This is an archive of past discussions about User:Drmies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm not going to let you basically destroy an article where so many other contributors have worked on. If there are problems with the article, you can solve them through the regular editing process. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Dear Drmies
I will ask you a question not to repeat the same mistake.
(1) If a blocked user makes a large amount of illegal contributions over a long period of time, should it be discussed and deleted ?
(2) We had a discussion. and there is an agreement to delete a large amount of illegal content. But after the discussion, one user suddenly appears and keeps interrupting.
Can we implement the agreement first and resume the discussion? Also, can I report a user who is interfering?
(3) 'regular editing process' : Does this mean a debate? Is there a set amount that can be deleted at once?
Why is that user blocked? Not always is that content related. And when not content related, removal of its edits are a very, very bad idea. The Bannertalk14:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Good god Bablos939, what a mess, this talk page post. That, and the questions that you ask, indicate to me that you do not have a lot of experience here, or you'd know how to do these things. For starters, there are no "illegal contributions" unless it concerns copyright violations (there are also no illegal human beings). Second, I don't know what discussion you are talking about. If you start including diffs and links to pages and discussions, I might know--and you wouldn't have to copy and paste conversations onto someone else's talk page like you did here. Yes, you can report disruptive editors, on WP:ANI for instance. But I wouldn't do so until I was well acquainted with the project's guidelines and policies, lest I come under scrutiny myself. And "regular editing process" includes conversation on the talk page, yes.
You keep talking about that blocked editor, who edited the article in 2018. The other two were active in 2011 and 2012: that's ages ago. I find it very disruptive for you to just drop in there and remove a huge amount of material that, for better or for worse, has been in there for a long time without talk page discussion. You started one, I see: good. BUT there also, I am not sure you will attract a lot of interest because your post is too detailed, too long, not clear enough--you pick up every single article problem and discuss it. That's not going to be very inviting to other editors. I mean, I see your point about excessive quotations--but there, for instance, you could have cut a number of them, explaining in your edit summaries (maybe individual edits for removing individual citations) what you were doing and why. Like, I don't know what this is, but you could explain that in an edit summary, if you're cutting it, why you are cutting it. Unreliable, POV, etc. That is all part of the normal editing process also. Cutting 107k with a very unclear edit summary, that is not. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
A clerk concluded "I think there is enough evidence to prove that the two IPs listed are Bablos " ( the two IP were a single edit purpose account to give Bablos939 fake support ). Although no actions were taken because it's been a month ago.
However he recently again just started accusing other users randomly despite the IP IP 220.117.225.165 shows being related to Bablos939. Shouldn't Bablos939 be stopped for his wrongdoings and breaking wikipedia rules because I don't understand why he still just randomly accuses another user when the IP numbers have been checked to being related to him. He accuses others despite that (check here)[5] Is he not breaking wikipedia rules for making these same wrong and repeated accusations ? He accuses accusing people of being socks of others and now accusing others of being socks of account that is linked to Bablos939.Vamlos (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
NONAZI block? Or just a warning?
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Drmies, just for a change from MMA sourcing, I took a moment to peruse the contribution history of this IP. I'm thinking that a lengthy block along the lines of NONAZIs would be appropriate, but keen to get a second opinion. GirthSummit (blether)17:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I saw your post while leaving a message for a different subject, but I got curious and checked the IP's edits. A lengthy block would be appropriate. The edits are all related to talking points of a particularly obnoxious political alignment.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Same here. I tried to make a reasonable comment at the Arbitration request page, and now I'm sort of done. But I also graded a whole bunch of (online) midterm exams, most of which were just lousy. I think I need to bake a cake, maybe. Thanks, and I appreciate you asking--next time I might call on you. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I saw your reference to grading online midterm exams, and I feel your pain. Your pain is felt by me. It is the case that the pain you feel is also... argh. Sorry. Have a cupcake. bonadeacontributionstalk20:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could you help me out with this? It will be much appreciated. As expected, removing the country comparisons section on other articles has caused some resistance from other users. Thanks. Telsho (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Just curious...
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I happened to notice that you added Pending Changes Reviewer to your account back in February 2020. It seems redundant, since this is already included in the admin toolset. I'm just curious as to why you added it... Were you testing something, or is there a right in that user group that isn't included in the admin toolset? Anyways, I was just curious and thought I'd ask... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I did? In February? That's even before COVID hit here, and I can't say I remember this at all. I am trying SO hard to remember what we had for dinner last night. It must have been a test of some sort, but I don't know what for. Still thinking...it was not beef stew... not baked pasta... OH! Chicken in creme fraiche poblano sauce. Sort of like this, but much better. And this rice is amazing. But no, I can't think that far back, sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion
There's edit-warring at Dimale. Editors Khirurg(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) and Alexikoua(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) are trying to force add a map via edit-warring (4 reverts between them in the past 24 hours). I made one revert and explained to them that the map is anachronistic because the settlements/tribes described in the map didn't live in the same era and it has many positioning mistakes, but they're still edit-warring to keep it in the article - although there is a WP:BRD which they should follow. The same situation of edit-warring is being replicated across many articles like Tomorr at this time. I think that it is spreading very quickly across the whole topic area and admin oversight needs to be established. Could you take a look? --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It appears that the map in Dimale was for years part of this article as well as in a wide variety of similar articles. Similarly in Tomorr a sourced part was recently removed. What's extremely unproductive in both cases are the persistent NPA violations of this kind [[6]]. I've tried to calm down Bato's national enthusiasm unfortunately in both cases he seems to be out of control apart not to mention instant reverting in a wide variety of articles without reaching consensus first.Alexikoua (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Well although discussion is ongoing Bato still selectively removes sourced information that has been for a long time in Tommor [[7]]. A page protection might do the job, but unfortunately his activity is wide scale in a wide variety of articles, not to mention that discussion is impossible and personal attacks are in his daily agenda.Alexikoua (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The map wasn't part of that article. There's no point in making claims that can be verified and disproven. Dimale (50 edits ago, on July). The map was added by you and Khirurg yesterday. Take responsibility for your edits. We can check your edits and the editing history of the article. You're trying to add a map about which you have no consensus and you're edit-warring to achieve that and you're repeating the same attitude across different articles. It's the same situation as on Talk:Proto-Greek_language#Supposed_Proto-Greek_in_1200_BC. Heavy POV-pushing and edit-warring which required community involvement for wikipedia's policies to be reestablished.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. I improved the article Tomorr from this version to this one. Other editors made revert only edits there, having not contributed in it's expansion at all. Also when I started the expansion of the article Amantia, the same editors intervened with reverts. In the article Palasë there was a recent edit war where I did not participate, and I intervened to remove all the unrelated content, as discussed in talk page. In that talk page user Alexikoua made false accusations, while his last sentence here in your talk page concerning me is clearly a personal attack. – Βατο (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
(ec) @Maleschreiber: The map had been in the article for many years (maybe even a decade - I need to go way back to see when it was first added). It was then stealthily removed by Βατο (talk·contribs) [8] without an explanation. He did the same yesterday at Amantia, again without an explanation [9]. You should be more careful when making accusations. Also what do you mean by "your edits"? Who is "you"? Are you lumping editors collectively based on ethnicity? A Khirurg (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"You" refers to Alexikoua. Don't jump to conclusions (WP:ASPERSION). So, since April that map is not part of the article and that hasn't been contested. Now, if you're trying to add it half a year later - it's called an addition and you need to gain consensus. Since yesterday, I've also had to check every source which Alexikoua has used because they casually use bibliography in all the wrong ways across wikipedia.[10][11]. Of course, Khirurg's reply when that kind of attitude is exposed is I can come up with quite a few similar examples from you and your friends. See Drmies, the bigger problem is that nobody takes responsibility for their edits and when they are found out, they edit-war, make up excuses or derail debates which could be constructive into squabbles. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The only reason the removal of the map "wasn't contested" in April is because I didn't notice it had been removed, due to highly stealthy and deceptive manner it was removed. And no, I am not Alexikoua. You tell Alexikoua to take "responsibility for your edits", but in fact the edit to Dimale you point to was made by me. You shouldn't treat editors of the same ethnicity as a collective. Khirurg (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
You have edited the article since then, so I don't see how you didn't know about it but I won't get into speculation. The fact is that the map is not part of the WP:STABLE and trying to argue to that it was so "six months ago" isn't an argument in your favor, nor does it excuse the edit-warring you've engaged in. Lumping editors together refers to their motives. I only referred to your editing history. You and Alexikoua have 4 reverts on Dimale and have been making the same reverts on Tomorr etc. in the past two days. In my book, that requires admin oversight because you're trying to force a narrative via edit-warring when you clearly have no consensus to do so.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I went there first after I saw the ping, not realizing y'all had left posts here in 17 edits. I feel loved. Also, I'm not that interested in a half year's worth of history, by the way; the history of that article is not all that contentious. Khirurg, if you see this you will have seen that I reverted you--you are welcome to revert me IF you present an edit summary with a better argument, OK? BTW I wish I understood exactly what you all are fighting over, but somehow I get the idea that I won't easily get that. But Maleschreiber, if stuff is happening across articles, then maybe this should be a bigger thing--as soon as there is some agreement on precisely what the disagreement is. If all of this fighting is over a map, some project talk page is a better place to discuss it, or maybe it should be done via an official RfC with some notifications for involved editors... Drmies (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that the "original" problem is one of methodology despite the fact that mistakes related to chronology are easier to observe. So, many maps created by Balkan editors reflect a still prevalent (in some fields) essentialist historiography in the Balkan states. In turn, that transforms map-making into a venture of basically brush painting territory which X group considers to be "their heritage". Tthe complexity of antiquity and its nonexclusionary identities get rejected in favor of a basically modern "national" space. So, how does one try to portray complexity when their basic mode of inquiry is that of "national heritage"? In the case of this map, by painting three letters of Dimale red (DIM) in order to highlight the Illyrian background and three other letters (ALE) black in order to highlight the Hellenistic influence. I guess that the later Roman influence in the same mode of inquiry would be presented by painting two letters purple. Now, that's some great map-making!--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Now, a bit more philosophical side comment: I think that the mistakes in chronology arise from the fact that many editors have been taught to view the population of a territory as a constant. They're not inclined to even bother with population movement and migrations which regularly occurred, because all of us have been taught - at a fundamental level - to view migrations as an irregularity. It's not that related to the work that has to be done here, but it's something that I've observed across many maps related to the Balkans.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That reminds me of a joke I once heard, that I won't repeat. Look at the conversation on Talk:Jews, where by chance there is a similar issue. 19th century nationalism really did a number on the world. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Ugh...*sigh*. The good thing is that our days are indeed the last days of this sort of mentality. That is why it's becoming more and more reactionary, because it's drifting into irrelevance. Also, my day is getting longer and longer. At Palaeste, it is being claimed that sources mention something which they don't in order to make a chronological connection which doesn't exist in bibliography because there's 100+ year gap which can't bridged archaeologically or historically. So, what do you do when you've placed the full quote on the talkpage but the editor has previously claimed that "it's in the source, you can use google".--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's a good example of the skilled POV pushing I have to deal with in these articles: In this edit [12], Alexikoua (talk·contribs) adds the text In 1337 it was raided by Albanian tribes at the time they first appeared in Epirus.. The exact quote in the source, provided by Alexikoua, is In 1337, the Albanians of Epirus Nova invaded the area of Berat and appeared for the first time in Epirus, seizing the fortresses of Skrepario, Timoro and Klisoura. This is entirely removed by Maleschreiber under the guise of "cleanup" [13], where he replaces the text with In 1337, the Albanian tribes which lived in the areas of Belegrita (the region of Mt. Tomorr) and Kanina rose in rebellion and raided the fortress.. Here is the source Maleschreiber is using [14], and as you can see, the meaning is entirely changed, and you can probably guess why. No explanation is provided for the removal; it is simply hidden within the edit. This is the kind of POV-pushing that plagues these articles, all while the user who engages in it decries "that sort of mentality". Khirurg (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Have you checked the sources which I used?
