate the ability to rise above the unhappy aspersions of those editors who have problems working in a collaborative environment. Not brawling and knowing when to drop the stick and knowing that opinions are like anuses-- everyone has one and some of them stink-- and we still need to accept that and move on. You need a certain centeredness within yourself or else the pressures of the job will crush you. Non admins have no idea how stressful this job can be. Because you are under much greater scrutiny as an admin and you have to maintain the trust of the community to remain credible. That does not mean other editors are going to agree with you all the time and it does not mean some are not going to be very unhappy as they Monday morning quarterback your decisions. And resent you because the community may not be as incensed over your decisions as they are.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course you can be part of the solution, Legacypac, but I suggest that you should shed this kind of "liar" comment like water off a duck's back. Focus on what is truly disruptive to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Meanwhile, IP shenanigans continue at Corporation. More eyes, please. bd2412 T 11:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
User:BD2412, I blocked that most recent IP--obvious evasion from the same sock. I don't have much time right now. User:Dlohcierekim, I think you're smarter than I am: could you have a look to see if there's ranges that can be blocked, if there's proxying going on, etc.? Link to the SPI is on the talk page, and the history of talk page and article will give you some of the IPs. Or, if you think that's wiser, semi-protect either one? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the whole thread, for reasons given in the really long edit summary. Just posting here to clarify that when I said I'd block indef if this is restored, I'm obviously talking about 72bikers, not you Drmies. You, I'd only block 2 weeks. 3 tops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Only You (Cheat Codes and Little Mix song)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding to the revert you made on this article because the IP think it's the same Yazoo song which it isn't according to other editors, it looks like someone is doing the same thing on LM5 (album). Do you think you have time to look through the article and maybe protect the article? Thanks. Raritydash (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

  • Library Card translation
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Schmerling Caves

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I did a quick editing pass. Mostly the meaning seems clear. A bit more context, past controversy, and modern commentary would be nice additions. I assume those were not in the original French article. It's probable that much of the past discussion is in French and/or Dutch instead of English, which means I can't help with finding it. I'll make sure this page gets added to the list of fossil sites (notable hominin finds are still included in that list, though an argument could be made for spinning them off into their own list.). Thanks for thinking of me! Elriana (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  • No, thank you--I love hearing from the experts. Yes, all this is straight from the French article: I haven't even looked at the sources yet, except for the two database entries (I'm kind of interested in the quarry too--I am not interested, really, in translating the articles on those official cultural heritage classifications, since that's so technical and boring...). I just discovered User:Fraenir/Missing Europe, which is a fascinating list, and Fraenir already added it to one of the relevant templates (thanks!). But yes, I may just browse around a bit more to see if I can find more material, maybe get it on the front page. Again, thank you so much, and I hope I can call on you again next time. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I thought I'll never get out of that lunatic's face!UltimateHope (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Paul Butler (professor)

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It was proving a bore to ref every scholarly article on this page so when you block-deleted I thought meh. I can't help thinking though that the list you deleted covers a helluva lot of his work over the years, as listed here. He's also written a lot more books than the two mentioned, so I'll list those, but I think his scholarly stuff is as likely to be as interesting, (if readily accessible), as his books. Perhaps reconsider? MarkDask 03:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The thing is, books are reviewed, and thus can be listed with secondary sourcing--both in principle and in practice. Articles typically can not, unless it's frequently cited and thus acquires a noteworthiness that can be verified. Moreover, how long was that list? Three dozen articles? Imagine listing every article a journalist has written, or every poem a poet published in a literary journal. For people in the sciences, who frequently co-author papers, that can be dozens a years. Moreover, any one of those articles will resemble a resume (or tenure file) more than an encyclopedic article. The better route is this, in the text, "Professor X published a ground-breaking article on ____ in [date], a frequently cited article that led to ________"--with "ground-breaking" and "frequently cited" verified by secondary sourcing. A list of publications does no one any good, except for the article's subject. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies - I knew I didn't like lists and now I know why  . MarkDask 01:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Ha. I actually do like them, if they're all formatted the same way, and you were doing a really nice job. I thought about these things long and hard, and the above sort of summarizes my conclusion. There are some articles I just don't want to look at, since I'd have to clean them up and thus make people feel bad. But we just cannot have all these resumes up here. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

