Wikipedia

User talk:Drmies/Archive 125

< User talk:Drmies
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Drmies in topic protection needed
Archive 120←Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126Archive 127→Archive 130

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Oleg Maltsev (psychologist)

Latest comment: 5 years ago27 comments5 people in discussion

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

  • Does the pope shit in the woods? No, that article should be gutted, and I saw you got busy with it. The list of references needs to be scrutinized as well, for padding. Have you looked at this? It's a bibliography of works only by our guy. Look at the publishers, and the publishers of those translations: what we seem to have is a cottage industry. One wonders what CESNUR is. I get the feeling someone got themselves a research assistant who produced "Applied Sciences Association: An AnnotatedBibliographyand Filmography of Primary Sources", which is nothing but an annotated list of publications by our subject. The "Memory Institute" is his, of course. In other words, all this stuff is self-published. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, it's about as bad as I thought. What this needs, though, is "real" criticism. Someone deflected very cleverly by citing one of the subject's disciples (published in his own journal), who discussed criticism as coming from disgruntled martial arts competitors. This needs some seasoned BLP editors to add content. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Pruning with a chainsaw, I like that. I had planned to do some pruning of the article over the next few days, but it's better if someone else does it, so they can't pin all blame on me. One thing I've learnt over the past few days is that all sources in all articles even remotely connected to Maltsev need to be checked, both to see if they're connected to Maltsev and to see that they really say what they're claimed to say, because most them are, and don't. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, I like to think I have a scalpel, but you saw I had to go back and forth a bit in places--going through the bibliography closely proved insightful. Bbb23, Thomas.W, I wonder...maybe this guy's article should just be a redirect, with a short paragraph in that article. That martial arts thing, for instance, was a bunch of bullshit anyway. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
      • IMHO it's better to keep it as a short article, with a short biography, plus a mention of his organisation and the claims by others that they see it as a cult. Notes #1 and #2 in the article are better sources for his academic degrees (2x Candidate of Science, in Psychology plus Philosophy, with the latter specialising in "Religious history") than "Introvigne (2018b)", BTW, since the notes link to official Ukrainian gazettes. They're in Ukrainian, but I have checked them, and they really say that he has two "Kandidat Nauk" degrees. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Sure thing, Thomas.W. Thanks for reverting that set of edits. Hey, if you think I removed something I shouldn't have or whatever, by all means correct me. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Fly on the wall comment: I've had several CESNUR-affiliated pages on my watch list for a while without a great idea of what to do with them. Massimo Introvigne seems to have worked out a pretty plum gig where he is both the editor-in-chief AND the author of about 70% of the articles in some issues of CESNUR. Most of the people associated with it CESNUR, are in a weird space where they have a mix of respectable academic work and extremely questionable affiliations. Might be worth editors' time to take a look at some of those other pages along with this one. J. Gordon Melton, Massimo Introvigne and James R. Lewis (scholar) Nblund talk 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Nblund, I just went through the Introvigne article and PRODded a related article. I'm wondering to which extent we have a walled garden here, one which mimics the walled garden you describe in CESNUR. I certainly have some socking suspicions, beyond User talk:DrPoglum and User:42Marco P--maybe someone who does COIs (like User:Smartse) is interested in this as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the intrusion, but you have a very interesting discussion, which I saw from an article about Maltsev and could not pass by. Both of you are right in many respects, the Maltsev group really exists, they really spam a lot, and this is a problem. Although Introvigne is not a member of it, and some of the sources you deleted are not affiliated. I guess there is another problem with this article. Introvigne and Maltsev study religious movements, including the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church to fight religious minorities (for example, the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia). I investigated this conflict a bit, because several years ago, as the administrator and bureaucrat of the Ukrainian Wikipedia, he gave an interview for the film Orthodox lobby on the Russian Wikipedia, which was filmed by Maltsev’s group. The film turned out quite chaotic and naive, I did not like it. However, it caused very much irritation among the Russian Wikipedians pushing the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church, which according to the authors of the film are associated with Alexander Dvorkin. After the release of the film, the strain between the Maltsev group and the Dvorkin group intensified even more. By the way, the article Alexander Dvorkin was also written by representatives of the Dvorkin group and based on afflicted sources. Sorry for my English, I partially used Google translator.--Yakudza (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Yakudza, no apology necessary--either you are very capable or Google Trans is very good. Let's see how this turns out: I am interested in possible COI experts looking into it, and I'm also wondering if anyone has ever made a map of this Wikipedia:Walled garden. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I feel it's worth noting that the article about the Municipal Guard (Odessa) (the "hatchet job" article, telling only Maltsev's side of the story, that helped me connect the dots, and find the connection between DrPoglum and Maltsev) on the Ukrainian Wikipedia was created by our new friend Yakudza (a machine translated version of that article as it looked just after being created by Yakudza), before being translated into English and created here by blocked user DrPoglum (the article here as it looked just after being created by DrPoglum). Trying to portray Maltsev and the others as innocent victims of Dvorkin and the Russian Orthodox Church is also a typical Maltsev tactic. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
        • The fact that I am the author of the article Municipal Guard on the Ukrainian Wikipedia is not a secret at. I myself reported this yesterday on the article discussion page by setting a template. It was a very high-profile story and all media wrote about it in Odessa and Ukraine in general. Sadly corruption in the state is very strong in Ukraine; Odessa's Gennady Trukhanov is one of the largest corrupt officials in the country. According to a number of Ukrainian deputies, the Municipal Guard is Trukhanov's personal army. It is known throughout the country for attacks on public activists, politicians, businessmen and journalists. The attack on journalists associated with Maltsev is only a small episode. In this episode, criminal cases were opened against employees who attacked journalists. All this in the article is confirmed by links to many independent sources.--Yakudza (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
          • According to reliable sources criminal cases have also been opened against Maltsev's group, the article is also very one-sided, leaving out lots of information, such as Maltsev being a partner in "Redut Law Company", where the whole affair started the day before, the journalists that were attacked working for "Public Priboy/Public Surf", belonging to Maltsev, and most of the "Scandals" section being sourced to "Unsolved Crimes", which also is a Maltsev publication. I'm not Ukrainian, have no personal interest in the affair, and didn't know anything about the whole thing until I started looking at the article here on en-WP, but it still took me less than ten minutes to find the connections to Maltsev and see that it was a hatchet job, written to please Maltsev. And I at least expect more of article creators here than that. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
            • I wrote an article about the Municipal Guard. Maltsev is not a member of the Municipal Guard, I did not write about him. In my article there are no sources in any way affilative with Maltsev. The article is based solely on independent sources. If you have doubts about any facts in the article Municipal Guard, we can discuss this on the article discussion page.--Yakudza (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
"Kanykei Tursunbaeva", who wrote the story on Advox Global Voices, works for Oleg Maltsev as secretary or similar (see Instagram and Twitter), "Газета Нераскрытые преступления" (Unsolved Crimes) belongs to Maltsev (or is at least very closely connected to him), "Hromadske" base their story entirely on what "Unsolved Crimes", i.e. the Maltsev group, have told them, etc (several of the sources in the article are totally dead, though, and can't be checked). I'm not saying the entire article is wrong (on the contrary, I find the fact that there is no real police in Ukraine, only private "security companies" that sell their services to the highest bidder, as being unworthy of a civilised nation), but it is extremely unbalanced, with the "Scandals" section telling only Maltsev's story. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
You are right, last night I looked through the list of 34 sources in the article and did not notice that two of them are affiliated with the Maltsev group. But let me rephrase: there is not a single fact in the article that is not confirmed by independent sources, all statements are referenced to independent sources. And those two sources can be replaced by independent ones. An article by Hromadske primarily presents the viewpoint of the national police. Further events related to court decisions also confirmed by the facts of the article. This episode in an article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia takes up only 1/4 of the scandals section. P. S. There is a National Police in Ukraine, but the Municipal Guard is not exactly a successful attempt to create a Municipal Police, which is not backed up by law yet, there is no law about it for now. --Yakudza (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
There are 33 sources in the article, but 25 of those are about the Municipal Guard in general or about other things unrelated to the Maltsev incident we discuss, and thus irrelevant to this discussion; of the remaining eight, one (Global Voices) was posted by a Maltsev employee, two are from "Unsolved Crimes", belonging to Maltsev, one (Hromadske) states that their story is based entirely on information from "Unsolved Crimes", one (krug) is a short blurb that doesn't really say anything, one (Censor) reports that a criminal investigation has been started against two members of the Municipal Guard (which is only half the story, since other sources, not in the article, say that a criminal investigation has been started against members of Maltsev's group too), and two (both of them from oblvesti.com.ua) are from a website that no longer seems to exist (ERR_NAME_RESOLUTION_FAILED), and thus can't be checked. Which means that the article only reports the story as seen by the Maltsev group, just as I have said. So I feel that we can put an end to this discussion now. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Your link confirms all the facts in the Wikipedia article: journalists were beaten by the municipal guard. Dumskaya expresses the opinion that those who were beaten up were "bad guys." Further, Dumskaya expresses the opinion "бить дубинкой лежащего человека запрещено законом, будь он хоть журналист, хоть сектант, хоть хулиган" ("it is forbidden by law to beat a lying person with a club, be he even a journalist, even a sectarian, even a bully"). --Yakudza (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that you misunderstood the phrase in the source that two criminal proceedings were opened and considered that the second was against journalists. Both criminal proceedings were against members of the Municipal Guard. According to the official website of the prosecutor's office, both cases were sent to court.--Yakudza (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Again you only tell part of the truth, if even that. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 05:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
BTW, would you mind explaining why you, through simple rollback, readded 22K of fake and totally unsourced material on the Ukrainian version of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization), with no attempt at discussing it, in spite of it having been removed with a proper edit summary, stating that it was fake and unsourced (material that was originally added by a user with obvious COI, considering all they did was adding unsourced material on the articles about UAN and its president, Onipko). I know you have no obligation to answer my question, but it could improve your credibility here. (Note: "Yakudza" is sysop and bureaucrat on the Ukrainian WP, and can be expected to know how things should be done, and what's acceptable and not...) - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I always roll back unusual actions in the articles of my watchlist, such as deleting a few kilobytes of text without giving reasons. Sometimes in dozens of articles per day. --Yakudza (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The editor you reverted did give a reason for the removal in the edit summary, explaining that it was totally unsourced, so your answer did not improve your credibility. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 05:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
My watchlist of Ukrainian Wikipedia has 10,426 pages. Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is one of them. My interest in it is connected exclusively with the fact that it has almost the same name with the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, where I work. Blanking an article is usually an incorrect action. A large fragment of the article containing links to sources http://www.mitris.com/ http://oil-institute.com/ (primary, but nonetheless) was deleted. The UAS is one of many non-governmental academies, it is much less known than the NASU, however it is a real organization, which includes a number of small scientific institutions that are not members of the NASU. Such as the Oil Institute and the Institute of Electronics. --Yakudza (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not a real organisation, it's a sham/scam organisation that sells memberships to anyone who is willing to pay for it, even to people who don't have even a basic college degree. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I went through the sources of NGO Ukrainian Academy of Sciences [1][2] [3]. There are few of them, but they exist and allow us to conclude that an organization does really exist and is not fake. It is nonsense to say that this organization exists through the issuance of fake diplomas for $ 300. Even the salary of a secretary clerk in Ukraine is higher, and as I can judge from the photographs of the office which was built by the organization, there are many more employees in it than one secretary. Membership fees are a common practice for membership in any scientific organization. And even from this article, which is far from objective, the fact follows that a necessary condition for membership in the Academy is a membership fee of $ 300.
The Ukrainian Academy of Sciences was founded after the collapse of the USSR and it attempted to unite scientists who were engaged mostly in applied and technical research. Perhaps Mr. Yatskiv is right in saying that the academy scientists have no outstanding scientific achievements. Although I can say that such an invention as “Onipko Rotor” was actively discussed several years ago. Also, members of the organization are laureates of the highest award for scientists in Ukraine - the State Prize. I selectively checked some of the facts that are listed in the Ukrainian Wikipedia article, almost all of them are verified youcontrol.com.ua/catalog/company_details/19482160 [4]. The journal "Inventor and Rationalizer" is published in fact http://vir.uan.ua/ The works of the institutes of the Academy were nominated for a state prize in the field of science and technology of Ukraine. Although, apparently, it is currently less active. So the "Institute of Automated Systems", which was previously part of the Academy, judging by their site, is no longer included there. http://ias.kharkov.ua/o-nas/ Thus, after a detailed analysis of the sources, I can say that my initial conclusion that this is a small but actually existing public organization was confirmed. I have no idea why they chose a politician as their member who is not a scientist. (However, you are wrong that he does not have a university diploma). Perhaps this is such a tradition of Academies in Ukraine to have members that are politicians. Prime Minister Azarov was a member of NASU, and President Yanukovych was even a member of the Presidium of NASU. The scientific achievements of the latter can be judged by the well-known Internet meme "Proffesor", which arose after he made 12 errors in the questionnaire for the post of President of Ukraine. --Yakudza (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Check User Request