Fine (1994): The Albanians from the regions of Valagrita and Kanina raided into (..). They plundered the Byzantine towns of Berat (..) and Tomor (Timoron), the same is on Nicol (2010). So, the area in which these tribes already lived is not the area which these tribes moved into. The part about Epirus is on the article in an expanded form: These events marked the movement of these Albanian tribes into the Despotate of Epirus. I have removed nothing. Do a proper reading and research before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, I did. You equated "Valagrita" with "the region of Mt. Tomorr", which Fine doesn't do. You also removed "invaded", which the source you removed (Ellis and Klusakova) uses. You also removed the part about "Albanians appearing in Epirus for the first time" which Ellis and Klusakova mention. And you also misleadingly wrote "moved into Thessaly" where Fine says "raided" Thessaly. All small changes, but in their totality intended to clearly push an "indigenous" POV. It's all there for anyone to see. Drmies can see for himself. Khirurg (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course, there is some bad use of bibliography here. It has to do with the fact that Alexikoua used Osswald (2007) in such a way that implied that these tribes came out of nowhere. Now, what is your complaint about? The sources have been expanded, you have access to full quotes and if you read the version which I wrote you'd see that nothing is "missing" but everything is treated in the nuanced way and the context in which bibliography chooses to do so. So, I've expanded the bibliography and a subject which was treated as a talking point, is now treated as an actual subject of historiography.
It's on Nicol, p.108: The Albanians in the district between Balagrita and Kanina had against risen in rebellion, in spite of the privileges which the emperor had recently granted themtquote and in the footnote he explains Balagrita lay in the region of Mount Tomor (Tomorit) near Berat
Also, Klusáková is the editor, not the author. If you want to cite a paper, cite it properly. Your interest seems to be focused on the term "invaded" - which neither Fine, nor Nicol use and in a debate about "indigenous" and "non-indigenous" people. Again, talking points and debates which don't appear in bibliography, because there's no such debate to be had. My focus was on improving a sentence written like a talking point to a subsection which helps the reader understand the subject. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
But Kaninë is clearly not in the region of Tomorr, so "invaded" stands. Why did you remove it? You keep removing the quote from Osswald almost obsessively, despite the fact it's a high quality source and relevant. And you keep changing "Epirus" to "Despotate of Epirus" even though Osswald clearly says the former and not the latter. And you keep changing "raided Thessaly" into "moved into Thessaly", despite the fact that Fine clearly says "raided" and not "moved into". Khirurg (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The sources: The Albanians from the regions of Valagrita and Kanina and I wrote In 1337, the Albanian tribes which lived in the areas of Belegrita (the region of Mt. Tomorr) and Kanina. Your contribution to that is "well, those from Kanina weren't from Tomorr, so invaded stands". Also, Kanina is a 50 mile drive from Berat. I changed Epirus to Despotate of Epirus because it refers to a particular polity (the Despotate of Epirus) and I removed the quote because similar sentences are already in the article. The only quote I added was the one you mentioned and I would remove that too because full quotes increase the article's size unnecessarily. Fine uses "raided" for the tribes of Berat/Kanina, not for the tribes to which I referred to in the article -read the chapter.
I've replied by giving you full quotes of sources which you should have verified by yourself and if you had problem with verification you could have asked for help. Instead, you made accusations about "Stealthy POV-pushing" and worse. So, we've spent approximately two hours going around in circles because you instead of verifying the sources, jumped into conclusions. I'm off to do some preparation for tomorrow.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
You removed "invaded", even though the source (Osswald) says exactly that. And for good measure you removed the quote from Osswald. And no, it is does not stand that "Epirus" refers to "Despotate of Epirus", and Fine nowhere says "moved to Thessaly". My points stand. It will be good in future if you stick to the sources. Khirurg (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Plz give a verdict on my case too...its unjust to keep me there as policy violator
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Plz see edits on Ritlal Yadav and WP:ARE...minor edits could have sorted the problem actually initially I relied on a hindi source which didn't made clear the cases against him.Later I corrected mistakes even then I was brought there by user who is offended for I counter him on other articles. Recently I fulfilled the demand of source he made there at ARE for allegation against subject regarding murder. It will be helpful if decision is taken soon.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please see [15] The ban has since expired and the problem has started again with seven different IP's editing this article in an undesirable manner in the last 24 hours.Fleet Lists (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thought you were going to protect this... Nuisance logged on to their account (strangely enough, has been around since February, so it's not "fresh" by any standard) and proceeded to vandalise the article, with the misleading summary "updated".
I blocked an entire range! What's next--well, if you're talking about that Αθλητικά editor, I think what's next is that you explain to them on their talk page what was wrong with their edit, but that can only work if you, when you revert them, explain it yourself, in an edit summary. Srsly, they said "update", which isn't much (and note WP:OVERLINK), but I have no reason to think it wasn't an edit made in good faith. Another admin may well warn you for simply reverting without explaining why. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I see, but edit is not done in good faith when fancruft (i.e. "a penalty should not have been awarded against my team", boo hoo!) soils this or that article. Thanks for the assistance, nonetheless ;)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, Drmies. Hope everything's been well since our last discussion. I'm working towards a conceptualization of a map of antiquity in the Balkans as a political map, not as a map of ethnicities. I think that a centralized discussion should take place, but where? Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps? Present-day bibliography seems to avoid cultural markers as nonpolitical ("essentialist") identities, but does a very interesting inverse thing: it treats cultural choices as political. For example, a Celt from present-day France who rejected aspects of Roman culture, didn't do so because he was holding on to a primordial "Celtic identity", but because it was part of a political choice against integration into the Roman world. So, culture is being seen as something that you "perform", not as something that you "possess". A bit more postmodern than what I'm what used to, but it allows for some interesting pathways to develop.
Could you take a look at Talk:Tomorr#Amyron? The dispute has to do with the sentence: In the passage, it is reported that the Dexaroi, a Chaonian tribe, dwelled under this mountain., which one editor asks for it to revert to In the passage, it is reported that the Dexaroi, a Chaonian tribe of the northwestern Greek group Chaonian tribe, dwelled under this mountain. Now, its removal has led to the article getting tagged as POV. I've removed the tag once because I think that the specific identity of any group is irrelevant to a geographical article and because the topic itself is more complex for it to be handled on that article in one sentence (much of the TLDR of the discussion has to do with long quotes). As a side comment, I think that it's interesting that in terms of methodology the same issues appear whether one is discussing Albania or articles like the White Croats.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I like what you're talking about in the first section, though I'll have to see it before I can see what it's like on a map. As for the second--that discussion is very long and it is not my area of expertise. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Remember cleaning up Shmuly Yanklowitz in 2016? It has been accreting fluff again (naturally). The self-published books are back, and the good works and accolades. Do you feel like taking a machete to it again? I'm starting to think it may need extended-confirmed protection. Bishonen | tålk09:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC).
Oh god that one. Yeah, I'll get on it--but my laptop broke, so I'll be more intermittent... Thanks Bish. Hope you're doing well, and that you'll bet to watch the Bama game somewhere on the internet. Don't forget to hate on Tennessee. Drmies (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
[Not dignifying the nonsense about some game with a response.] Thanks! Did you notice Sir Joseph's comment on talk and the reactions to it? It was back in 2017, but it was pretty good. :-) Bishonen | tålk14:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC).
Possible sock puppet
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks--I think you have a point, but I am going to ask ST47 to have a look--I have to run. ST47, I'm asking you because you ran CU on the SPI. Then again, you might just go ahead and block per DUCK... Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Sadko(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has three reverts[16][17][18] on Kingdom of Serbia in relation to the events of Expulsion of the Albanians, 1877–1878. They are removing sources and claiming that contemporary author Zidas Daskalovski (who has written Minorities in nation-building processes: a view from theories of egalitarian liberalism) is "biased and nationalistic". There's a possible BLP issue in that claim, but the more urgent problem involves the edit-warring which has created a mess as in their efforts to push for a particular narrative the editor has mishandled every source that has been added with the explanation that - and I quote verbatim - Bunch of sentnece was placed randomly and it's disrupting the pleasure of reading. I can't have a discussion on that basis. If you have some time, could you take a look?--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I stand by pretty much everything I claimed. If one compares the 2 versions he/she can see that the order of sentences/contect in the article and basic logic was not followed. I restored it to the stable version. New edits were not really improvements, as explained on the talk page. If one reads the quote provided he/she can see that a whole lot of precious context was removed and what we got was only another Narrative of Victimization. Claiming that a Serbian city is "Albanian territory" is not just incorrect, potentially nationalistic but also offensive and not per basic Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:NEUTRAL, for starters. Challenging sources and wanting high quality and neutral sources is not a bad thing, I think. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)01:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
What? You can't remove sources because you, personally, consider them to be "incorrect" and "offensive" to your narrative. Neutrality is determined by the sources, not via a middle ground between your personal narrative *and* the sources. The two authors who you consider "potentialy nationalistic" aren't even Albanians - one is from NMacedonia and the other from...Serbia and both are specialists in minority issues of the Balkans. You've removed bibliography, reached 3RR, created a mess in the article and haven't put forward a single source, just your opinion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
We judge sources based on our neutral opinion, as much as possible, we do not just copy the sources blindly and make a cry out when another editor challenges our sources, because WP:BURDEN applies. Nice try to present me as some big vandal, not happening today. It's not "offensive to my narrative", but calling Niš an Albanian territory is an offense to a common sense and facts, which are very much valued on Wikipedia. Do you consider Niš to be "Albanian territory"? Considering that you did not answer my direct question on the talk page and demonstrated a lack of neutrality and good will through a complete quote from the book which has a very much wording and style compared to the one presented on the article, I really think that you are barking up the wrong tree.