More r/d?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please take a look at these and see if they merit removal. Best wishes for your and your families Halloween week. MarnetteD|Talk 02:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome and thank you for removing that crapola. MarnetteD|Talk 03:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you "take the guesswork out of dry, sensitive skin"

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

... but I think this might be a different "Drmies". Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

58.10.107.109

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

found another one... look at the contribs... Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry clicked the rollback tooooooooooooo fast.... Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Head of State being disputed

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

If you can, please review Talk: Monarchy of Australia, which requires an appropriate response. Travelmite (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Earlier, I started an Rfc at Monarchy of Australia. About 20 minutes later, Skyring began an Rfc there, on the same topic. I then merged the two Rfcs into one. Then Skyring made adjustments to it, while in the process deleting my link to the 2016 Rfc at WP:POLITICS. I since made another link to the 2016 Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing that Travelmite suspects that Skyring deleted my link (a Rfc that ended in 2016 in a way that Skyring didn't liked) deliberately, while making the adjustments. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
GoodDay, thank you. Travelmite, does this satisfy? Drmies (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
GoodDay is substantially correct. I drafted and published an RfC on the topic, but took some time to hit the Go button. There was a cockatoo outside my window clamouring for breakfast, for example. We found ways to merge the two RfCs. I don't think I deleted any reference to the one two years earlier specifically, and I think it is useful to have that as a current reference to this one which is in an Australian context. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
AH THE OLD 'THE COCKATOO DID IT'. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I have carefully avoided any hint of discussing motivation. We had an RfC directly about Australia in 2016, which concluded that "Head of State" was a correct term. Earlier more contentious disputes are recorded. Today (30-October) there were seven edits to remove the words Head of State [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] along with several kilobytes other material deleted. In some cases paragraphs were removed but "head of state" removed in the same edit elsewhere. GoodDay made effort to warn an early stage. GoodDay asks "if I opened an Rfc here & the overwhelming result was to have head of state ... would you still delete it?". You can see the responses. Regarding the questions of me in your response, it's not for me to say. Let's establish that Wikipedia has the issue, not individuals. We had an RfC with a large number of contributors, who resolved something. If that resolution is meaningless, then so will be the next round. Pointless for any rational person to be involved. So may we return to whether today's effort requires any response. Travelmite (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks, it was really annoying and a wee bit worrying! I realise you have a job to do, not an easy one, and that's why I'd never want to be an admin. Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Your edit...

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for this edit, and for the subsequent translation. While it was obvious that this was not in English, not sure any non-French speaker could identify that this was in French language... Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Ha, I guess that was my Eurocentrism speaking. Nice to meet you, by the way. You've been here as long as God, it seems to me, and yet I don't think I ever ran into you. I hope the welcoming committee for my talk page showed you to the refreshments? It's 9:35 CST, so that's coffee and cake. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl

Latest comment: 6 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Jacob Wohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This (person of a variety of questionable decisions) has made the news again. [22] Do you think it's worth re-creating the article? I'd rather not myself, I'm not sure I can handle the volume of alcohol to deal with that level of stupidity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • That's funny. He's on TV right now, and so is his mother. No, don't do it. It's just a blimp in a news cycle. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • A blimp or a zeppelin? Rest assured I'm not going to start it, though someone else possibly will; this is enough coverage to plausibly ignore two AfDs (one of which you started). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh I did? See, I am not always wrong, even though rumor has it some think you are more level-headed than you think. BTW "idiot" is a BLP violation. I'll let it slide because I am not actually convinced he's a real LP. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Are you watching the same thing I am? That Eric Swalwell is a goodlooking fellow. He should run for office. He's no Cory Booker, but still, he looks better than Steve King. And the good thing right now is that this is an interview, so that windbag talk show host can't be talking non-stop and can't do His. Pregnant. Pauses. And Emphasisthings. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
          • I've either missed something or misspoken; the only thing I meant to referred to as idiocy was the state I'd need to be in to want to edit on this topic. And, sadly, I'm getting close. Also, I'm not watching Cable News, I've been having fun live-blogging the Home Shopping Network on IRC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
            • When you say "live-blogging [a television channel] on IRC", I don't even know what you are saying. I should retire from the internet. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
            • Right on. OK, third cable channel program in a row to talk about the boy and his mother and the Grand Scheme. No wonder we get anything done here if we keep focusing on small fry. OMG these are some pompous asses on MSNBC (not Rachel Maddow...). Cullen328, is that a BLP violation? If the dude says "our lead-off panel on a Tuesday evening" I'm changing the channel. I'd rather watch The Voice, whatever that is. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If "pompous ass" about someone unnamed was a BLP violation on talk pages, it would be very difficult to discuss public figures in general on talk pages. Yeah, I've still got a grudge against Brian Williams. For some reason, the Brit word "presenter" comes to mind. But he is making his amends. As for Ashley Parker, I find myself quite infatuated with all intelligent, articulate women who offer insightful critiques of the "state of our nation". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • We have made such great strides since five, ten, twenty years ago, when it was all white dudes commenting on TV. Ha, the thing that gets me now is that all these smart people are YOUNGER THAN ME! And probably smarter too. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lucretia Wilhelmina van Merken