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Drmies . When you get a few minutes could you run a CU on user:Ihuntrocks. They are a newer editor and SPI with what looks like an agenda. That said, some of the issues they are raising may have some validity and there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Jack Posobiec. Volunteer Marek has charged onto the page and the discussion breathing fire and being generally obnoxious. I have asked Cullen to have a look at their recent editing there and if you want to do the same feel free. My own editing is also open to review including my discussion with this user on their talk page. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • This is probably better handled either via email or an SPI. For instance, I need to have an idea of who you think this might be, or what I am looking for. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

'How is that relevant'

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I would like to know if you are satisfied with the way the Cimei, Penghu article's coverage of the Chinese ship in Taiwanese waters that you had reverted [5] now makes sense to you.　 Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gara Medouar

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

  Hello! Your submission of Gara Medouar 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) 23:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, your Gara Medouar hook is approved. The Tasghîmût hook needs some refinement. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Page protection for Great Red Spot

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There has been persistent vandalism from multiple IP addresses on the article [Great Red Spot], therefore I am requesting temporary semi protection. Finball30 (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello D. I hope you and your family are well. I'm dropping this off Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Personal attacks/harassment by Drmies. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oops I did it again? Drmies (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Hmmm I'm sure I heard that lyric somewhere :-) Your post there sums things up nicely. Thanks for the reverts of these. I'm wondering if they are eligible for r/d. They kinda bump up against BLP violations but I could be wrong. In other news a second series of the British Baking Show Holiday Special hits Netflix this Friday. Enjoy. MarnetteD|Talk 02:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I just pinged zzuuzz, who has dealt with this troll before. I don't think it's bad enough to warrant revdel, but others may feel differently. The claims are just so stupid, they can hardly be taken seriously. We're watching the finals of that season with Luis, Richard, and Nancy. That's my favorite; each one of them could have won any other season, handily. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Why?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Drmies Why did you report my username? I said I was willing to change it if it was a problem. If there was a problem, all you had to do was tell me. Assblastusa (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepe Alas

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepe Alas. Allenjambalaya (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A clearer explaination

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, I'm Yeetcetera, I noticed that you'd thought that I was a sockpuppet of that fella on the ANI page. I'm not, but I might've misunderstood why you might have thought that. Mainly just looking for a further explanation on the matter (obviously no ill intent, just trying to figure out what I may have done). To clarify, I was simply suggesting the user in question drop the stick, and that his comment saying that ignoring insults was a wrong move was - in actuality - probably the best thing he could have done to prevent all this.

I've seen you around and I appreciate the work you do, thank you in advance! -Yeetcetera @me bro 17:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, it was an odd comment--I now see why: there was punctuation missing. You cited the other user, but with single, not double quotation marks (which is usual here), and there was no period to close the quote: I did not see the single quotation mark that ended the quote. You are obviously not that user, but please note that I was not the only one who was wondering how your comment was to be read. BTW I agree; the user should have dropped the stick, but it seems they are incapable of doing so, and incapable of behaving properly in a collaborative project. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Unprotect page request

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One Piece (season 20) page still hasn't been unprotected. Panda619 (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Drmies salting and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 16:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The lengths some folks will go to just to get you back to Arbcom. — Ched (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I was waiting for such POV-inspired requests. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Peter Handke

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

... could use some more watchful eyes, IP edit-warring over nationality, - I topic I don't even care about. I went to the talk page of one of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

In another display of my remarkable virtue of forbearance, I didn't block anyone in this and another recent instance. I'll have a look at Handke again. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You may want to ...

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

... delete and protect <redacted>] too, and also the same spelling in main space. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Farrah abraham again

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looks like the redirect might need to be checked for RD2 eligible edits again. Seems another anon made some gross insults. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Formality

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. , re Wumbolo. I think that 1 week is not long enough. Guy (help!) 21:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Chief Keef

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Chief Keef has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RevDel

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Good call

question. When an editor adds an email address such as here diif, would (requesting) deletion be appropriate? Excepting an experienced editor who clearly understands what they are doing. No idea if this is a promo or real life troll. Hydromania (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Empire

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I just wanted to inform you that my debate with the other user at Talk:Spanish Empire is over. Can you have a read (sorry if it's long) and look at our final proposals?

Barjimoa (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's long, and not all of it is pertinent. I wonder if User:Kansas Bear has anything to add, or maybe could provide a wrap-up for the section, as if it were an RfC. Specifically, I'd be interested in the sources that are agreed upon. I don't care who is a superpower or not, but I do care if healing evangelists are being cited as history scholars. But I'll go ahead and unprotect, now that the socking is at least temporarily over. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, SmithGraves is simply searching for sources stating that the Spanish Empire was the global power in the world, and ignoring the fact there are other historians stating other empires were global powers during this same time period. I have given my support to Barjimoa's suggestion but I feel that anyone that uses an evangelist as a source simply because it supports their belief is not open to compromise or working towards consensus. If an evangelist is a reliable source, then we should use this source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I am surprised by the huge amount of valuations towards me.

Among the many sources that I sent one was of an evangelist, all right, if it is unreliable that is not taken into account, my fault. But I have sent many more sources including Instituto Cervantes, a source widely used in Wikipedia. And no source confirms or mentions that Empires like the Ottoman or the Chinese were Global EMPIRES.