I do not care if he or she is from Saturn, the same way I would remove a source claiming that London is a "Pakistani territory" because of a solid presence of that or any other community. I have voiced my concerns pretty clearly, choosing to WP:STONEWALL goes against one of the main points of the project, which is a team effort. Adding a bunch of material about Albanians on an article where they are of little importance is not looking good. Not a single word about Albanians serving as mostly loyal Ottoman foot soldiers, which was not perceived well by other Orthodox Christians. Zero. Neutrality and balanced approach is a must, which was not respected here. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)03:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:NEUTRAL: means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It doesn't mean that neutrality is based on your opinion vs. sources. Nobody claimed any territory as X in any article. Now, if you want to discuss that or Albanians serving as mostly loyal Ottoman foot soldiers, I'm sure that there are other websites which allow for such articles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
You spoilt my chance to post for Maxim, by closing! ((off-topic) But I thought you would have gone all Highlander and said "There can be only one!".) O well! Govvy (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Fun fact, my wife drives a Highlander, and that is one of our catchphrases. Other fun fact: it used to be that the Hondyssey was the vehicle of choice at the kids' school--no longer. It's all KIAs and, yes, Highlanders... I am sorry to ruin your pleasure, I am. I suggest you try and delete the front page. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete the front page?? heh, we drive a lot of Honda's in my family. I have the 2009 Honda Insight at the moment. I am considering changing to the 2019 version of the Insight next year! Govvy (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
We had a Hondyssey, and then things started breaking down, in the most disappointing way. It was a great car while it lasted. I have a Prius myself that I'm very happy with, except it says "Depress the break pedal to start" when I get in it. So I played some Nick Cave and started going over my finances with the break pedal--to no avail. My wife explained I should simply put my foot on it--and that made sense, that is kind of depressing if you're a break pedal. That Insight got a lot bigger. I remember it fondly: Elizabeth Meese, who gave me the idea that became my dissertation, had one. She really needs an article, but as with so many academics it's so hard to get even basic bibliographic information. Rosiestep, do you have any tricks up your sleeve? Drmies (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Meese seems to have written some interesting books. It's unfortunate that there don't appear to be enough WP:RS for a bio to meet WP:N. As for me, I drive a Subaru Forester, which is quite practical given where I live. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
No, there's plenty of reviews of her work in JSTOR: she qualifies by virtue of her work having been recognized by reviewers, which is how a lot of academics get through. I just have to compile them, get all the factoids together, and lump it into an article which will have only the barest of biographies. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
An article with your name
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello! I am reaching out because I feel that my Wikipedia adventure is coming to a bit of a cap. While I enjoy trying to counter vandalism, I would like to have the administrative power to stop people from vandalism, not just reporting them. I am reaching out to you to get a second opinion on wanting to become an admin. My Wikipedia adventure has been varied, and I'm willing to try other things, but so far, my opinion has been that an admin's main job is to keep vandalism from destroying Wikipedia. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on being an admin, and whether or not I could be a suitable addition to the team. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I haven't been able to check your record, so to speak, and I may not have the time in the near future. When you go up, though, I'd be very careful about that vandalism-blocking as an admin's main job: I don't think there are many administrators who would agree that this is our most important function--there is a lot more to it, including protecting content creation, solve intractable disputes before they get to ArbCom, prevent harassment... I think at RfA editors will look at your track record in dispute resolution and content creation, including content improvement. I don't know what your record is there, but if you go up, many editors are going to look at that. So, I hope you'll consider thinking about all the other areas. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
That depends. It takes a while to do that properly, and we are talking about a user who in hundreds, maybe thousands of edits has flaunted our policies and guidelines. At some point it's fuck it, no, you can't make other people do all that work for you. User:Yankees10, were you tired of talking to a brick wall? I hear you. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed it, but I agree the user was disruptive and did not communicate (I too had left a concern on their talk page). --Jameboy (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
October harvest
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey :) I need you to slow down undoing my work on the open data kit. We have been flagged for "irrelevance", so I am trying to establish that the platform is relevant and wiedly used. Please feel free to reorganize my data, but deleting it is something I find extremely unproductive and problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theb4ssm4ncometh (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I need YOU to stop editing, as well as reverting, without ANY kind of explanation, and without complying with Wikipedia's guidelines, including the ones that pertain to secondary sourcing, inline URLs, and unencyclopedic content. And please sign messages. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Shenanigans at Abel Ferreira continue, in last reversion they reinstated wrong categories amongst other things (chances are they don't know how to revert or any thing, so just copy/paste; some cats have just recently been moved). With their vandalism, they somehow managed to contradict themselves, saying (WITHOUT a ref!) the manager had left PAOK while also being the manager of PAOK!
I have already reverted, and i fear any attempt at interaction with this person will amount to nothing. Happy weekend, congratulations for the cool mention at Wired --Quite A Character (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
AL I can't really do anything because you didn't explain in an edit summary or a talk page post what the problem was. As far as I can tell it's just about content, and as an admin that's not my job. If you had reverted with a reason like "unsourced" or "unsourced BLP violation" or "obvious careless error", and left an appropriate note/warning template on their talk page, then yeah I could see what level of disruption we have reached. So you should always try to have an interaction--if only to show others, like administrators, that you tried, and if there's no response, that's another kind of disruption... Thanks. Take care! Drmies (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
Hello. If you don't mind me asking, which "jab" at Andrew were you referring to exactly? Also, I don't see what was condescending about me saying "Uhhh, kind of like Phil reproduced his claims of racism in multiple discussions?", when the person I was talking to had said in the last discussion that no action was needed about Phil because he was just being taken out of context. When he had reproduced his comments in other places, but then told me I should sanctioned for reproducing my comments in other places. Pointing out a counter example and someone's inconsistency is not "condescending." I agreed that I can be sarcastic, that I probably respond to people more then I should, and that said I would work on both. Your characterizing me and my behavior otherwise is frankly a little hurtful and isn't a fair reading of the situation. I also don't think your whole thing about blocking me if there is further incivility is fair, because lots of people are pretty uncivil to me, I should be able to respond without fear of being blocked, and I sometimes I just have bad days. Plus, a lot of the claims of uncivility that people made weren't actually me being uncivil. I don't feel like getting blocked just because I'm sarcastic once and someone takes it out of context or I respond to someone that is being rude to me, who then reports me. Which is mostly what happened there. So, can you elaborate on what you were talking about? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
As for "lots of people are pretty uncivil to me, I should be able to respond without fear of being blocked, and I sometimes I just have bad days"--there is no value in that. You're just saying "if people are mean to me I can be mean back, especially if I'm having a bad day". It doesn't work that way. If you're having a bad day, you should stay away from company. And being insulted, or feeling insulted, is no excuse for insulting. I think you are mistaking "sarcasm" for "condescension", and I think you would be wise to tone it down everywhere, all the time, on good days and bad days. I have no interested in blocking anyone; we don't get paid for blocks. I'd rather see you look at the many comments by experienced users like Ritchie333 and Grandpallama and take them to heart. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Andrew had said several times that he was going to oppose me doing AfDs and specifically targeted me because of them. Plus, he had already "explained" to me what the word college meant in a couple of other AfDs at that point. As if I needed it explained to me anyway. To me, it's pretty condescending to explain what basic words mean to people. Especially multiple times. So, I see zero wrong with my comment about it. It was true that he was trying to get me blocked and he shouldn't have talked down to me about what "college" meant. Period. I'm not connecting people making mean comments to me having bad days. You are. Nor am I saying that I think someone saying mean things to me necessarily justifies a "condescending" response. Which is why I have taken responsibility for my sarcasm. I do think context matters though. I don't think it's fair to put the blame on someone for responding a little harshly to someone who has gone out of their way to talk down to them repeatedly. Especially if they have been repeatedly to stop doing it. Which was the case with Andrew, ToughPigs, SportingFlyer, and a few others who had complained me in the AfD.
That doesn't mean my behavior is 100% solid all the time. I said I could tone it down. I don't think I'm mistaking "sarcasm" for "condescension" though. Your example of me saying "uuhhh" was 100% sarcasm. I say "uuhhh" all the time IRL because I'm a mouth breather and use filler words a lot. In no way is it "condescending" when I do. Rarely is it even sarcastic. I just don't feel like getting blocked for something like that. Especially if the people who are complaining about it are users that I've had repeated problems with and who were unwilling to resolve things civilly when I tried to. Plus, if you or another admin are telling me not to do something, and we fundamentally disagree that I'm doing what your saying I am, then that's an issue. I'm totally fine saying I've been sarcastic and that I could tone it down. I'm not going to accept that I've been condescending though. In no way do I think I'm superior to anyone. As far as Grandpallama goes, he intentionally miss-quoted people a couple of times just to continue arguments and accused me of being "lose with the truth." Which is clearly a lie. I've been pretty honest throughout this. Also, Ritchie333 was called out in several places by multiple users for being bias and retaliatory in relation to me. So, I'm going to take whatever "advice" they supposedly gave me with a grain of salt. I'm fine taking the advice of non-involved admins though. Just as long as it's clear advice. I would nitpick though that "experienced" users make bad calls sometimes. I rather listen to someone based on the strength of their argument. Not how long they have been here. You know, one of the things I've heard a bunch of times on here is how Wikipedia is trying to be more "inclusive." Which I agree with. There seems to be zero mindfulness about being "inclusive" when it comes to the unique ways different people speak in the world. Everything that's not said exactly how certain users think they should be said is "condescension" or "sarcasm", but a lot of the things I say like using the word "garbage" is just how I and the people around me speak. And we tend to be a little more sarcastic about things. It's not a slight though and it doesn't come from a place of condescension. It's just how I, and other people around me, talk IRL. Most of the time it's not even sarcastic. It's just the we use to describe things. Which I see nothing wrong with. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, so it's other people's fault, is what I still hear. I don't think you can claim that somehow you are being discriminated against; in fact, we are all too inclusive of people who can't drop the snark--if that's how you and the people around you speak. I got a few things to do so I'll be short: if you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
That wasn't what my point was. I said several times that I take responsibility for the sarcasm and that I could BLUDGON things less. It seems like your the one being snarky here. Instead of treating this discussion fairly and me like someone who is just trying make sure the same problems don't happen again. It's not like I don't have better things to do myself then relitigate problems or debate how I meant things. Your the one that said I was being condescending and in no way do I think I'm better then anyone. Period. I don't feel like getting blocked because I am being miss-interpreted. That's it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, thanks for the ping and a good close. I suspect between the discussion at AN and the comments here, your advice will unfortunately fall on deaf ears. I ultimately found it too exhausting, and too counterproductive, to continue participating there after the last response to my comments (plus, there is no contest between arguing on Wikipedia on a Halloween weekend vs. turning off the computer to drink spiced cider while you pass out candy and watch the costumed kids romp through the neighborhood). A civility alert sounds like a good idea, especially since genuinely civil editors who receive a civility alert/reminder don't have anything to worry about. :) Grandpallama (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, it can be exhausting when your accusing people of being liars getting in off topic side arguments. I'd disagree that the ping was a good thing. I should be able to ask an admin a question on their talk page without having to worry that I'm going to get ganged up on by people who clearly have a problem with me. Especially since I wasn't the one that brought you or Ritchie333 up. It's a rather bad faithed way to deal with things. I have zero problem with a civility alert/reminder. What I have problem with is people calling completely innocuous things uncivil. It also seems rather retaliatory when I was more then willing to take responsibility for the sarcasm and said I'd work on it. Any measure taken against a user who admitted to the problem and said they will fix it is not a good way to deal with things IMO. Even if it's just a warning. Especially since there was no consensus for sanctions in the AN. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Grandpallama: How many AfDs have you been involved in that I have and how many articles that I've edited (or otherwise) have we had disagreements about? (I'll give everyone a hint. Likely zero). --Adamant1 (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to give you a completely unsolicited piece of advice, and you would do well to listen to an uninvolved editor, for the first time since you opened the AN thread: Drmies will not appreciate you exporting your bludgeoning to his talkpage. He's already given you an incredibly strong, overt hint with his comment about digging holes. You should embrace having escaped sanctions and move on as quickly as possible. Grandpallama (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