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello! Your submission of Lucretia Wilhelmina van Merken 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) 00:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Jessup (artist)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I would agree that he does not fit the conventional description of an artist... certainly not 'fine arts' anyway. Could, or should, the page be moved to (say) 'businessman'? Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Elephant2019

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Drmies and Drmies' talk page watchers. I'm wondering whether there's any need for concern about Elephant2019's continued editing of User:MikutronixX3535. I asked Elephant2019 why they are doing this at User talk:Elephant2019#Edits to User:MikutronixX3535 but never got a response. The edits have continued as before, but it's still not clear if this is intended be a draft or is just a case of unintentional WP:NOTWEBHOST. At first, I thought it might be a case of an editor creating an account, forgetting the password, and then creating a new account; Elephant2019, however, is the older of the two and MikutronixX3535 has just made a handful of edits. Neither account seems to have ever been blocked, so the editing doesn't seem to be a case of trying to use one for EVADE. I kind of forgot about this until c:User talk:Elephant2019#File:LargeEggError.jpg was added to User:MikutronixX3535 with this edit. While the other edits to MikutronixX3535's user page might be OK to a degree, adding copyright violating files (even if done in good faith) is not really a good idea. There are also some external links to YouTube, etc. which have been added which might need to be checked as well. Anyway, I just figured some more experienced editors might be able to suggest whether any further action is needed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Psalm 133

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

On 5 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Psalm 133, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the complete Psalm 131 and the first verse of Psalm 133 in Hebrew comprise the text of the last movement of Chichester Psalms by Leonard Bernstein? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 133. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Psalm 133), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Shatta Wale

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Drmies, if you get some free time soon, would you be able to take a look at Shatta Wale and expunge some of the most obvious puff piece material? I've tried but looks like there's one editor in particular named Wells.grace who is a big fan of the artist and continues to hype them up every time they edit, and who has removed maintenance templates twice now from the article. The lead is way too long, the article contains a lot of poorly written prose and it's just not an encyclopedic tone. Thanks if you can help. Ss112 19:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Racial views of Donald Trump article

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Would you please take a look at the Mein Kamph addition to the Racial views of Donald Trump article. It was first added to the lead, I removed it and placed a note on the talk page. It has been reinserted into the body of the article. I don't feel it to be appropriate and actually am surprised that no editor has backed me up on that. I especially hate to see it in the article because it has been mentioned on Jimbo's talk page and perhaps will draw more viewings. See what you think, I guess I could be wrong. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ya know, I really have to wonder if the Trump editors/watchers might be getting snowed under due to the incredible amount of noteworthy news this man is creating. Things that would likely end another politician's career and be well-covered here are hardly covered by the press for more than a day because the next outrageous event takes place. And of course here, due to sheer numbers, we skip them completely. I continue to watch over Melania, zero tolerance, and environmental articles, and racial Trump as well, but I assumed there to be others from the original group that mostly wrote it - but it seems that they must have fallen away with so much else on their to-do list. I'll begin to watch it with the idea that I need to step in right away and get backup from you or others as needed - since it seems you have a well-watched talk page of ultra-smart people.   Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Gee, you sound surprised I did the right thing. Kinda like when I get my physical and my doctor says “you’re healthy”, with an accent on the second syllable and curved eyebrows. I was right once before. I told Caesar to read the damn scroll and stay out of the Senate. No one listens. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Just wait until you get your physical and any good news ends with "...for your age." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
What Boris says. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Thanks for all you do here at Wikipedia! Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_117&oldid=1088015087"