And please User:Kansas Bear, don't make assumptions about me. Do not be rude. SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Semanticizing about empire vs. EMPIRE is not of much use, IMO. I don't see where Kansas Bear is being rude to you. Donald Albury, your hands are untied now, since I took over protection (and have unprotected, since it seems order is restored, for now); perhaps you can adjudicate. As far as I can tell your only edit to the article in this recent spat has no real bearing on the discussion as we have it now. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Regardless of whether or not you support an argument making personal assessments is rude. It is better to avoid them and not be tempted to accuse (or suggest) of lack of cooperation or bad faith, and indirectly and without citing the accused. I think it is better to be calm and respectful. That said, I will not start another debate here with any. It has been proven enough. Thanks. PD: I marked "Empire" to realize that his sources refers to Global Power, and not Global Empire. You obviously didn't take it. SmithGraves (talk • contribs) undated comment added 22:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why are you sensitive? Since you already realized your mistake, I am not going to talk too much. I just want say that please read the contents carefully before you do anything. Don't be this excited even aggressive, OK? 七战功成 00:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Wow, all this because of this, which I reverted. You have a page full of warnings from other editors about unreliable sources and unexplained edits, and a block notice, but sure I'm "sensitive". The mistake was yours, and yes you talk too much. If only you had spent twenty seconds writing an edit summary. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not my mistake and I didn't talk much. It's you write a lot of words on my talk page for a minor edit. 七战功成 06:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ann Lovett

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

An IP is adding a long, unsourced story to the article Ann Lovett. In my opinion, that unsourced story is a violation of WP:BLP (of the boyfriend). Can you review this edit and advice me what to do? The Banner talk 21:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't quite know what to make of that, whether it's a real BLP vio that needs revdeletion or not; maybe I need more coffee. Cassianto reverted too and I warned the IP--certainly the thing is unverified, and warnings for BLP violations and edit warring are also appropriate; we can't really combine these warnings. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Viktor Sergeyevich Boyko

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I see there was an AfD on this back in 2010, which closed with withdrawal. However the article has remained orphaned, marked with CoI, and flagged for non-notability, from that day to this. I've read the talk page and the AfD, and wonder. There are the Russian sources mentioned, indeed; but is he genuinely notable? Many of the sources are articles by Boyko, or interviews with him, so by 2019 standards do not confer notability. He is today barely detectable on the web, and he's still orphaned. I came across the article by searching for "Yoga in Russia" on Google (I'm just putting together an article on that now). Have another go at the AfD or remove the notability tag, it should be one or the other; what would you do? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey--I suppose AfD is really the way to go. Notability tags don't mean much, IMO. Who knows, it might attract some seasoned editors who can read Russian and who will have something useful to say. The article content right now can be summarized as "there's a dude who has a yoga school", and that's it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

112.198.64.0/18

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Do you think it'd be risky to shift this rangeblock back to anon. only? There's a new editor working on a school project who's having trouble editing because of it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I suppose so. Or you can grant them IP block exemption? This range's block log looks like it should just be blocked indefinitely. But really, do what you think is right. Just about every CU has placed blocks there--just make sure account creation remains blocked, because I think this was one of the ranges where he made a bunch of accounts for later use. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • My concern is that the range apparently includes a university library, at a school where there is a course requiring students to edit Wikipedia. I could grant IPBE for the editor, but that won't help any of their classmates who also need to use the library network to connect. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
      • GorillaWarfare, do what you think is right. It sounds like you can argue there is significant collateral damage, where my assessment can never be quite certain or precise. But there have been a ton of other blocks on that range, including CU-related blocks, so you might could ask them as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to message I received from you

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there Drmies, I just received a message from you saying, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at White pride, you may be blocked from editing." I would like to know how my editing was disruptive and how I was vandalizing Wikipedia. Thank you. -YungIsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by YungIsh (talk • contribs) 02:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Another question I want to ask

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, Sorry about what I did with the "White pride" page, that was my bad, but I want to ask you another question. How exactly is the content bad and the writing poor in my revision of the "Rolling Acres Mall" page? Yes the sourcing is non-existent, if I knew how to add sourcing I would, and what is a GA and what article are you mentioning? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YungIsh (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait, really? A GA is a Good Article. You can't just stick unverified content into an article, and certainly not in a GA. Part of the writing problem is apparently random comments, non sequiturs like "In 2011, a man tried to steal copper cable from the mall. He was electrocuted and died shortly after." That's just a weird comment already, without context, but it's also shoved in there, not in any chronological or thematic order--and that was followed by some dude being found dead in the woods (what does that have to do with the mall?), and I now see that you dropped names in there of living people, including a minor, without any indication of a. reliable sourcing b. proof that these names are well-known or whatever. So I will have to scrub those from the history. And then there are slippery puddles from a YouTuber (I mean, seriously, wtf?) with a YouTube link as an inline URL. So there's at least three things that are violations (BLP, RS, MOS), plus the writing is not up to GA standard, etc.

    Anyway, I have to go and remove these violations from the history. Please read WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sétif and Guelma massacre

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Grateful your advice as to whether any decision had been made regarding the insertion of the term "terrorists" after each reference to pied-noirs (Algerian settlers of European origin) in the above article. There are now comments from four editors on the talk page. Buistr (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing. Inviting you as a previous RfC discussion participant and/or editor to the page in an RfC initiated by administrator JzG Doug Mehus T·C 14:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Tasghîmût

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

On 16 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tasghîmût, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that much of the stone material studied by archeologists at the 12th-century fortress of Tasghîmût near Marrakesh has since been hauled off by local builders? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tasghîmût), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Mailing lists

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Drmies - Seems the email address you've been using for various mailing lists has a "full" inbox and it's now bouncing emails from the oversight list, and possibly other mailing lists. Could you please advise if something has changed, or if you need to have a different email address assigned to these lists? Mailman has already disabled your access to the Oversight mailing list because of these bounces, and I can't reinstate your access using the usual email address until the "full inbox" issue is resolved. Note that I tried to email you about this, but my direct email also was refused/bounced due to the full inbox. Risker (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Ha. So I got an Android phone over the summer, so all of a sudden I had a Google Drive with millions of files; I didn't know I had a Google Drive to begin with. Apparently these files are the excess, not the emails, and I am trying to clear them out, but I barely know what Google Drive is, or what is in it, or why. Funny thing--this summer, after I got an Android phone and returned it, I got a new iPhone, and now I also have an Apple Cloud (?), which is ALSO almost full. Anyway, I'm downloading, zipping, moving, and deleting files as we speak, but they're huge and I barely know what I'm doing. Thanks Risker. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    Drmies, you could probably expand the available space on those cloud drives ten/hundred fold for as many dollaris. On the other hand, they might soon fill up again anyway if you're not exactly sure what'all is set to go there. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 22:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    As I recall, these phones save every single thing you open to your (applicable) drive unless you turn off the feature. Your "google drive" is still attached to your google account (read: gmail) and if you open it up on a desktop or laptop or tablet, you'll have a much easier time of clearing things out. Can't help you with the apple stuff, but pretty sure the same principle applies. I'm going to guess that the overwhelming majority of stuff you have in those "cloud" accounts are things you either don't really want/need, things that you ought to be saving in a different way, and so on. Risker (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Risker, I've been working on this for a few hours now. It's slow going, downloading videos of my kids and then deleting them from the drive. I'm doing this on my laptop, but I can't even figure out the Google Drive interface--and before anyone goes "OK boomer", my daughter couldn't either, haha. I must have deleted hundreds of megabytes worth of video and, somehow, all the citation templates for EndNote. I think I have enough space now. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

TFA

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
November
 
Cassia javanica, Torremolinos
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you today for your share for Bramshill House, "one of the most important Jacobean country houses in England. The current house was built in the early 17th century by Baron Edward la Zouche of Harringworth, but was partly destroyed by fire a few years later and subsequently redeveloped. The Italian Renaissance, which became popular in England during the late 16th century, is evident in its design. Some of the interior tapestries are quite remarkable pieces. It became a Grade I listed building in 1952, after which it became a police college."! - I am happy to share the page with a modest DYK about a singer who impressed me. In celebratary mood today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

CSD#U5

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

U5 explicitly doesn't apply to users with substantial edits outside their userspace. WilyD 07:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, it says "made few or no edits outside of user pages". The user page had 1427 edits; this year the user made four (4) edits in article space, and 302 in all, so their ratio of all article edits to webhosty edits about a fake game is about 5 to 1. Restore it if you like, but I'm not impressed: not substantial. At the first MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:OriolesMagic), Cunard talked about sanctions if the user didn't abide by the rules. The editor clearly hasn't abided by the rules. I wouldn't sanction them for this, but by the same token, they should have known better. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

You are the lawyer of Number 57 so you can defend him or speak for him?.--Oli (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Guess who...?

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

(also pinging @Ponyo: and@AGK:)....I've just noticed this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

How the heck can you remember this sock's name nearly eight years later? I can barely remember the actual sock that I sorted 45 seconds ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

2005–06 FA Cup

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So if you look at the 2005–06 FA Cup#Results section, each round has just a wikitable showing results, apart from 2005–06 FA Cup#Third round proper which has a wikitable and collapsible boxes. It is that duplication that the first IP was removing. I think it was a good edit and IP2 should not have reverted. GiantSnowman 12:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dimash Kudaibergen

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Drmies, why are you so interested in Dimash' page all of a sudden? We started building it in 2017, with the help of Dimash' family. They have a right to say what they want and don't want to see on his Wiki, not you. You marking my actions as vandalism, but I think your actions are inappropriate. Leave us alone, and go vandalise other pages. Фада (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  • First, who is "we"? Second, Dimash family has no authority here. Third, it's not "his" Wiki. Fourth, yes, vandalism: because you are disruptive, not even bothering to explain what you are doing while you are re-inserting trivia and linkspam. But really, who is "we"? El C, what do you make of this? Just look at the linkfarm at the bottom of their preferred version (whoever "they" are). Drmies (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nobody gets to own pages, Фада. Articles standards need to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The edits have been disruptive and I have protected the article to address that. Accusing editors with vandalism is a personal attack —see what vandalism is not— please don't do that again. El_C 04:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Drmies, seeing that the user, chaotically, placed their comment at the top of your talk page, inside an existing section header, I would say that we have a user or group of users who are simply unfamiliar with how Wikipedia actually works. Hopefully, the links I provided in my comment above will help clarify it to them (singular or plural). El_C 04:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi El.C , I'm not related to the family and don't work for them. I did contact them to confirm details and to ask if they are ok with what we are including in the article. When I say "we", I refer to the small group of people who volunteered in creating the page. I never claimed to be a Wiki professional, and do my best to follow Wiki rules and guidance. I asked Drmies to stop removing the whole sections... He doesn't fix anything, but removes the whole part of the page, without explaining properly what exactly is wrong with it. As for "vandalism", if you check it again, he accused me of "vandalism", not other way around. Besides, if he is an admin, don't you think he should be using professional language. not slang, and bad language. Фада (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Leave us alone, and go vandalise other pages, you say in your opening right here. From what I've seen Drmies did explain why they were removing parts of the article that either came across as promotional or otherwise excessive. Anyway, the place to discuss improving the article is on the article talk page. You are welcome to use it to advance your proposals for the article and see what other —especially uninvolved— editors think. El_C 05:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
It was my reply to his message. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dimash Kudaibergen. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Фада (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
You were using automated edit summaries to revert — those don't explain anything. By contrast, Drmies did explain their edits to you, multiple times. El_C 05:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

He was removing all sections, not just parts of them... Using words like crap and bla-bla is not professional for an admin. Is it mentioned anywhere in your rules or anybody can be an admin and do and write whatever they want? I'm not going to bother you anymore. I'm leaving it at that. Currently looking into the alternatives to Wikipedia. Too much work trying to keep the information from being deleted and replaced by anybody who has too much time on their hands. We had many times when people would walk in and change an image or name, or add insults... Constantly checking and deleting those is a pain. Фада (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC) He deleted mostly Kazakh official government links. Listing them as crap. We did everything correctly according to Wiki guidelines. Worked hard t make sure that all video links are official, and he simply deleted all video links. We only chose all the links accordingly to the Wiki guidelines, it took us many hours to look them up. Besides, he was adding his own links.. It makes no sense. If it's a personal dislike of the musician, then that would be a conflict of interest, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Фада (talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC closure

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Drmies,

There has been an RfC here which needs close-by an uninvolved user. As you're uninvolved, I am requesting you for it's closure. Its non closure is resulting in an edit war at the BMW M3 page.