That sounds slightly condescending and threatening to me. And here I thought we were all against that type of thing. Your the one that decided to join the discussion. So instead of deflecting why not just answer my question? I think it's fair to ask you how many times we have interacted before. Since you were so admit about me getting blocked in the AN and said I have a "shaky relationship with the truth." Which is a big reason why I started this discussion. How many AfDs have we been involved in together and how many articles that I have edited (or not) have we had disagreements or even discussions about? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Ritchie333, you still haven't lost your sense of humor! Thanks for dropping by. Have you started your Sabbath cover band yet, or are you waiting for corona to die down? Drmies (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
A beer for me
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Many thanks for your post on my talk page. I moved from England to Australia 30 years ago. I am certainly not too old for a beer, but the one thing I really miss from England is real ale. Australian beer is just fizzy rubbish to me, so I mostly drink Australian wine, which is great. I go back to England most years and enjoy real ale with my daughters, but such a visit is sadly not possible at the moment. Enjoy whatever wine or beer that is to your taste. I see that you are an Alabama Crimson Tide fan. I used to visit a colleague in Birmingham at UAB and loved being there. --Bduke (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
You did? Interesting. The UAB Blazers football team was canceled a few years ago, and then brought back after a popular outcry. I haven't been to Birmingham in a while, though it's only an hour and a half up the road. It's certainly more exciting than Montgomery. Back when I was in college in Tuscaloosa a lot of people were excited about Foster's, mostly because it was different from the regular American swill that was available at the time--before the beer explosion, that is. When we moved to Montgomery anything over 5% was still illegal--crazy. I had a colleague in Birmingham, that is a fellow medievalist: Stephen Glosecki, who died too soon, and not long after a very positive prognosis. We hired someone from their ESL department a few years ago, and I've had at least one student who went there to get a Master's in ESL; their program is, as far as I know, excellent. Thanks for the note: all the best to you and yours, and I hope you get to visit your family soon. I'm more or less in the same boat. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Smithfield
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sorry to hear that and I hope you are better soon. The editor you need to talk to, though, is the editor who did all that work on the article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Something is nagging me
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
OK--keep me posted. It doesn't ring any bells for me, but I've been here so long that I may be deaf to bells because they're ringing all the time. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
On a serious note, I may forget to get your attention specifically, but I assume you watch that appropriate venue I mentioned earlier. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Proposed merger E Ink
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Drmies. My name is Carter and I work for E Ink Corporation. I proposed the E Ink Corporation page be merged with E Ink through a formal merger proposal here. I was advised to be bold and merge the pages, but I didn't think editors with a conflict of interest were supposed to be bold. Hoping you might be willing to do the honors of merging the pages. CDaignault1 (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Disappointing behavior for an admin
Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
I'd like to respectfully point out some concerns I have about the way you interacted with a user in the Russell Islands dispute, specifically because you are an admin.
1) In the DRN case, you accused the editor of "pick[ing] a fight with Diannaa". Of course you can use whatever language you like, but as an admin I'd like to suggest you be more respectful of other editors and assume good faith. As an outside observer I believe the editor was having a difficult time understanding User:Diannaa's determination and was pressing the point. To belittle his attempts to pursue his case as "picking a fight" with an admin is frankly inappropriate. Anyone, including an admin can choose to disengage. That's what she ultimately did: she told him to leave her alone and that she wasn't going to change her mind. That's her prerogative. When you belittled his efforts to pursue his concerns in the way you did, you de-legitimize his right to ask questions and to debate. He has a right to do that and as an editor you can disengage - but you shouldn't suggest he's wrong to question someone just because they're considered to be the ultimate authority. He wasn't breaking any policy. He was asking questions and debating. That's what talk pages are for. He doesn't need to salute the admins. It's your option to disengage if you don't like what he has to say. You are an admin, as is Diannaa, and you need to be more tolerant than that.
2) You comment in the DRN case that "the time has come for an uninvolved admin to determine whether NOTHERE applies for this editor" was completely inappropriate. Taking up an issue in a DRN case is every editor's right. It is encouraged as a way to resolve conflict. For you to make a threat like that in a DRN case is chilling. The implication is that by going over your head he can be punished. You think I'm exaggerating? This editor left a comment on my talk page expressing concern he was going to suffer retribution and that he might need to back out of the DRN. Maybe that's what you intended by making that remark, but that's not appropriate behavior for an admin. To instill fear in editors that they will suffer retribution for using appropriate channels to resolve conflict is downright damnable for an admin. I can't express that point in stronger terms. No editor, including you, is obligated to participate in a DRN case. If you didn't want to participate, all you had to do was to opt out. If you didn't make a summary statement, I would have closed the case for lack of participation. You chose to participate. And then to make a comment like that as an admin? I know you know that was wrong.
3) In the Russell Islands talk page, after the DRN case was already opened, you made a subsequent comment: "I assume that by now your specious DRN thread is closed." Again, this was an inappropriate comment for an admin to make. First you are accusing him of opening a "specious" DRN case. It's his right to pursue conflict resolution, even with admins. If you don't want to participate, then don't participate. To say a DRN case is "specious" undermines the venue itself. You know better. Furthermore you suggested that the case would be summarily closed when you had already chosen to participate in it. Again, this shows a complete lack of respect for process. The implication is that you know he can't get anywhere by seeking conflict resolution with admins - you know it's going to be closed because you're an admin and he has no recourse. You undermine the venue itself making comments like that. You also undermined my role as a DRN volunteer by suggesting I can't facilitate any meaningful dialog before I even had a chance to do so.
I'm speaking plainly and bluntly, and I hope you recognize my sincerity. We're all human, and we all make mistakes. As an admin, however, I think you have a special responsibility to take care in how you engage with editors, even if their behavior is uncivil (and I don't think he was being uncivil in this case). Moreover, you set an example for others to follow. That is critical for admins - other editors learn from your behavior. You should be setting a high bar. To undermine venues for conflict resolution and to threaten editors publicly as you did was disturbing to witness. I have been an editor in Wikipedia for a very long time, and I care about the community. Your thoughtless behavior as an admin diminishes the platform. You can do better. Coastside (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'll belittle User:Geographyinitiative's efforts to pursue his concerns too: they amounted to picking a fight with Diannaa. I will also belittle your own efforts to frame Drmies's calling the DRN "specious" as implying "you know it's going to be closed because you're an admin and he has no recourse". That's a very far-fetched "implication", and so much assumption of bad faith is disappointing behavior for a DRN volunteer. Bishonen | tålk12:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC).
Coastside, "you can do better"--if you're going to be respectful, as your first word suggests, don't end patronizingly. Your first words and your last words can't both be true. I see that in your sporadic editing career you have participated in six DRN discussions. That's great, but I doubt it gives you the moral ground to chastise Diannaa in that closing statement of yours for missing out on a "teaching moment", when it is obvious from Talk:Russell Islands that Geographyinitiative had already been offered a few teaching moments and turned them down. And instead of leaving her a templated "friendly reminder", you had have written a note with your own words. Or, of course, you could have seen her earlier comments on that talk page and drawn the more appropriate conclusion, that there was no dispute here that needed resolution, because it was simply a matter of correct vs. incorrect. So I hope you'll forgive me for not taking all your comments here to heart. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
To me, your response shows you aren't take my complaint seriously. This isn't about the DRN case or my ability or lack thereof to handle it appropriately. This is about your inappropriate behavior as an admin. I opened an ANI case for admin abuse.
Haha, in the section above is a redlink to the old WP:ANI 2.0. It's been a while since I've been dragged to ANI by someone who was not a sock of WDHB. It's almost exciting. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I take this issue seriously. When an editor, whether annoying or not, fears retribution from admins that's something to be taken seriously. I wish you had taken it seriously, too.Coastside (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Coastside, I for one appreciate and applaud your sentiment of going to bat for an editor being bullied, and while I cannot speak for him, I think you would find on any other day that Drmies would say so as well. Wikipedia would be a better place if more editors did so, frankly. However, you are on the wrong side of this one. I count seven editors between here and the ANI thread you opened (including myself; six are administrators) who reviewed your complaint faithfully (I presume they did; I certainly did) and determined that your complaint of admin abuse was in good faith, but not actionable. And while there is perhaps an increased burden of accountability on administrators, that does not extend to being endlessly pestered (some might say harassed) over issues that have been deemed resolved through good-faith discussion. Now, per the comment that Drmies wrote while I was writing this, please go do something else. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Johnuniq, I appreciate what you were trying to do on their talk page, but like all the other bits of advice it fell on deaf ears, and I see that you also are now being patronized and held accountable for the decline in new editors--or whatever. I wouldn't have known about it if Coastside didn't feel the need to ping me, which is silly and childish, of course, but their only way to get at me after I told them to not come back to this talk page, and after the ANI thread was closed. There's no point in arguing with such editors; one wished they'd get a hobby, or write some articles. Thanks..., Drmies (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Chikadoma Plant
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You wrote "whole thing needs to be reviewed by an expert". Well, not to be overly arrogant, I know my African plants. Botanically the entire article is nonsense. The pictures are of 3 different, completely unrelated species - not tree lupine, which does not grow in Nigeria at all. The first two pictures look to me like Boscia senegalensis, and might be more useful there. The botanical text is toe-curlingly incorrect, the sourcing terrible. The common name/title is apparently invented by the seller of the herbal products who is being referenced 20x. There already is an article on Lupinus arboreus. I think the entire article should be deleted, no redirects. Regards, Leo Breman (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I had already looked with concern to Matthew Josef, Bluejosef and Joseroyal. It was lod and clear that this was a cooperating cluster, non-responding whatsoever etc. But I never took real time to start digging into it. It like to thank you sincerely for escorting them out. The Bannertalk10:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I come to you with the request to un-protect the article on Persia. There are a few citations I need to add there. There are too many topics that are introduced as ambiguous to it and need to disambiguate even if they refer to the same thing, but slightly different in name to different civilizations and even to modern English speakers. I can thank you in advance for anything you can do to help me unlock it.--Persian Lad (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
You can ask for that at RFPP, but I don't understand the problem: it's "extended-confirmed", for a good reason. The way out here is to get more than 500 edits, which isn't so hard, IMO. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
You wrote, "It is totally unclear what you are doing--adding a thousand references for a geographical./administrative name?"