Regards. U1 quattro TALK 10:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edits to U-KISS article

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

I'm confused about a number of things that you wrote in your Edit Summaries (referenced in quotation marks below) and deleted from the U-KISS article:


1. Wrote “fluff ” & Deleted mentions of talented vocals, challenging choreography, emotional songs, and loyal international fans –

Why is a mention of talented vocals considered “fluff” in this article, whereas in the Mariah Carey article (which is classified as a Featured Article), it's mentioned so extensively that it has its own section (Voice and timbre), and in the Michael Jackson article (which is classified as a Featured Article), it's also mentioned so extensively that it has its own section (Vocal style)?

Why is a mention of challenging choreography considered “fluff” in this article, whereas in the Michael Jackson article, it's mentioned so extensively that it has its own section (Music videos and choreography)?

Why is a mention of emotional songs considered “fluff” in this article, whereas in the Mariah Carey article, they're mentioned so extensively that they have their own section (Musical style), and in the Michael Jackson article, they're also mentioned so extensively that they have their own section (Themes and genres)?

Why is a mention of loyal international fans considered “fluff” in this article, whereas in the Girls' Generation article (which is classified as a Good Article), popularity with international fans is mentioned numerous times (the group was regarded as the most popular K-pop girl group in Japan; Girls Generation remains the popular girl group in Korea; Their immense popularity in South Korea...; the group's popularity was still strong...in Japan)?


2. Wrote “Concerts/Tours: that these are worth mentioning is questionable” & Deleted Concerts/Tours –

Why are concerts/tours not worth mentioning in this article, whereas they are mentioned in both articles about Mariah Carey and Michael Jackson (without sources)?


Wikipedia's own words seem to confirm that these comparison articles avoid “fluff” and set precedents:

A good article...addresses the main aspects of the topic...without going into unnecessary detail. [7]

Featured articles...are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. [8]


Even if a user is unaware of those precedents, inclusion of these items seems to follow Wikipedia's fundamental principle to use common sense. If musicians are notable for singing/dancing/songs, then expert or public judgments about their quality aren't inconsequential (the definition of “fluff”). Musicians would have no careers if it weren't for the financial support of fans, therefore fans aren't inconsequential (the definition of “fluff”). Similarly, concert tours and ticket sales are financially important to musicians' careers, often more than music releases and album sales [9], so they should be worth mentioning. All these elements would be integral to an article that doesn't omit any major facets of the topic.


3. Wrote “poorly written” –

This criticism seems to be directed at my writing, but the deleted sentences appear to be concise and grammatical. If you can offer specific examples and constructive recommendations, I will try to improve.


4. Wrote “very poorly sourced” –

2 sources (Chosun & StarN via yahoo!) are on the list of Reliable Sources [10]

1 source (BuzzFeed) is on the list of sources without consensus [11]

1 source (KISSme Japan) is primary, but only referenced for the purpose of verification

4 sources (Kpop Vocal Analyses, Top Tens, What the Kpop, ByeolKorea) aren't on the lists of sources, but neither are comparable sources in the Mariah Carey article [she was ranked first in a 2003 MTV and Blender magazine countdown of the 22 Greatest Voices in Music, as voted by fans and readers in an online poll; https://archive.ph/20120710101318/http://celebrities-group.popsugar.com/100-Outstanding-Pop-Vocalists-1659579]

3 sources (jpopasia, OfficiallyKmusic, allkpop) are on the list of sources considered unreliable, but multiple posts on its Talk Page show that long-time editors with knowledge of Korean subjects believe sources like these are reliable when translating a Korean source into English, and editors still include them. They are valuable as a lack of English sources could cause an article to be marked for deletion. In addition, content in these sources cited by this article is comparable to content in sources cited by the Mariah Carey article (see above). Wikipedia's own essay on systematic bias indicates that availability of and representation in sources may cause bias. [12]


5. Deleted all music genres except K-pop & J-pop, in multiple places –

Similar information about genres other than K-pop & J-pop is included in multiple places in the Girls' Generation article, so a precedent seems to have been set. Furthermore, deleting this information could indicate a systematic bias that assumes Asian music artists must be limited to Asian music genres.


I would be open to a civil discussion of these points.

Hyuny Bunny (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  • U-KISS is not Mariah Carey or Michael Jackson, nor is the sourcing for U-KISS comparable to that for Mariah Carey or Michael Jackson. K-pop is a hybrid genre: including all the genres that make up K-pop is silly, and serves only to bloat the infobox. I don't know why you insist on the comparisons with Carey and Jackson--for those two there is extensive sourcing in all aspects of their career, and that's not the same here. The most reliable of the sources you have pointed at here are websites brought to us via Yahoo, I believe (you're not specific); you may just have to accept that the subject of your article is a boy band, not a revolutionary artist like Mariah Carey or Michael Jackson, and that the sourcing is therefore not at the same level. The moment you can start citing books and articles from journals, it's a different game. As for the writing, that was poor. "U-KISS is known for their talented vocals" doesn't even make logical sense, and then you write a whole bunch of stuff about their fan clubs, in the lead? With a link to the website for their fanclub? Now, if they are "leading the way" of some sort in Latin America, that's fascinating--but if all you got to prove such a huge statement is this article, which is a flat and almost promotional article that's couple of sentences long and doesn't say they "paved the way", or this--seriously, this is two gd sentences long, written like it's PR, and you're going get "they were pioneers who helped pave the way for other K-pop artists" out of that? Come on.

    So, no. The sourcing for all this grandstanding isn't there, and the grandstanding is inappropriate. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Asking for your input

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hey, would you be able to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V.I.P. (1991 film)? not a very important page, just looking for more input. TIA! Hydromania (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Scott Disick

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

User:Mukilteoedits has asked for a deletion review of Scott Disick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 02:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the most recent protecting admin seems to be inactive. I'm not really sure who to go to since I've never done a deletion review before, but it seems absurd at this point that he doesn't have a page, considering most other reality stars in long-running shows do. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction? Mukedits (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Gara Medouar

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It was worth the wait!

But where is your DYK credit? Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Collateral damage. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, thank you so much for your work on this. Ha, the other day I was daydreaming that I won the lottery, and Liam and I would go on that trip to the Sahara organized by Chloe Capel. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Ima need 12k. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

David Dreier

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

I see you deleted the awards section on that page. I wasn't the person who put those there, but I can provide many secondary sources for all of them. Other individuals of his stature have awards sections on their pages.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaexpert3 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Any idea...

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

What is going on with the two single-edit !voters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoax (band) (2nd nomination)? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Agreed. It's just... odd that the only two delete !votes (other than the nom) are from two "new" editors with some obvious clue. I would have expected some other regulars to pounce given the numerous "weak keeps". Oh well, life is intended to be interesting. Happy Thanksgiving! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Me either. I pruned the article some. What a good AfD would have needed was commentary on those sources, a strong analysis. But hey, one of their singles charted at #534 in Laos. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
That's nice. It wasn't on vinyl... or shellac at 78rpm... yawn. (But if you ever find a stash of Laotian 78rpm records, I'll book the first flight over, no matter where they charted.) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

200.93.101.137

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

user:200.93.101.137 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

7LLLLL777

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It appears that the editor may be a troll or otherwise not here constructively. I will ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
  Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

  CheckUser changes

  Beeblebrox
  Deskana

  Interface administrator changes

  Evad37

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Drmies salting

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sounds like a new method for pickling food and its made me hungry now. Hope you're well. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

OK Sorry

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Ok, I don't know what I was doing there. But can you do me a favor about the account? Please delete the account page and I'll re register it and then create the page. Sorry about that. Now that JS page has been turned into something that can be used when my vector.js script goes down. And about that sockmaster: I was just trying to make it more readable and understandable, OK? No harm intended. Those two subpages, you can delete. I've kept them up as Soft redirects, but you can delete them anytime. Thanks. -◊PRAHLADBalaji 14:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • OK. I deleted that page with the capital B. The sockmaster--well, your edit didn't change how it's rendered, and it was kind of odd to see someone edit the page of a sock blocked six years ago. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: All right!!!!! -◊PRAHLADBalaji 18:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies:: I've also created the User:Prahlad S Balaji account, and it's not just a userpage. It's an actual doppelganger account, and its only edit is its userpage, so you'll see its edit count as only 1. Thanks. -◊PRAHLADBalaji 18:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The blocking of IP range 92.222.0.0/16

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Why did you block that IP range from editing? I’m trying to make some edits while I’m logged into an account I’ve owned for over a year, and I can’t make any edits while I’m on cellular data due to it. Cameronszachta (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • That's a nice way to start a conversation. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I came off as rude. Didn’t mean to sound that way. Cameronszachta (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The ways of ISPs, web hosting companies, and so on are often opaque to me, but routing internet traffic via another continent is much more common than you might guess, certainly for VPNs and VPSes. I see that Airalo claims to provide access "at the most affordable, local rates from around the world", so perhaps they can get a cheaper deal in France. As for the reasons for the block, the discussion that Drmies linked to in an archive of my talk page covers it reasonably well, I think.
  • Drmies, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, my comments about your not responding to pings was not a criticism. Often if I have nothing to say in answer to a ping I simply don't respond to it, and I have no problem with others doing the same. All I meant was that, as I said, since you hadn't responded you presumably had "nothing more to say on the matter", so I could take what you had already said as your complete contribution to the discussion, and act on that basis. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Mike Hill (sportscaster)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just removed the unsourced assertion of USAF academy. I didn't get an edit conflict but it looks like I added something back you removed. Not sure what is going on. MB 04:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you unsubscribe from a list?

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Just puzzled. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Doug, if you're asking about the functionaries list, apparently I was bumped off because my iCloud or Google Drive or whatever was full. It is no longer full, but I haven't checked that list in a while. I'll try right now. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, no, I won't, since I don't have the button on the bar on this computer, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh no, they've changed something in the matrix again! Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 15:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

why i pinged you

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You had previously opined on Aidayoung's behavior. Sorry to bug you. Feoffer (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Feoffer, I did? If it's about behavior, that is a discussion that really should take place on ANI. And BTW, I don't know what discussion that was and what the other editors you pinged said, but you can open yourself up to a charge of canvassing, so be careful. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, now I see what this is in relation to. I read the ANI report as well. User:Aidayoung sure uses a lot of words and paragraphs. I think your job is to link to places where there's consensus about sourcing--if such discussions exist. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Boy, you're fast! I hadn't even had a chance to report them yet! Praxidicae (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Admin needed

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Could you put some sort of restriction on 2012 Delhi gang rape due to a slew of attempts to add unhelpful edits. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Gandydancer, please ask another admin to have a look at possible BLP violations that might need to be revdeleted. I haven't had coffee yet, and in all honesty, I don't have my glasses on, haha. Drmies (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I got some of them. But no coffee yet. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • That's the spirit! The needs of the company come first and the worker's needs come second. (Expect a nice Christmas bonus!) Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
      • That's how it works: small gifts make us workers forget the big sacrifice and low reward. Rome is burning, but at Whole Foods you can buy things that Whole Foods will then donate to the poor, so that everyone feels good: we did a good thing, the poor get a can of yams, and Bezos can add to his $150 million. Sorry, billion--ha, that was almost a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
🎶🎶"...musical interlude..."🎶🎶

File permission problem with File:Bradford arrest report 1.jpg

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Thanks for uploading File:Bradford arrest report 1.jpg, which you've attributed to Montgomery Police Department. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc () 17:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bradford arrest report 2.jpg

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
 

Thanks for uploading File:Bradford arrest report 2.jpg, which you've attributed to Montgomery Police Department. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc () 17:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • AntiCompositeNumber, thank you so much. Does this apply to the other file (see above) also? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm...that one's a bit more complex because of the fingerprints. Your actual fingerprint can't be protected by copyright because it's a work of nature. Under Bridgeman v. Corel, replications of 2D public domain works are also public domain. Fingerprints could be argued to be 3D, which means that the originality analysis is a bit more complex. According to Feist, there is no originality in works that are "obvious" or are the result of a "mechanical or routine" process without any human creativity. Thankfully (for us) the process of taking fingerprints is simple and must be repeated the same way each time. This process is too mechanical and doesn't include any human input, like framing, composition, or lighting. Therefore, that image is also {{pd-ineligible}}.
    Assuming the report was published around the time of creation and that it didn't have a copyright notice attached to it, the report would also be in the public domain due to noncompliance with required formalities. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow, this goes way over my pay grade. I'm simple: my tax money pays the Montgomery Police Department, haha--but they do have a history of racism and incompetence. So what's next? Thanks--I really appreciate your help... Drmies (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello there

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Well, hello there. I assume we have both forgotten about my little misfortune a while ago. Anyways, LissanX has continued his hostile behaviour / personal attack fiesta ever since his block expired [13], some examples being: [14] (first link has loads) [15] [16] --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • This has to be seen in context (I assume the context of that ANEW report?), and that's not really a thing to be done on an individual administrator's talk page. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Reinstate a protection

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the proper course of action, so please feel free to point me to the right forum if need be. I came to your talk page since I saw that you provided some protection in this edit to the Eddie Kaspbrak page for persistent vandalism. I came to ask if you could reinstate it. Since the protection expired, the same type of edits have started up again. The Richie Tozier page has been continuously vandalized in the same manner, but it has never been protected. Can both pages be protected to auto-confirmed users for a longer period of time? Maybe through... March next year? Giving it just over 3 months after the home video release of It Chapter Two, which is scheduled for today and could lead to another upturn in these edits. I just chose 3 months on a whim, but maybe you have a better idea since you actually administer these protections. Thanks for your time! -2pou (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute at Black Sabbath (album)

Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Speaking with Sabbatino at their talk page, they concurred with my point that, following WP:STATUSQUO, I was in the right to restore content you now removed, content that had existed for six months (with a citation to a reliable source) prior to SolarFlash's original removal this month. And a second reliable source was added following the original removal, as you can see is cited here in the #Genre section of the article. Thank you for your understanding. isento (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Isento aka Dan56: To be clear, the status quo is the version before you attempted to add "goth rock" to the infobox. After that, all hell broke loose and now it's just a mess. SolarFlash (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Status quo (See also: Status quo ante bellum) does not mean content existing for a few hours or a day, which is how long your removal of "stoner rock" lasted before I challenged it. The content you removed had been in the article since June, added by another editor. That was the existing state of the infobox before you changed it and I challenged your change. I hope that clears things up. isento (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Please take a look at WP:CONTENTAGE because "being in an article for a long time" doesn't mean "should be in the article"; content can go unnoticed or unchallenged for years, but once it is challenged it is considered contentious and should be discussed. Moreover, WP:STATUSQUO, in my opinion, refers to the state of the article prior to the beginning of the most recent dispute. For sure, it can sometimes be hard to agree upon which version is the most stable; however, if multiple editors seem to feel that the version without the change you're supporting is the most stable, then that's probably the most stable at that time. The WP:ONUS then is upon you or others to establish that the addition is an improvement and if the consensus turns out to be so, then it will be made. Just a general observation, but the RFC currently ongoing on the article's talk page has, in my opinion, pretty much no chance of achieving anything positive and is unlikely to garner any widespread interest to resolve this dispute. Both you and SolarFlash might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment and try to simplify/clarify things a bit to make it easier for others to follow. It would also be helpful it you two could stop going back and forth at each other in the RfC comments. If you two are unable to stop commenting on each other, then it's unlikely that anyone is going to want to wade through all of that muck and just to comment on the content being discussed. You might also want to seek input from relevant WikiProjects since that's we're you're likely to find editors familiar with this type of articles and music genres. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It actually was noticed. The edit immediately preceding Solarflash's removal was his undoing of an IP vandalizing that particular content on December 5. Is this not a concession by SolarFlash himself that the status quo had been the infobox holding "stoner rock"? Reverting back to the stable version by undoing what they themselves considered genre-warring in their edit summary? But, as I said below, I am done with this subject, and the RfC can sink or swim without my participation, as can the article. isento (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The very next edit to the article after the one you've linked to above was also made by SolarFlash. Isn't it possible that SolarFlash noticed the IP's edit and reverted it, and then took another look at the article again several hours later and decided to remove the additional content in good faith because they thought it wasn't an improvement? Sometimes I see an edit that think is WP:VANDAL or something and I will revert it, but I'm usually only looking at the specific change made. In this case, the genre "doom metal" doesn't seem in accordance with the source cited; so, it would be a WP:INTEGRITY issue and reverting back to the previous version seems understandable to me. However, it also seems reasonable to come back a few hours later and take a closer look at things and then decided that even though the "stoner rock" is cited that shouldn't be there, and then remove it at that time. While in hindsight it might've been ideal to have made both edits together, there could be all kinds of good-faith reasons why they weren't. While I personally wouldn't have labeled an IP whose only edit was to change the genre in an article about an album a "genre-warrior" since that seems a bit WP:BITEY to me, there could be a back story to that that I'm unaware of. Anyway, another editor has restored the article back to a version which includes "stoner rock" and the citation, but doesn't include "goth rock"; so, perhaps that's the most stable version to work off of and try and resolve this matter.
FWIW, there's no reason for either of you to be done with this. Maybe stepping away for a bit to let things settle down, and then coming back when you're batteries have been recharged a bit and others have had a chance to participate will help sort things out. After all, it's not really a matter which of the two of you are right, but whether the two of you can figure out a way to work together in improving the article for Wikipedia's sake. I understand being frustrated, but either of you throwing in the towel at this point is going to seem, to be blunt, like a bit of WP:PRAM. Of course, you both can decide to move on, but content disputes are unavoidable on a collaborative editing project like Wikipedia and resolving them amicably typically means trying real hard to avoid discussions being turned into things like WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:USTHEM. If you're both interested in the same things, then there's a good chance that you'll cross editing paths again; so, working together to resolve this disagreement will almost certainly make future collaboration on improving other articles that much easier. Despite the comments each of you have posted about each other up to now, there's always a chance to tone things down a bit and start focusing on the content being discussed and not on each other. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh. Well, I disagree. And I think the reliable source doesn't say what you claim it says. Also, way too much is made of genre. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I was just coming here to suggest full protection as this seems to be an obvious content dispute between Isento and SolarFlash, Let it be sorted out on the talk page. Found this thread, so I just say it here. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Ha, but one of them is clearly wrong, haha! I actually haven't looked at the history--was it bad? Never mind, I'll have a look, but I'm involved now. In the meantime I'll light up a spliff and play some doom metal. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Oh, they've both been at it for a few days now. Ah well; we'll see what happens. I'm not going to jump in, but "stoner metal" for a 1969 album is kind of silly. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Read the discussion, by all means. Isento aka Dan56 tried adding "goth rock" as a genre to the infobox, and he doesn't seem to take kindly to his edits being reverted. He then misleadingly mis-labeled the rfc as an attempt by me to remove content when it's really an attempt by him to add. It's all in the discussion. He's being very deceptive and obstinate about something that really shouldn't escalate like it has. SolarFlash (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Isento, you are the one formerly known as Dan56? Wow. Anyway, these additions are useless. You are taking a few passing remarks to prove that these genres existed before they did, when you could have just settled for "forerunner" in this or that genre without anachronistically bloating the infobox. What a waste of time. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I admire your freedom to make disturbing distortions of another editor's words on an administrator's talk page. Alas, I will not be sticking around. isento (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I remember Dan56 We used to go round and round all the time and I also remember so did everybody else, I say 'indef this net negative and be done. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@FlightTime:. I am sorry you feel I am a "net negative", and that you had to undo all these recent changes of mine (my formatting references previously missing the correct author or page number, my quoting the source directly when the article text was not faithful to the opinion cited, my attributing the genre claim to the source in-text out of fairness to those who have questioned it in vague and opinionated terms, my fixing punctuation, my correcting the track numbering -- all changes justified by guidelines cited in my edit summaries). I'm sorry for my bold actions and viewpoints. I obviously have no idea what I'm doing, if this is the response I am getting -- that I am of negative value -- from seasoned editors and administrators. Perhaps I should reconsider my participation in improving these articles. It is not worth it to me to tread on anyone's territory -- after all, I changed my name to isento (Portuguese for "exempt" or "free from obligation") for a reason. Thank you for your time and patience. isento (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Helping Hand Barnstar
Thanks for lending a helping hand to me, a new xcon user. The Lord of Math (Message; Contribs) 04:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral Point of View Noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Thank you.Everettstern (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Progressive Conservatism recreated after AfD deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You closed the AfD as delete, and yet it was turned into a redirect, listed for discussion as a redirect, which discussion decided it should be retargeted, and turned back into an article. Anarchangel (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Page move(s)