In fact, I tried to answer the question you are asking before you even asked it. In the actual edit you removed, I wrote:
"Per WP:OVERCITE, "If there is a good reason to keep multiple citations, for example, to avoid perennial edit warring or because the sources offer a range of beneficial information, clutter may be avoided by merging the citations into a single footnote." Hence this bundled citation has been created. There is a perennial edit war on this page and others in which Tongyong Pinyin-derived names chosen for use by the local community are changed to Hanyu Pinyin-derived names. For example, on this page the following edits have shifted the name from Cianjin to Qianjin over the past decade or more: July 2009March 2010February 2017. On different pages without the protection of these citations, the name gets switched by IPs & c. all the time June 2020August 2020. It may seem like a drastic remedy to add a large number of references here, but it seems clear that multiple sources in combination can demonstrate what Cianjin wants for itself and show that what Cianjin wants is not ignored by the world, bringing a final, conclusive end to the decade-long edit war."
I would like your help in determining exactly to move forward. Let me know if you have a different opinion on this, or can think of a different methodology for stopping the edit war situation, which will continue indefinitely. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
You're citing the Daily Mail, unreliable websites, primary sources. I have no opinion on Taiwanese matters, but I note that the talk page is empty--and those edit summaries were...well, you've been here for 11 years, and I think you should know better. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Nagma
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I don't know why you think this version by Intalk is the best one. Instead they were one of those trying to white wash the article and promote some non-RS source. They have removed properly sourced content supported by WP:RS sources like The Telegraph, Outlook, NDTV, etc and replaced it with an obscure non-RS source "NENOW" [20]. They have disruptively changed the birth date of the subject from 1974 to 70 which doesn't match with the inline source that was provided by me. The lead section is puffery ridden now with phrases such as "..such as blockbuster movie Yalgar; ..She began her acting career in Bollywood and acted in a few of the biggest Bollywood movies and in other language...
The Personal life section is totally unsourced/OR which writes "Nagma remains unmarried till date. In an interview with The Times of India, she said she would get married when she finds the right man.", but the source [21] doesn't mention anything about her personal life.
I have meticulously edited and corrected the "Early life" and "Political career" sections. Now many sentences and sections are unsourced/original researchesthanks to removal of RS sources like this by Intalkhere. The last stable version was this. The only thing contentious is the controversy section, which can be discussed and dealt with separately. I believe we should restore it to this and then start from there. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
You can take all that up on the talk page. I think you do know why I chose that one: first of all, administrators always protect the wrong version, as if the Good Lord has a sense of humor, and secondly, because of the BLP: I believe, and I am not the only one, that this content is problematic. All of that can be hammered out on the talk page--not here. If your edits were meticulous and well-verified, that will be made apparent there. But when I'm seeing so much "alleged" material, my BLP alarm goes off. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Obviously the "controversy" section was contentious, but teh current version has a lot of ORs, unsourced additions, etc. I'll take it to the talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Sammy Angott pro boxing record
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You say it’s silly to put the flagicon in front of locations. Does this mean that I would need to put the distinction of the country in the description of the location or are you just saying that it shouldn’t be there at all?
If it’s the latter, then I don’t see what’s stopping you from heading over to Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, and Floyd Mayweather’s records and taking the flagicon off. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello CaPslOcksBroKEn. What's stopping me from a lot of things is the elementary consideration of food and time and ennui. No, certainly locations don't need flags. They NEVER need flags. Names of countries etc. don't even need links; see WP:OVERLINK. There is no purpose in having a thousand little US flags in a list of boxing results--what purpose does it serve? And imagine if that list were read to a visually-impaired reader--how would they see the forest for the trees? Even purely visually it's already distracting. So yes, please leave those flags out. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I won’t put anymore on Angott’s page, because it would be inconsistent as well as a waste of time to add them back and get in an edit war. For future articles I will consider it, and I can’t make any promises as It’s become a habit after inputing well over a thousand fights throughout Wikipedia. I noticed that you didn’t take out the flagicons for the fighters. Why is that?
Recent sock
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Only noticed it today (indeed, my eyesight is not getting any better!), minutes after being reverted by User:GiantSnowman the PAOK fanatic reinstated their storyline. Ah, i see that the "penalties against my team wrongfully given" bit is now sourced...by GREEK newspapers (yes, really "unbiased")!! They also continue to write extensively about the club's career in the manager article, when we have the seasonal club pages (for example 2020–21 PAOK FC season) to do so; their writing is also done in an attempt to belittle the coach, hold grudge much (thank God Pablo García has won all the matches so far, or else!)?
Reverted again, and I am not going to waste one more second engaging in conversation with this user, first time i did so (politely) was told to get a pair of glasses. Have no idea what a person of this caliber is doing here at WP, but to each their own i guess.
Newsflash: i reinstated the Greek refs (that i previously removed, admit it), and called match "controversial". Hey man, at least i'm trying (to reach a compromise)! --Quite A Character (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Who is Abel Ferreira anyway? He's hardly my type. I mean, he's got a nice head of hair and all that, and he's probably richer than Croesus, but there is nothing there that makes me say, hey, yeah, what an exciting man to spend some time on... Drmies (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
LOL ("nice head of hair")! Regarding your request in the article's edit summaries (the flagicons), i don't think i can accommodate man, i'm as dumb as they come regarding technicalities :(
P.S: bugger, i did not ask for any block, last week happened to me and i felt really frustrated, fortunately the other person was polite and gregarious, let's see how this one fares... --Quite A Character (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I just need you to remove those dumb flags. No, the block was deserved, and there may be a bit more to it--a longer, broader history of disruptive edits, and possibly a sock. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I tried, but fucked up real good like you before me :( No worries, i've just contacted table master :@Robby.is.on:, he'll fix it before we can say "14yearseditingthishereencyclopediaandi'mboredoutofmymindbutstillcan'tleavesuchablitheringidiot"... --Quite A Character (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding policy on external links. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Russell Islands".The discussion is about the topic Russell Islands.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
So in two months I'll have been domiciled for 20 years in the 86ing capital of the world, where Alphadeltafoxtrot (who has worked in gaming since the Ford administration when Howard Hughes owned his employing facility) uses the verb "to eighty-six" with the specific connotation of telling a human that they are no longer welcome in an establishment one controls. Homicide is expressly not the connotation; if I 86 somebody from my house, it means they are being requested to just go the fudge away. Forever, ideally. Like, you 86 somebody who comes to your house for dinner and you find them swilling the vodka out of your wet bar straight from the bottle while they think everyone is in the kitchen trying to grapple with getting the ham out of the oven. You 86 somebody from your bar who drinks too much and picks fights and sexually grabs people.
Murdering them would be an imprudent overexercise of scarce, costly resources. A 86ed customer just needs to go away and not darken the doorstep any longer. Ditto an 86ed occupant of federal residential property.
I have very little time right now to research UNLV archives for documentation of this fine but critical distinction, but it means enough to me to fight for the reputation of the project, and for you and yours, that I'll do the best I can in the next couple of weeks. (Alternately: If there is a reliable source for this concept anywhere, UNLV probably has it, I have to believe.) - Julietdeltalima(talk)19:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Julietdeltalima, I would have made it to LV this spring had it not been for the COVID--and if I would have overcome my moral scruples about gambling and the environmental footprint of the place; I'm still not sure about it. What has happened in that article is a feedback loop of sorts. Some idiot finds a minor little thingy that says "kill" and the entire right-wing blogosphere jumps on it to make the argument that Whitmer had practically hired an assassination squad, one that made ornaments and sold them on Etsy. And then some medium picks up on it and increases the traction, and then the next one, and all these right-wing editors jump on it, and then the wikilawyering starts, and before you know it we have the most ridiculous article whose only added value above that of a Wiktionary entry is a bunch of hot air that only reinforces how silly this is. Thank you; I hope you can do something with it. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Report filed at ANI has not yet recieved response
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I recently filed a report at ANI about a user who engages in OR/Syth, edit warring, persistently adds low quality sources (including a non-peer-reviewed preprint), and refuses to engage/discuss (reverting me and completely ignoring my edit summaries trying to explain the problems with their edits). However, the report has been there for a while now, and although two non-admin users have commented (corroborating what I described), no admins have yet and nothing has been done. The user who is the subject of the report has begun to edit again and thus I worry the problem will continue (since they have a tendency to be unresponsive to explanations and to make strange and unfounded accusations). I'm not sure what to do. I am contacting you because I believe it was you who edited the title of my report soon after it was filed. I hope doing so is not inappropriate (is there some one else I should contact? Sould I perhaps re-file the report?) Here is a link to my report:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#USER:Toltol15_making_WP:OR_edits_and_edits_using_low_quality_sources,_ignoring_edit_notes/edit_wars,_and_refusing_to_engage/discuss
Is there another admin I should perhaps also contact? )I have also left a similar message for administrator User:Doug Weller.) Any help is appreciated. Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps "ANI" is the wrong term. The place I filed the report is at the link I left above. I contacted you because I believe you were the one who initially edited the title of my report, here [[22]] (a tenuous reason I do realize). If it was inapropriate for me to post here I apologize. Should I delete this post? My apologies again.Skllagyook (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
No apology necessary--but since I'm a bit of a social media whore I'm always interested in where my clicks come from. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I saw the post and I see why you might have thought of me. Yes, that editor is problematic and I left a comment there. Thank you, and hit that like button. Don't forget to subscribe for more daily content! Drmies (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It reads fluffy...and it needs a bunch of rewriting, pruning those quotes and all that. But rewriting this and sourcing it better shouldn't be hard for a person with such public exposure. Sorry, gotta run... Drmies (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I hadn't thought about that, and I wouldn't easily think "POV" and tie it to UNESCO--my concern was notability and secondary sourcing. But I will follow the links and have a look: thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
True, undigested free content (i.e. without at least a basic application of, say, Wikipedia's core content policies) is often problematic, whether or not the source comes from high places such as UNESCO. I was involved in a few of these cases, but some time ago: I can't remember on the spot which pages were involved, but will look it up if helpful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, my personal interest here is not so much with the status of those kinds of sources, but with the articles. I see how they are related, yes. Those Sustainable Goals articles, that irritated me. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Don't know if out of sarcasm or not (assuming good faith? After nearly 15 years, i'm well past that stage), but this person thanked me for an edit i performed in the aforementioned article. Regards, keep it up --Quite A Character (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
One of these days you need to buy me a beer. Maybe one day we'll get to sit down and watch a rerun of that Ajax - Milan game in 1995. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Serious matter, i think: now, a guy who complained about me to an admin regarding another article (without even notifying me!), has joined forces with the sock in the article, reinstating their overdetail. I have already written them a message on the matter (polite of course), and they have replied, we seem to be getting along :)
Hey, I've seen that--but maybe only the first half or so. (I sometimes remark on Wikipedia that I have a terrible memory, and it's true--I rented Heist three times.) It was very scary. I think I am going to watch it again. The Tarkovsky film has none of those fancy special effects, and it's slow going--but there's a real kicker at the end. A few years ago we had a student who was going to write a master's thesis on it, connecting it to the Grail legend, but he disappeared--possibly into the Zone. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I like films that are more pedestrian sometimes. I've just looked and it's £2 to watch on Amazon Prime, so I'll file that away for sometime I've got 3 hours spare! Black Kite (talk)21:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I assume Drmies was just modifying the template in a manner that would make it more understandable to this particular vandal. The PEN15 is mightier than the sword.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots23:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Y'all saw that I was corrected by an experienced editor and given some solid advice on how to conduct myself in the future. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I have been reading some family news posted by your wife on that other website. I just want you to know that I care about all of you, and hope that everything ends up OK. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you sir. So far so good: we've all tested negative, some of us more than once. Unfortunately sweet Rosie can't taste a thing, and she loves cooking. She should be ready to go back to school, though. Thanks Cullen. We hope you, and Deb, and the sons, and the granddaughter are well too. You know Mrs. Drmies is quite fond of you; I will tell her of your note. Now about those elections! I kinda wish I could have seen your livestream, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Haha when I read "...or taste your favorite dish" I misread "dish" for a different word. Thanks Cullen; I'll show this to Rosie, who made delicious dumplings and dipping sauce for lunch. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Now after a brief hiatus, CorrectionalFacility101 is back and has again changed Ash'ari to Orthodox Athari and changed the wording of the referenced quote from;
""Talbis Iblis, by the Ash'ari theologian Ibn al-Jauzi, contains strong attacks on the Sufis, though the author makes a distinction between an older purer Sufism and the "modern" one,"
while leaving the reference there, thus making this source misrepresentation.