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there, longtime wiki-buddy, how's it going?

A couple of favours you please, this which i ask of thee is only available for admins now, beats me why :(

Could you (re)move Gabri Gómez to "Gabri (footballer, born 1985)", please? User was topic-banned from performing such actions, but nevermind, they go to the pertinent places and ask others to change it instead. Wrong again, "Gabri Gómez" is a name/nickname compound!

With the same reasoning, could you "accommodate" at Gabri García? Since this is clearly the primary topic (played for Barcelona and Spain), i don't know if "Gabri (footballer)" will suffice, or if "Gabri (footballer, born 1979)" is the way to go.

Kind regards, keep up the humungous work and continue (not) having fun here as do i ;) --Quite A Character (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Did you like my Cruijff picture? I just read another book about him, his last year with Feijenoord--it's mostly about money and business and contracts. Tedious. Anyway, I can't look into this right now, and I am not knowledgeable enough with such names; I wonder if User:GiantSnowman can have a look, also since I see they've dealt with this editor in the past. Take care VASCO, and all the best to you and yours. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Handsome man there, big ole Johann! You take care also, happy everything :) --Quite A Character (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done the Gabri Gómez move - Gabri García probably needs a RM to Gabri (footballer, born 1979) to match. GiantSnowman 11:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's a bad article on a maybe interesting subject

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's a puff piece at the moment.American Descendants of Slavery. I did add a source to the talk page but it's been a busy week, big Open House, then my wife away at her Dad's funeral and I still haven't managed to get my kitchen back to be useful rather than pretty. Doug Weller talk 13:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Everett Stern

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Obviously the subject thinks that the article isn't neutral. The subject is not likely to agree with other people as to what is neutrality, but that is his problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies and Robert McClenon I agree with you both. It is my problem. After thinking about it I am not able to see the page in a neutral way. I finally understand conflict of interest. I was not thinking about COI in the right terms. Drmies I know I upset you and I apologize. I worded things incorrectly and I did not mean to be a pain in the ass. I took things onto my talk page and the page of the article as suggested. Please give me the benefit of the doubt. I have been trying hard to learn as much about Wikipedia as I could in the last couple of days. You are right about Primefac. I did not realize he had that much experience and that he was not controlling the page but protecting it from unbiased views including my own. I am glad these interactions happened as I now have a better understanding of the Wiki project. Please accept my apologies. Everettstern (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Everett, it's hard to see these things as other than adversary, but Primefac is not your enemy and I hope you believe that. The thing is, the goal of Wikipedia does not always align with the goal of the subject of a BLP, which is why we have these rules. Keep doing things on the talk page, present the sources, and all will be well. Merry Christmas. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Drmies I absolutely do NOT view Primefac as an enemy. I view him as a protector and voice of neutrality. I completly misunderstood Primefac and his role. I will be doing everything on the talk page from now on and I will not be opening cases on these message boards. I do not plan on being involved with the article any time in the future. Thank you for your time and help. Merry Christmas to you as well. Everettstern (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well Drmies. MarnetteD|Talk 17:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Drmies. I'm not sure about names, if any, but the block has been a long time coming.  Y -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Kulinski AFD

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think I got all the anger out of me. Gonna wait for awhile, see if a neutral name will be given to the arbitrary break-in-question, at the Kyle Kulinski AFD. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Dimash Kudaibergen

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've read the recent history of that page and there seemed to a problem with spamming & disruptive editing with some people getting banned as result. And spamming on that page seems to be happening again.

An editor with no former contributions added a self-created picture with Dimash' vocal range and while the lowest and highest recorded note are correct, it also contains a "Belt range F2-E5", which is clearly false. His actual highest recorded belt was a B5 and he has plenty of songs with belts higher than E5. I thought, he maybe confused "belt range" with "bel canto range" (chest voice/chesty mix; in countertenor style he can sing much higher) and considered editing the picture accordingly, but that is also not the case. His lowest bel canto note, I could find, was a G2, and although he sang lower notes in contemporary styles, none of them sounded solid enough (fryish or airy or growl) to be performed in an opera. The "Belt range F2-E5" has no basis and seems random.

A non-registered editor also seems to be using the page to promote random other singers. A YouTube video with a young Dimash answering the question "What do you think about being compared with singer X?" with "It is good to be compared with a famous singer, but we also have great singers in our country, for example Y and Z, and I would rather be compared with them" does NOT make those 3 singers musical influences and is even a mild form of rejection of a comparison with singer X. Him calling a 4th singer his "idol", might be an indication of influence, but the statement about the other 3 singers is not. As reference, he added links to music selling websites (using Wikipedia links to sell music doesn't seem appropriate to me), one of them with a biography, which appears to be an incorrect Wikipedia version from 2018 with a wrong and nonsensical statement about his vocal range ("Kudaibergen is known for his wide vocal range, encompassing 6 octaves and 1 note. His range reaches the bottom notes of the baritone register, all the way through to the highest soprano notes, and on to the whistle register. His lowest recorded note is A2, and his highest note recorded is D8." Baritone is a voice type and not a vocal register, Dimash' lowest recorded note is much lower than A2, bottom of the baritone range is not A2 but F2 in choral and G2 in opera, and A2-D8 is not 6 octaves + 1 note).


I'm new to Wikipedia and therefore reluctant to undo others' contributions (I don't want to create "edit wars"), but the above is misinformation and shouldn't be left there. How I'm supposed to act in such cases?


FYI: I added recent awards from December 2019 and some categories, he fits into. And I restored 2 bits of information, you deleted: 1. I added "He calls his fans 'Dears'". That is relevant, because his fans in general adopted that word as self-identification and some of his fan clubs use it as their name. "Dears <country name>" = Dimash Kudaibergen fan club. There are also businesses (restaurants, karaoke bars and metro stations) in China, Kazakhstan and Turkey, which named themselves "Dears" in his honor, but I don't know, if he has a share in any of them, so I didn't add it in the article. 2. Instruments. But I added only "dombra, piano, drums", he played multiple times on stage and left out other instruments, he plays off stage in some YouTube videos.

MeUnknown010 (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  • MeUnknown010, the infobox is not there to list all the things someone can do, or has done, or is good at, or was spotted doing on a YouTube video, on or off stage. That a parliament gave him this or that honor doesn't strike me as very noteworthy, but OK. All this vocal range stuff is neither here nor there, as far as I'm concerned; it's certainly not a matter for the lead unless reliable sources have published on it and made it leadworthy. Same with "dears"--come on now. We're talking about fan clubs here, not of encyclopedic relevance. You can do all that on Wikia.

    The problem with this article, one of the problems, is that it seems to have every single iota of the man's career listed in here, in way too positive terms and tone, sourced to...well, unencyclopedic sources. Instagram. YouTube. All that needs to go. The article is terrible: it's just a long list of facts, some important and some not. Article improvement will have to come from rigorous examination of the sources and pruning of the text; whether he hits a B5 or a C sharp or whatever is just not of the utmost importance. And if that range is wrong, change it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Jewish engravers by nationality has been nominated for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Category:Jewish engravers by nationality, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Le Deluge (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, I am glad to see you're still around. Thanks for the good wishes, and likewise, for you and your family. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Greetings

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Happy Holidays ~
~ Have a great new year also ~ Drmies ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the country of fire to the country of....

Have a safe and happy season JarrahTree 00:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

De La Salle Green Archers

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for trying to cleanup this article up a bit. There are lots of other similar articles about Category:College sports teams in Metro Manila which also seem to have similar issues. Most of those doing the editing appear to be IPs or SPAs who most likely mean well but just seem to not be very familiar with relevant policies and guidelines. I did ask about this at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Philippine university athletic team articles, but only got one response. Some of the articles were really getting to be quite detailed about individual teams and players like you'd find in some of official team yearbook/guidebook, but there's also lots of other unsourced content about other stuff as well that looks to be mostly WP:OR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Ha, thanks--yes, I was not surprised to see this pop up (from a Philippine IP that had also made vandal edits); I've seen that before in such articles. Of course one reason that article was so big and awful is that it was just ONE article, for all the sports, but another is obviously that they are written by people with little knowledge of or respect for the guidelines. It is going to take a massive effort to clean all that up, and that's before we get to the variety TV shows. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

fast

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

how do you know if a page is tagged for csd? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying Sourcing

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Drmies I was wondering where would be a good location for my sources if not directly in the heading of a sub section of a page, I am not the most experienced with wikipedia and I was just wondering if you could help me on this matter thanks Miked1992 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Miked1992Miked1992 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Miked1992, look at how other articles do that; it depends. But not in the title. But the first thing here is you probably should stop fighting over this rhythm/lead thing, and those sources just aren't good. They are just not legitimate reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks what would be a good primary or secondary source be in your estimation Miked1992 (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Miked1992Miked1992 (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't know--I don't read Kerrang anymore. But the whole sourcing thing is a little overplayed here: I assume that the members are sourced already in the main article, from (hopefully) reliable sources. You do not necessarily have to have that section sourced. Unless, of course, the lead/rhythm thing is to be a big deal... Drmies (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It honestly dosent concern me too much, I have just seen live clips (I love As I Lay Dying) and I was just thinking that the whole lead/rhythm thing was a better way to distiinguish the guitar roles on the timeline. Nick Hipa is generally considered among the consensus to be the lead player and Phil Sgrosso the rhythm. I really dont care too much, it may or may not be true. For which, I still have more research to do, I was just trying to fix the timeline in a way that I personally believed distinguished the guitar roles, thanks. Miked1992 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Miked1992Miked1992 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletions

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there, I noticed you very recently hid some history revisions from two articles. There are also a few revisions prior to those that have the same thing you may want to also hide, both on the same articles. Alex (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Alexanderlee: I think I got them EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to you both! I hope you are enjoying the POWER, EvergreenFir! I suppose it's a good thing that most people don't see the kind of stuff we have to scrub. I've been typing "racist swinery" way too many times. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!  


May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

All the best

Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 
Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Io Saturnalia!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Drmies/Jewish engraving

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You are editing Drmies/Jewish engraving in main space - are you missing a "User:" in the title? - Arjayay (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

An odd post

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

This will seem like an odd post to you, but so be it. From experience I've seen that you seem to have a reasonable working relationship with Bbb23, and I know that I have a reasonable working relationship with you. Please look at the most recent revisions of my talkpage and the recent ANI to which that will lead, and offer some sane guidance. I wouldn't generally post a request like this, and I'm perfectly comfortable if you choose to ignore it, but here it is anyway. Regards. -- Begoon 15:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, without speaking about the merits of the actual case (I looked at one of the diffs but don't quite understand what I'm looking at), the DIDNTHEARTHAT part is about the definition of "vandalism". I agree in principle that one needs to judge an editor's intent before calling something "vandalism", and it's high time we have a level-4 (or -4im) warning for "disruptive editing". I also agree that at some point disruption becomes a kind of vandalism. That an admin chooses not to act on an AIV report if they don't consider the edits vandalism, that's understandable too: AIV is for the clear cases, and not every case is clear in the same way to different admins. And our standards are different. The other day I "overruled" an admin who didn't want to block after two warnings, and blocked an IP that I thought clearly needed a block. Plus, your angry words at one of the admins there, yeah, that sets the tone for the some of the responses and possibly the close. That Bbb thinks you suffer from a case of "we told you it's not vandalism", I can see that. I wouldn't have said that, I think, in a close--but I might have had some stern words for you after you lashed out at ToBeFree (and I understand their note very well, that they forgot you had been involved with them, or however you want to put it: I consistently forget those things, which is why I am such a great and lovable administrator).

    Anyway, that's about all I can say. I mean, I can say some patronizing things like "don't edit when you are angry", but that's a pill I need to swallow daily. And I don't want to psychoanalyze Bbb too much in this public forum (I'm expecting their Christmas present for me in the mail, any day), but I think Bbb has heard the whole "you fucking unjust admin you suck" so often, and from all kinds of parties, that I think it irks them a bit more than it might irk me. I don't know if that's "sane guidance" or not, but I hope you can set aside these...conflagrations? for the next time you have to deal with these admins, as I hope they will do too. I know Bbb as a fine administrator and a fucking WORKHORSE when it comes to CU/SPI; I don't know ToBeFree that well, but I don't think I've ever had a lousy interaction with them. And the same goes for you: I know you as an editor who does a boatload of good work. Occasionally we step on each others' toes--and y'all clearly did in that ANI thread--and that's unavoidable. (Oh, I see you and Levivich are actually stomping, not stepping, on toes--Ima disregard that, cause I got work to do... But I really hope that *deep breath* this blows over. I need help with Drmies/Jewish engraving, in all kinds of ways. Thanks, and I'm sorry you're feeling so lousy about our beautiful project right now. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. You're wrong in so many ways, but, on reflection, I didn't really expect much else and I can't help that. Thanks for the response, and sorry for posting here. It won't happen again. -- Begoon 16:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh. Well. OK. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I didn't want to respond on my Talk page or Begoon's (they pinged me) because Begoon leveled so much invective against me for my close I was at a complete loss as to how to respond to such an overreaction, but Drmies's Talk page is generally a friendlier environment. The close: Various editors and three administrators explained to Begoon that there's a difference between disruptive editing and vandalism. Not only did Begoon push back against each of them, but in some cases they lashed out at them (I too discount Levivich as they can often be very provoking). I watched the thread unfold without comment hoping that Begoon would finally get it after Jayron32's lengthy, cogent explanation. But instead Begoon doubled down. It was shortly after that that I closed with my comments about IDHT. Personally, I thought my closing statement was mild. Certainly, Begoon's intemperate behavior could have been closed with a stronger statement. So when Begoon came to my Talk page screaming at me, I was genuinely taken aback. Finally, I don't think I've had a lot of interaction with Begoon, but I don't believe any of it's been negative. If it has, I've fogotten it. My general memory is from SPI (where else?), and I think it's been generally positive. Begoon may correct me on that point if my memory is faulty. Even if this explanation fails to satisfy Begoon, assuming they are going to shed their apparent generalized dislike for administrators, which is never healthy, I'd hope that their antipathy for me doesn't push them away from Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
So no apology then? Or response in the right place? Ok. -- Begoon 17:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since I didn't get the chance to respond before the discussion was closed, and since I was pinged here, I will make a brief statement. Begoon has made the claim, under my explanation, that the user in question was "malicious" in their editing. The thing is, other people didn't see it that way, and such maliciousness wasn't plainly obvious to anyone except Bagoon. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Which again, which I reiterate because it was missed the first time, doesn't mean that the person in question shouldn't be blocked. They may very well deserve to be. I was only saying that the vandalism angle was neither self-evidently obvious, nor was there any additional information provided by Bagoon to indicate that vandalism was happening. They asserted it was, but an assertion is not evidence. The ANI discussion should have been an opportunity for Bagoon to lay out evidence for a case of blocking the person, either by showing additional evidence that the person did mean to be malicious in their editing, or to explain a different rationale for blocking other than vandalism. At no point did they ever do that. Instead, what they did was merely insist on their own righteousness, and then cast aspersions against anyone who didn't interpret the situation the same way they did. --Jayron32 17:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
You must be reading a different discussion. Never mind, I'm done here. Your nonsensical comment didn't make that happen. -- Begoon 17:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Which comment didn't make sense to you? --Jayron32 18:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that was in reference to Bbb, and the "that" is Begoon's quitting Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I think Begoon's comment was mostly in response to Jayron32 but that Jayron32's comments did not cause Begoon to quit Wikipedia (the "that"). As with so many meltdowns, though, I seriously doubt that Begoon is retiring.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
 
 

Thank you very much Raju for your thoughtful greeting. You have my very best wishes for this holiday season. May your heart be filled with happiness during this special time.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Drmies, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 17:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Merry Christmas Drmies

Hi Drmies, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,
   –Davey2010talk 00:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Faithful friends who are dear to us
... gather near to us once more.

May your heart be light

and your troubles out of sight,

now and in the New Year.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abraham B. Jacob, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Theological Seminary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Range block please

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, you blocked 2001:1970:5A1C:8000:F138:9C72:8675:B8EC. Can you please range block the whole /64? He keeps on hopping, see: 2001:1970:5A1C:8000:F138:9C72:8675:B8EC/64 . Eostrix (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


User talk:Arcanery

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Drmies, Thanks for your concern but please avoid reverting discussion between third parties. I sounds like censorship. Feel free tho, to point me out if you think this is a faux nez of another account, and if I would be better to be aware of some ongoing issues. On my side, I lightly engaged with Arcanery in order to also show him the way forward (+1 voice), without putting too much of my arm into what sounds like an asymetrical discussion : he complain in a single sentence, we explain in 3. Hope he stops this time wasting discussions. Best luck to you~ Yug (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Yug (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can you do something about 203.109.193.39 (talk · contribs)? This IP has a history of changing referenced figures on battle articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Prettige kerstdagen en een gelukkig nieuwjaar

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Hi Drmies! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. Hoping that you'll join me for a cool beer in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter!
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 
 
 

Hello Drmies: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

 
Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Good luck

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはDrmiesたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I've added Uncle G to WP:MIA.

Merry Christmas!!