Needless to say, I checked the latest change and verified the quote and reverted them. I had posted on their talk page back in Dec 2019 and considering they have warnings from 4 other editors, I feel it may be time for an Admin to have a "talk" with them. Hopefully they will not make anymore changes to referenced information, but I am not optimistic. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 41
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hey, Drmies. Hope you're well. There's an incident in which your advice might help. Amanuensis Balkanicus(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been trying to insert the WP:FRINGE theory that the Panda Bar massacre was "possibly" committed by the Kosovo Liberation Army and they also removed the Yugoslav/Serbian security services as one of the possible culprits. It's WP:FRINGE because an official Serbian investigation has concluded that no Albanian involvement existed whatsoever and Serbia officially has acknowledged that the perpetrators were actually agents from the Serbian state security agency of the Milosevic regime. It's one of those rare cases where the victims have gotten at least some answers - although they probably won't get any justice 20+ years after the event (side comment). The WP:FRINGE aspect of the dispute probably should be discussed on AE, so my question involves another issue. Amanuensis Balkanicus after reverting me, was reverted by another editor and then left a message on Sadko's talkpage and informed him to check it out (in reference to him being reverted) with the section title "vandalism". Then Sadko removed the message from his talkpage and made reverts similar to AB's and reinserted the same WP:FRINGE theory. I wasn't aware of the exchange between AB-Sadko until another editor mentioned it on the talkpage [23]. Now, in my book, that looks like a possible case of canvassing in order to get support in a dispute. Is that form of notification acceptable? --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but it's minimal; the non-neutral part can be inferred from "vandalism" but no admin is going to block for that. Editors are tag-teaming, which isn't unusual in that area. What I think you should do, and that would be more fruitful than asking me, is take this to arbitration enforcement, following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. It's been quiet there for a while, but I see that EvergreenFir put one editor on 1R recently. Precisely what you are charging editors with, that's up to you. Maybe canvassing or tag-teaming, with false charges of vandalism, creating a hostile atmosphere? But then again, maybe Kurir is an unreliable source--and if so, then you can be charged with inserting information based on poor sources... Drmies (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You made your edit, and someone reverted pointing at TABLOID; I assume it was the Kurir source, which was indeed cited in your edit. I'm just telling you what I see and what possible consequences that might have in an arbitration case. I do think all of y'all should be headed towards arbitration, and let the chips fall where they may: surely you're all getting tired of each other. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
And I added newer sources then since that was disputed, but I don't think that the Kurir report was tabloid per se given how the events unfolded since then. I would definitely support an all-ending arbitration regarding several disputes, but - unfortunately - I don't see that happening any time soon for many reasons.--Maleschreiber (talk)
Anytime you leave a source like that in, and you have to argue (if someone were to ask) that "it's proven by events afterward", you're not a in a very strong position. I'm just telling you like it is--I've seen it happen in other DS areas. But if I were you, I'd consider starting a small case, on one or two articles. BTW I'd tell your opponents the same thing, if any one of them think I'm coaching you or something. I don't even know what the sides are in this dispute. And to all your opponents: please do NOT feel the need to start all that all over again here--I might simply revert with a pointer to WP:ARE. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right - personally, I support community discussions but many times they end up being TL;DR less than an hour after an editor starts them. And then nobody wants to actually check anything, because it's daunting, but I'll go towards that direction in the future. Thanks! --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hope that you don't mind me jumping in, Drmies. I am sorry, but I must ask - what was the point of this message? I can also read a lot of subtle hostility and intolerance for other party's position... I was notified about the dispute, I joined and did what I think is the good deed - I removed the blunt tabloid used for an exceptional claim and restored back to the stable version of the article. That is not canvassing, even less so because I would spot the dispute sooner or later, considering that I follow a number of related articles and I try to contribute as much as my work will let me. If there is a clear guideline/rule which states that you can't leave messages to other senior editors on their own talk page when you think that he/she might contribute in the dispute (one way or another), please do let me know - and I'll bear that in mind. We do not have a "secret channel" or correspondence anywhere outside Wiki, which would constitute some of the good old canvassing, wouldn't it? If one is to read the talk page debate, he/she can see that editor who is complaining here has not presented a source for his main claim, that is, that "the Serbian government has officially acknowledged that the event was done by Serbian forces". Notice that the editor who is making this /report/ has not answered anybody when asked where that claim was confirmed. Aside from that, people who were dealing with the matter pointed out that the event was probably done either by the KLA or a rogue unit, as a revenge attack for the actions of Serbian/Yugoslav police. That is a fact, backed by multiple reliable sources. I find it outrageous that there are no real sources for this exceptional claim, rather than making it a story about an ongoing plot - and there is none. Please assume good faith, as I do. P.S: I shall not comment/respond further here. Cheers, Sadkσ(talk is cheap)02:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Sadko, look at the little schematic on WP:CANVAS. Maleschreiber is arguing, I think, that it's canvassing because of 2 and 3: it was partisan and not neutral. Much of that will hinge on interpreting the somewhat brief and cryptic text that accompanied, which is why I said few admins would block for it, but I think most admins will agree that it is an effort to enlist another editor. If the editor had said "hey what do you think of this?", it would have taken one of the possibly two elements of canvassing out of the equation.
As for the KLA or whatever, you know that I know nothing about this subject matter at all so arguing one side or another is useless. I did, of course, have a look at the article. So much fighting and so little writing! "KLA" needs to be spelled out and linked. "Civilian" and "ambush" don't need to be linked. In the timeline, some of the salient facts should be repeated: "On 14 December 1998, when a fragile ceasefire was in effect during the Kosovo War, Serbian police ambushed an incursion by the Kosovo Liberation Army, killing at least 31 people in the process" or something like that. "Within hours of the border ambush, the KLA vowed revenge" needs to go: the BBC source connects that to the brutal murder of that official, not to the shooting in the bar, and our article right now suggests cause and effect. I think y'all should remove "suspected KLA gunmen" from that second sentence in the Timeline section, and hold it for later; I think you should move that entire passage starting "Western diplomats" and place it later. There is no article linked to the Judah reference, so it's not clear whether his thoughts matter; I found something in his article and will stick it in there--please check if that's the right one. OH--it is, and whoever wrote "the journalist Tim Judah suggests that the attack may have been carried out by a rogue unit" should be ashamed of themselves: Judah says no such thing. He says "Whether they [the KLA] were [responsible for the Panda Bar killing], or whether whether the killings were committed by a rogue unit, as some of the diplomats believed, hardly mattered now".
OK. Wittgenstein said that that many of the problems of philosophy are problems of language, and how can you all ever expect some sort of consensual article building when there are problems even before we get to the problems? Drmies (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
But Drmies, the early Wittgenstein was gloriously contradicted by the late Wittgenstein and here we are in post-modernity with its language games and signifiers which only refer to other signifiers. A most terrible condition to be around, so I think that in order to not fall deep into the rabbit hole of relativism, some basic intellectual honesty in the use of bibliography needs to be followed. Many of these articles - including the Panda Bar massacre - seem to have been written by the same banned sock and apparently have remained in the same state for many years without any verification of bibliography. Thanks for starting the cleanup. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Inivitation
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, it seems USER:Toltol15 has again added the same non-peer-reviewed scientific preprint to an article, Sub-Saharan Africa (that they repeatedly added before). Thus they seem to have now ignored your warning on their personal Talk page as they ignored the report I filed (at the "ANI" board), as well as my repeated attempts to explain the problems with their edit to them before I filed the report. I reverted them with (yet another) explanation, but I think they are likely to ignore me and continue to refuse to engage as they have done before. Can anything be done. (Should I file another report?) Here is the pages's edit history for reference:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Sub-Saharan_Africa
Update: They have continued to refuse to engage and edit war, and continue to completely miss the point of why their edits are problematic.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I think we discussed this article quite a few years ago, and agreed that it has problems. I just ran across it again. It is so gigantic that I don't know what to do about it. Any thoughts? Cullen328Let's discuss it23:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am the person you got banned for editing the Tia Dalma page. I get it and I have no hard feelings, I totally deserved it. But I was hoping you could help me. The person whose edits I am removing, I am removing because they keep referring to Tia Dalma as a representation of sexual goddesses (Calypso and Erzulie), neither of which are sexual goddesses if you do any research on them at all. Their source for that is a book I cannot read without buying but is slightly worrisome as it is written by a man and men have the sexist tendency to over sexualise women. I also think that if one does talk about the sexualisation of Tia Dalma that is fine, but they are not providing facts from both perspectives which I perceive as sexist and therefore not actually objective.
I don't want to be banned again, of course but I also think that this important to the black female narrative and so will not let up.
Anger0104, the content you removed did not mention "sexual goddesses". Your perception isn't at all relevant here, and neither is mine; the perspective of the author whose work you removed, however, is quite relevant, given that it's published in book form by the University of Georgia Press. And while we're at it, Andrea Nevins, if we believe the picture on her faculty page, is not a man but a Black woman who's got a Ph.D. and focuses on the Caribbean and African Diaspora. Her other monograph is The Embodiment of Disobedience: Fat Black Women's Unruly Political Bodies, so I suggest you should rethink your opinion. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't "ban" you: you were blocked for 60 hours for edit warring. If you start this all over again, you will be blocked again, and you should take HPfan4 seriously. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Annie Donaldson page protection
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As I've said before and I hope you don't mind me repeating here, I am not an "anti-Muslim", quite the opposite. I'm sorry I've given this impression. Like I said, I have never suggested the story is true, though at least two Wikipedia articles still say it is. I hope you will make your assessment in light of these facts. Please re-assess my position and please accept my apologies for not making it more explicit sooner. Accusations of me being anti-Muslim are hurtful and unfounded and I would your suggestion to the contrary to be withdrawn. Clearly we didn't agree on how/whether the Mehmed story should be dealt with, but I said at the time I wanted to consider changes and asked for input which was ignored.
The way that Constantinople and Fall of Constantinople deal with the story is an object lesson in the kind of treatment I was hoping to avoid by attributing the story to its authors, making clear the authors were not present and that their alleged witnesses do not support the crucial mythic elements that are essential to the ideological effect, and by demonstrating the numerous incongruent details and mutual contradictions in the sources. I asked before to collaborate on how better to present the narrative, but no-one took part. Perhaps you can suggest how better to handle it, but in any case please retract the accusation of anti-Muslim editing, it's not fair or accurate. GPinkerton (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, I do not believe I have said "you were anti-Muslim" or something like that. I indicated that your edits, in as much as I know them, suggested a POV that I found to be an impediment in editing neutrally. I see now that you claimed I said "anti-Muslim" also at ANI--that you would say I said that, here and at ANI, is seriously troubling. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Football games are won or lost in the trenches, not in the vagaries of external influences. The talented, inspired gentlemen on both sides of the ball in this contest are so focused at this moment that their efforts will be positively Homeric. Roll Tide. Tiderolls23:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I sincerely hope he gets well soon. Despite him being Bama coach I think he's a decent guy. Also, we suck this year and we'll probably get whooped but you never know with the Iron Bowl. Volunteer Marek 00:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks VM. I also think he's a decent guy. Tuberville, our new senator, that's a different thing. Now that Trump is out of office, what will be his compass? Yep, you never know with the Iron Bowl. Wish we could watch it together! Drmies (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Stormfront (website) editing dispute
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I think the use of "white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial" in the first sentence of the article Stormfront (website) is redundant because Neo-Nazis are, by definition, white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic Holocaust deniers. The excessive use of descriptors, while 100% accurate, kind of comes across like it's trying to take a jab at Stormfront(?) which is fine in other contexts, but aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to be unopinionated? I think it would be better if the first sentence just read "Stormfront is a Neo-nazi Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site." You clearly disagree, which is why I created a section on the Stormfront (website) talk page so we can discuss this topic. (Talk:Stormfront_(website)#Redundant/excessive_use_of_descriptors) Cc330162 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I figured, or you wouldn't have jumped into a high-traffic article like that. Such an edit is almost always going to be reverted. Anyway, I saw your note on the talk page, so let's see how that goes. Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Very confused regarding your comments and revert
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I am extremely confused at your comments and reversion. There is user who constantly removes valid and sourced information in an attempt to change a certain article. indeed, multiple articles from HateWatch, the Southern Poverty Law Centre and Right Wing Watch have profiled Owen Benjamin. Why can that not be represented in the article? As it is, the article does not convey that Benjamin is involved in daily holocaust denial, spreads Neo Nazi propaganda and encourages violence. The users consistently reverts any edits that accurately report on him. Why did you call me out for this, and why is that okay? Please help me understand, because I don't know why we continue to allow Benjamin to not face the consequences of his actions and words. Thank you. TruthBuster21223 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if you are actually confused, but I note a whole bunch of falsehoods in your statement here. Wallyfromdilbert did not in fact remove valid and sourced information from the article: it's all still there, just not in the lead, where, it can be easily argued, it's undue. What your edit accomplished, it seems, was to lift two very specific things out of the article and put them in the lead, while removing the more general and valid information, about his social media stuff being blocked for antisemitism etc. So "why can that not be represented in the article" is simply false; it is in the article, just not in the lead. If you want to get anywhere here, you can discuss things on the talk page, stop making false accusations, and be more careful in your statements about editors and their edits. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes I am actually confused. And it was not my edit from the lead, that was another user. Many users felt it was appropriate to be in the lead, while another did not. How does that mean we are disruptive? Also, I never have made a false accusation. TruthBuster21223 (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
TruthBuster21223, I understand your concerns about antisemitism, but you clearly have an obsession with pushing a particular point-of-view about Owen Benjamin on Wikipedia, which is the sole content of your edits, and you frequently add material that is unencyclopedic as well as misleading or simply false information. Your statement that "multiple articles from HateWatch, the Southern Poverty Law Centre and Right Wing Watch have profiled Owen Benjamin" is just false. There was one article sourced to SPLC/Hatewatch that you added, and that article in no way "profiles" Benjamin, and so I took out that misleading language that you had added. Similarly, your statement that "Many users felt it was appropriate to be in the lead" is also false (that sentence was recently added by a single user and replaced by me, before being restored by you and replaced again by Drmies). Finally, you continuing to claim that I "consistently revert any edits that accurately report on him" is obviously false and clearly a personal attack. You should actually read that blue link and learn why your behavior is inappropriate. Your complaint at ANI was thrown out for being baseless and you were fortunate to not have it boomerang on you, and now you are being warned by an admin to stop this behavior against me. Seriously, please stop with the falsities and exaggerations and focus on the content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! This wide range block is probably unecessary since many edits seem unrelated and not vandalism. Even for bad contributions they are probably different users, these are dynamic IPs and per the stupid greek ISPs network architecture they may even be from different cities... (Stepped on this by chance when my browser decided to log me out). -Geraki (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Besides the sock, a longterm disruptor, there are tons and tons of disruptive edits--the many unexplained and unverified soccer edits alone are a good reason for a block. So I do not presume that I blocked one single user: I know I blocked at least two different ones, both of whom are not a net positive for the project, and I think the block is justified... Drmies (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
As I have noted, these are dynamic IPs (VDSL lines). Therefore you have not completely blocked the disruptive users; they can always reboot their routers and get a new IP from another range and continue their behaviour. But you certainly make it more difficult for good faith users who are not that experienced. You would end to block 40% of internet users from Greece (yeap, that is the percentage of this ISP customers). You should probably protect those articles and lift the block. --Geraki (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I want to personally thank you for banning user 108.84.252.85 for his vandalism on a bunch of pages (including the Riverside International Raceway page that I had to revert) for 2 years, I wish it could have been longer (life) but it is what it is.
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I was wondering why you blocked Konli17 indef. straight. He really improved the flow of multiple sections in articles and his edits were mostly reverted for for the word Kurdistan which was mainly done by the ones who reported him multiple times at the noticeboards just for making it seem he is an edit warrior. I've checked the reports, there was no violation in two of them at all, once, he even reverted less than the filer! of the report. He was also rather active and polite at the talk pages which some of the ones who have reported him, can't really say. He probably became a little tired of the discussions at the noticeboards after he was blocked for reverting less! than the one who filed the report in an edit dispute where he really was arguing rather polite and with reason, while the filer literally answered I don't care what you think which now doesn't seem fair at all, much less regarding the civility discussion that now comes up in the dispute. He was sure here to build an encyclopedia. A block for a few days, ok, but for indef. straight for not wanting to build an encyclopedia, I'd be glad to receive a clarification.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
BTW, this is worth looking at--I hadn't seen it, but these three reports alone, with all the comments from a variety of editors, are enough to warrant a block. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes I've read it, and this is what I meant. They report Konli17 so it seems! to admins he is an edit warrior. Not single report is valid for the 3RR noticeboard. The one with 4 "reverts"refers to a Kurdish name which he added the first time, and Dilok redirects to Gaziantep Province of which Gaziantep is the capital of. He didn't revert 4 times. In the other report by Supreme Deliciousness there is no violation at all, nor at the one by Beshogur. So if you write these reports alone are valid for block, please check them as well. To the sock puppet report I'd be skeptical and to block a constructive user for three non valid reports...pfff.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Kurds in Turkey shows plenty of reverts and plenty of evidence of edit warring; it's really the same on all those other articles. I see a ton of reverts with the argument "per talk" or "per moderator in RfC", with no evidence that there is a consensus on the talk or a "moderator" who speaks with authority. And edit warring isn't the same as breaking the three-revert rule. Mind you, we could probably block a dozen editors there. You can "pff" all you want, but very relevant evidence was provided at the SPI. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience with me and for the renewed clarification. I see you seem to be certain and you have way more experience than me in these investigations.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't thank me--it was the detailed diffs in the SPI. I do think that something needs to happen in that area: there are way too many people edit warring, and there is not enough goodwill, I think, on the talk pages. Both sides. I hope editors will be able to find a way to get along. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
AN3 question
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Drmies. I had this user talk page still on my watchlist from an earlier post when I noticed the AN3 thread. Do you think I can just remove WT:AN3#Multiple threads for same problem since things now appear to have been sorted? In addition, I'm wondering whether PabloLikesToWrestle might need some guidance per WP:YOUNG given what he has posted on his user page. It's possible that he might at least be still a high school student. That's not an excuse for EW for sure, but his age might be a contributing factor to his lack of WP:CIVIL in dealing with this situation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I think that's a great idea. I don't think there's much more I can do there, but maybe you can. I haven't looked at the user page, BTW. Yes, thanks--I appreciate that. I mean, I suppose you saw the messages, and their tone, which was wrong from the get-go. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I found the comments a bit WP:BITEy at best, and they certainly weren't helping to diffuse the situation; however, another editor seem to be trying to resolve them so I didn't want to pile on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Oh my goodness--that was Herculean. Thank you for the note--I will look at it when I get a chance--but it looks magnificent already. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Wars, real and virtual
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Please see my one-week protection. I thought the continued reverts were getting ridiculous. Hope this was not going against your intentions for how to handle this. You can kind of see what both sides would be taking it extremely seriously, though we can't let that kind of thing continue. WP can't solve all the problems of the real world. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
A remark about your attitude. I don't appreciate that you post angry and demeaning responses to honest questions and remarks which you don't even bother to read properly before blowing your fuse. That's insulting and pointless. For example (leaving out your sarcasm): You were accusing me of NOT understanding how reverting without an explanation is prima facie disruptive in the middle of an edit war, and not being competent enough in working in a collaborative environment, and so on. That was your response to my remark: "I've invited that editor to the Talk page and have explained the reverts there in detail." I have wasted weeks on an article, getting nowhere because of an obstructive editor. But once I start restoring and protecting my contributions and come to you for advice all I get is your negative attitude. Maybe you're having a bad day, or week, but come on. Saflieni (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You are the obstructive editor, and given this gaslighting of yours I'm not surprised that others find your behavior problematic as well. Don't come back here. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Checked the wrong box. Thanks. Hey, I saw it pretty quickly, but the edit was bad enough--I don't know if you remember the content of it very well, but when you see something like that, don't hesitate emailing emergency@wikimedia.org: I thought that it was a physical threat. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Block please.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry, but I don't think I can be very helpful here. Enlightenment Now could do with a general paragraph in that Reception second, summarizing what the positive and negative points are according to critics. For the Blood book that needs to be done as well, but at least that article has a short summary of those points in the lead. But Blood has all kinds of other problems/discussions, including the credentials of the author, of the critics, and of the critics of the critics, so that exponentially increases the problem and the potential for editorial controversy. It's just one of those articles where every bit of criticism needs to be properly ascribed, but that's about all I can say now. Please note that I am not an expert on that content, that subject matter--though I can typically separate the wheat from the chaff pretty well, as I tried to do in a few comments on the talk page. I take it that the editorial opponent is not blocked from the article? I'm not really following that case. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, just wanted to ask if you can unblock an IP address. Some times, I prefer not to edit logged in, for various reasons, but my IP has been blocked because some other user somewhere else in the world caused disruptions. This my IP contribution page: . Thanks —Dimsar01Talk ⌚→ 12:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I see, and not it's not privacy reasons, that's why I had no problem of exposing the address. Thanks anyway for hiding it. —Dimsar01Talk ⌚→ 18:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Template editor comment
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
On a sidenote, you wrote at WP:ANI that I became a template editor while you weren't watching.[24] What did you mean by that? It sounds as though you think I shouldn't be a template editor. I have been a template editor since 2013, with quite some experience, and don't think have ever give reason to doubt that I am a good template editor. Maybe you meant something else, or I am reading something into your words that you didn't mean, and in that case I apologize for bothering you, but to me what you wrote sounded not very nice. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I noticed you had that right via my beloved nav popups tool, but I strongly suspect Drmies just didn't realize. I would be very surprised if it were intended as a snarky remark. For one thing, it would just be a silly one. :) —valereee (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Debresser, please note that I said "unless D. became a template editor while I wasn't watching"--you obviously became a template editor while I wasn't watching. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I suppose it is just my English-as-a-Foreign-Language ears that detect a derogatory tone in that sentence. I agree that I have no reason to suspect you of snarky remarks, and will take this in good faith. Thank you for your reply, and sorry to have bothered you for this. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Jeez, what a mess. At least it was a clean copy/paste. Thanks for cleaning up the copyvio. I've been meaning to have a go at Santa María (ship) where a well-meaning, enthusiastic editor wrote what they knew rather than summarizing sources - as an article on a prominent subject it's a bit pernicious, and a rewrite will need to be done from scratch to deal with all the musings interleaved with the referenced material. I cut out 10K of digressions back in the summer, but haven't had the motivation to tackle that one. Acroterion(talk)18:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that anybody who advocated something like Methodism in Spain in 1492 would have been visited by the Inquisition. Santa María is at 98K since I whacked two paragraphs from the lede that had nothing at all to do with the ship. Acroterion(talk)20:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Adamant1
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hi Drmies.