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Drmies, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. May you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Drmies, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

You've got mail

 
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. LarryWiki115 00:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

IP Block Exemption Request

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Because you are a CheckUser I am requesting that you allow me IP Block Exemption access in order to edit Wikipedia over Tor. I am leaving my current country for an extended period of time to live in a country where censorship is prevalent. I will require Tor access in order to continue to edit Wikipedia. -Splinemath (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Pearls Before Swine (comics)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The AFD voted to merge, and the merge has been done. Now can you please cleanup the mess? ミラP 01:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

License - rev/del request

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Drmies, will you please rev/del this edit [17]? S0091 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail – A134

Latest comment: 4 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverts

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry for spamming you with revert notifications while cleaning up after that one sock, you know. It occurred to me (rather too late) that I could just re-undo the original edit instead, sending the notification where it should go. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey, no worries--after the first one I saw what you were doing, and I appreciate it. That editor is problematic: their comments are completely swinish, while their edits are frequently useful. They are, no doubt, an experienced editor who is now just fucking around with us, obscenely. Stunted and sad. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 
 
 
Drmies,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

About Draft:呂文光 - problems, solutions

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Drmies. It appears this draft is about Mr Man-Kwong LUI who was elected to the O Tong constituency of the Sai Kung District Council in Hong Kong in both the 2015 Sai Kung District Council election - see this for the 2015 election published by the Government Logistics Department - and 2019 Sai Kung District Council election - see this for the 2019 election. Lots of problems here. First of all, following WP:BLP, it would possibly be a gross violation of that policy on my part to suggest a connection of that new account to a living person. Oops. You've got the revdel buttons, if you think this is inappropriate. Ain't seeing any solutions. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you know...

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

... that Good Eats had returned with new episodes? Well, yes, you probably did know that, but I just found it, and figured I'd let you know in case you hadn't heard. I get the impression that you're a fan of Alton. Anyways, have a happy new year (but don't drink too much allspice dram)! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I did not--what channel/service/provider/whatever is it on? Thanks! No oliebollen this year, for a change, and no allspice dram--I'm having a boulevardier, but I don't know if that has an article yet. It's a variation on the Negrino. Mandarax, thank you for still being around. We're growing old together. Let's write an article together next year. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Good Eats is on Food Network, which I haven't watched for years. I was bored, browsing around On Demand, and decided to see if any old Good Eats episodes were available, and was surprised to see new ones. (My cable provider is Spectrum, but I imagine it's On Demand for any provider.) I don't see any "live" episodes scheduled in the next few weeks. Oh, in addition to completely new episodes, there's also at least one old episode (fondue, grilled cheese) where the current Alton steps in and updates/corrects his old self. [Spoiler Alert!] In one of the new episodes, he makes allspice dram.
      I imagine the kids aren't happy about the oliebollenlessness. I've just recently started to do a little baking. I hadn't made pita bread in years, and it's still a magical and wondrous thing when they inflate. I also made naan for the first time, and they puffed up just like the pitas. Boulevardier does have an article. I'm sure I wouldn't like 'em. I had some negronis at Burning Man, after which friends started making them, but I think they're nasty. We'll see about writing an article; until then I'm content to just turn your double hyphens into em dashes.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Happy New Year!
 
Drmies,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

 

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


Choosing Sources Question for new user

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I think we got off on the wrong foot previously on Thursday as I am a new Wikipedia contributor and would hope to learn more.

Since you are more experienced I would like to know how we can balance the content present in an article with choosing what sources to appear and when. since some articles have a plethora of views on them, it is very common to see specific niche views from tertiary sources expressed that don't give a good gist of what the topic is about, and thus might confuse readers. Since Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be dissertations on a single topic, how is it possible to balance views present when some are clearly biased without deleting such content. I generally leave a comment stating that some views need to be readdressed and then delete them in hopes someone will add them back and readdress them rather than simply undo my changes without adding anything.

for example some articles cite the works of orientalists form the 1800's who clearly don't have the ethical standards of performing historical research as some historians today, and thus blatant biases can be found such as calling other peoples "savages" and "less civilized" than others. while their work should most certainly be examined, there are hundreds of other sources on the same subject that are simply not present in such articles and thus might give the readers a skewed view of the topic thus how can we show these views while still having a balanced article. I would love to find someway to deal with this, but since there are too many sources and facts to mention for a specific topic (and mentioning everything in detail doesn't belong in Encyclopedia article, as other wise you'd have articles that are the equivalent of a hundred pages in a book) it seems quite difficult to justify adding such views from tertiary sources that unequivocally bias an article, as there are other tertiary sources that have a more defined respect for ethical research.

there is also the issue of presenting information from tertiary resources without analyses. for example some sections of an article may say : person A did such to person B in 1890 (1), with 1 being the citation to a tertiary article, even though the statement presented is cited and is not an indisputable fact. wouldn't it be more correct to say : According to Author C person A did such to person B in 1890 (1). as this clearly show that this information is coming from this author rather than some sort of undisputed fact? Also some contributors simply paste information without bothering to explain how it relates to the article and sometimes doesn't seem directly relevant to the to article topic. so I'm wondering if there is a better way of letting both the readers and contributors know that a specific piece of information needs to be clarified or is too unrelated, without simply deleting that piece of information and writing a comment on it in hopes that someone will go back revert and actually address the issue rather than simple undo and move on?

I hope to learn more as I continue contributing and would appreciate your help in explaining what Wikipedia expects of its contributors. Thinktank9238327 (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Thinktank9238327, as you stated above, you're new. We all were once, so we understand the learning challenges. Something you may not realize: everyone here, even administrators like Drmies, are volunteering to be here, just like you. No-one involved with the production of English Wikipedia gets paid for what they do. We have a tradition here (more a common courtesy you just aren't aware of) to keep things brief and to the point. The odds of any communication getting acted on is inversely proportional to the length of the communication requesting it. Be brief, please. John from Idegon (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! I’ll make sure to be brief and to the point in the future. Thanks! Thinktank9238327 (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Admin's Barnstar
For tireless patience in dealing with anon IP users. RandomAct(talk to me) 05:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Strange.....

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Drmies, Minecrafter0271 is doing some strange things such as nominating articles for GA and they just created Talk:Fostoria Glass Company/GA1 to write their review (?). This may just be a fumbling new user but another set of eyes would be helpful. S0091 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, they have nominated 3 or so articles for GA along with posting random comments on talk pages (harmless). I not familiar with the GA process to provide any in depth guidance. I just know that's not how it works. :) S0091 (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
They just updated Fostoria Glass Company to GA status. So weird! S0091 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for checking into this Drmies. Time will tell, I suppose. S0091 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit war over nothing

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Are you in the mood to deal with an idiot IP editor on The Crown (season 3)? Across the four articles on the show (main and three seasons), Princess Margaret is described as Queen Elizabeth's younger sister. For some reason, one IP editor seems to think that this is just not the right thing to do and insists on removing it. He/she won't discuss on the talk page, and insists on slow edit warring it instead. Now, in a fit of petulance, he/she has added younger/older to every other character describing them relative to the Queen in ways we never use the term - in other words, an edit tantrum. Would you have a minute to have one of your trademark chats with the editor and see if we can get this stopped? It's just so silly. And Happy New Year! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I love edit warring. Also, I've been watching the show while my mother-in-law was here, so I am an expert. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Silly boy. You got here before I could get back and add the link to the IP. Done now, above. And let's talk Season 3! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't know. I am still trying to figure out if I should empathize with these people who never have to actually work, or not. I mean, sure Margaret had a "hard time", but really. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that must be tougher to watch on your side of the pond. The beauty of watching it from this side is they're more entertainment than anything. My friend and I chat about what a surreal world it must be. Don't get me wrong; I admire the Queen's devotion to duty, but Margaret et al's "poor me" only goes so far, no matter how badly your guilded cage bites back. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Oh, Mrs. Drmies was asking me about my position here, and all I could say was I just was not sure, though I claimed to be an anti-monarchist. BTW I'm not actually on either side of that pond--just another Dutch kid. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Flávia Oliveira

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Drmies. Thanks for your help with this article and the recent edits. Wasn't 100% sure about the Youtube source. Have a great 2020 too! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

UTRS appeal

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Hi,

Please could you offer your thoughts on this UTRS appeal? I note that you appear to have been asked for this before but cannot see anything.-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I'm not in that club. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be better to ask TonyBallioni since he placed the block. Drmies just revoked TPA. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi 5 albert square, Captain Occam has repeatedly been told that there is no private information associated with his appeal. ArbCom has said it is not within their remit. The oversight list agrees with my assessment that nothing private is involved here. CO’s last appeal was withdrawn while it was failing at AN. This in my view makes it a WP:CBAN. Like every other user subject to one he has the option of appealing at AN since there is no private information associated with his appeal. I have no objection to an appeal being copied there. If you want the assessment of independent oversighters as to our consensus on whether the neo-nazi claim was private @Beeblebrox and Risker: were both participants to that thread IIRC. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I really feel like he's pretending this is far more complicated than it really is. And for the record I also told him suppressed material was not involved months ago. And Drmies, you could always sign up anytime for a UTRS account. It's just like on-wiki unblock requests, except more so. Doesn't that sound fun and exciting? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
UTRS is the most relaxing and entertaining admin task for me... because of the “more so.” TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no element of an oversight block or checkuser block involved here. There is no private material involved in the block decision. It is not a block under any Arbcom-related sanction. This is a block that can be reviewed publicly via discussion at the usual community venues. Since community opinion can change, I would not forecast the result, but the fact that Captain Occam has spent many weeks trying to persuade functionaries that his block should be reviewed by them (despite being told several times that it is not a functionary/arbcom-reviewable block) is not a hopeful sign. Risker (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Beebs, yeah, I need more passwords and sign-up sheets! Drmies (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, nah it's all via OAuth, no password or login needed. SQLQuery me! 19:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

protection needed

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please protect 2012 Delhi gang rape as strictly and for as long as possible because the defendants will be hung in a few days and the article is starting to become difficult to manage and will only get worse. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_125&oldid=1073326836"