It seems that Adamant1, whom you recently blocked, either does not understand the underlying reason for the block or is in denial. The editor made an unblock request and essentially blaming others—and I assume on the editor's list in this case—and his aggressive attempts to correct the aspersions they made for the block. Would you mind responding to it to help clear the confusion up? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think anyone is really confused, and I am pretty sure the next admin, whoever follows up on that unblock request, will be confused either. We've spent way too much ink on that editor's behavior already. You said it yourself: they're blaming others and continue their verbal aggression. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
BTW I didn't understand that someone would think of Adam Ant. My first reference was adamant and John Donne: And thou like adamant draw mine iron heart. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You have issued a warning for using copyrighted material. Please have another look as I am sure you will find that the text in question is not contributed or edited by me.
As for the (lower) part in the article and my contributions affected by your actions, these does not in any way violate copyright. I am certain you will agree, if you look in to it. Only quotes have been 'copied'.
Thank you --BigBoy75 (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
BigBoy75, anyone who compares this, "First the context in which individual sentences were extracted from the source materials and rephrased in the form of summaries and headlines which make them sound particularly outrageous" with this, "First, in some cases individual sentences are extracted from the context of the source materials and rephrased in the form of summaries and headlines which make them sound particularly outrageous", will see that you are mistaken: this is very poor paraphrase. And any admin who looks at your edit will see that you didn't ascribe it, or enclose it in quotation marks. In fact, your response is so discouraging that I am going to have to look at your other contributions. In the meantime, please follow the links in that warning template so you can learn how to do better. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Dremis, I cannot view this edit. I do agree it is the same text and may inadvertently have used it as it's complicated sentence to rephrase. But please do look into my other contributions as I don't believe you will find any bad faith. I'll look into the issues mentioned by you. Thank you --BigBoy75 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
You can't because I have revdeleted it as a copyright violation; you'll have to take my word for it. I do not believe you were acting in bad faith in making that edit, but for all of us working on Wikipedia is an education in something--for you it may be in reliable sourcing and paraphrasing. Thanks for your note here; I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Christian Schreiber (philosopher)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
No Gerda--thank you so much for the undeserved credit! I love following your stuff. I can't follow (or begin to comprehend) the classical music material, but I am always interested in all these articles on German history and culture. In fact, I was thinking the other day that every country should have an editor like you on the English Wikipedia. You have made us so much richer: thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I am user wiki97828
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sure thing. But please proofread before you submit your edits to mainspace. I appreciate you writing up that article and I'm glad to help prevent deletion. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
Hi Drmies,
I wonder what you think of the following odd situation, and in particular whether I've handled it correctly: if you look at the history of the obscure newish page Tau function (integrable systems), you'll see heavy editing by KarlJacobi, C.L.Dodgson, W.Pauli, F.J.Dyson, F.G.Frobenius, C.F.Klein, and Rphysicist. The naming scheme here is formulaic, and they all have essentially the same userpage (a sentence or short paragraph of the form "This account is mainly devoted to [some topic broadly in mathematics or physics]") -- so it seems like they're all the same person. There doesn't seem to be anything terribly wrong with their editing. So far, I've left a note on the oldest account. Does that seem about right?
Without even clicking on the links, I'd say this has all the hallmarks of a class project. Look through the contributions and see if there's cross communications, and if there's one that has some edit somewhere on one of the Education pages. (I guess not, or you'd have found it already.) I can check later, but for now it sounds like you did the right thing--just wait for a response. Sorry, gotta run: it's grading time. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Aha, interesting, that didn't occur to me. There is not any on-Wiki communication between the accounts that I can see, but of course students in the same class wouldn't need to use Wiki to communicate. Possibly I will be owing an apology for jumping to conclusions. Thanks for your feedback! (Also have to finish grading the last small pile of p-sets, with final exams next week ....) All the best, JBL (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I still haven't had the time to look at it. I got six more essays to grade; I barely got to enjoy the Alabama football game. ;) Drmies (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought my off-the-cuff analysis was pretty brilliant, but now I'm thinking that we are dealing with a functional but highly uncommunicative individual. Nothing in the edit histories I looked at confirms my hypothesis, and a few of the accounts go back to February 2018--KarlJacobi is the oldest, going back to 2008, but you know this (these are also notes for me, for later). And now that I look over Jacobi's talk page, I am having even more doubts. I left a note on Pauli's talk page; let's follow up on this if they don't in the next few days. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I would say the subsequent behaviors confirms my original interpretation of the situation. Glad I've succeeded in making this your problem instead of mine :-p. And good luck making it to the bottom of the grading pile! (Today I'm avoiding this instead of writing a calculus exam.) --JBL (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
It's on a topic that appears to be notable but that I know very little about, too little to be able to tell whether the article is badly sourced but covers its article appropriately or whether it is filled with original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it necessary to give an account of one's credentials in this setting, where you, and most everyone else, are similarly concealed behind a curtain of anonymity, and do not have to account for your own qualifications or authority in making such enquiries. Suffice to say that I am a qualified contributor, a professional mathematician and physicist, and that I only quite recently created the user account W.Pauli for the purpose of occasionally sharing things that I happen to know on topics in theoretical physics which may be of service to users of Wikipedia. I also created an account User:C.F.Klein, for similar contributions on purely mathematical topics. Although it is mentioned in the user page of both that these accounts are linked, I prefer to keep them separate, to distinguish any edits that are purely in physics from those that
are in mathematics, even though they may deal with different aspects of the same Wikipedia article.
The article you are referring to was mainly the creation of another User, KarlJacobi, who has been doing this sort of Wikipedia editing for much longer, and whose identity I happen to know, since he is a colleague currently working in a field with significant overlap with my own - Integrable Systems. I can assure you that KarlJacobi is a well-known expert in this field (which you might want to look up, e.g., in Wikipedia), and that the article, on tau-functions is exceptionally well-written, (though perhaps not so much the parts that I added), of considerable current interest, and very well-sourced.
On the other hand, the User JBL who tried "discretely" to question this contribution, has a rather well-documented history of trouble-making: unwarranted deletion of other people's work, use of abusive language, edit warring, etc. He has, I believe, been banished from editing at Wikipedia on more than one occasion. Before giving serious credence to his insinuations, I would recommend looking a bit at his history (e.g. by consulting his own talk page, if he hasn't got around to deleting the more embarrassing parts meanwhile). W.Pauli (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
W.Pauli, I'm not sure how to respond to this. My colleagues at my university don't talk to me in that way. I suggest you read WP:SOCKLEGIT; I do not yet see any valid reason for you to have more than one account. Plus, there's another four accounts which, as you know, are carbon copies of yours, and the technical evidence supports that as much as the behavioral evidence. And you say the one account is linked to the other, but it's more accurate to say that it is linked now with the other. I have no intention of questioning your content expertise; what I do wonder about is that condescending attitude. If you know anything about Wikipedia, you should know that it is a collaborative project, and your personal attacks on JBL run counter to what it is that we are trying to do. I suggest you drop that line of approach.
User:JayBeeEll, no word from Jacobi, though they made this edit since I pinged them (above). User:W.Pauli and User:C.F.Klein have been alternating edits on the Klein user page, as if they can't make up their minds; the others have been quiet. I don't really know what to do, though Pauli is so rude I question their capability of working on a collaborative worker. Ha, that means I question that for all the others as well. Anyway, how do we go forward? The evidence is overwhelming that this is all the same person; the question is which ones should be blocked, if any, and whether any of their behavior amounts to abuse of multiple accounts. What you could do, if you want to take this step, is go to WP:SPI and file a report; you can tell them that CU has confirmed all these accounts but that you'd like someone to look into what actions should be taken. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the same way that wikipedia does not consider the California State Library as national library, the library of catalonia should not be considered that way either. Please stop reverting changes based on your own bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiiiiikiiiii (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous, User:Wiiiiikiiiii. I'm not reverting because of that (and hush up with your assumptions about "bias"), but because you keep turning proper capitals into lowercase letters. If you do that again I will block you. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have a lot to say about this dumpster fire of an article but...I wanted to get an opinion. I don't think we should include this lawsuit, since it was unsuccessful. DCYF paid out 600k in medical expenses for Alahveridan, he filed this lawsuit (i'm leaving a bit in between out because it's inexplicably oversighted) alleging he was raped and tortured, they filed the 200k lien (against his suit somehow) and then he dropped it. It's a nothingburger. If we don't allow primary sources for the rest of the stuff (particularly the controversy that was deleted) I don't think this should be in here either. The only person who ever discusses the suit is him by way of interviews being taken out of context by poorly run local media. GRINCHIDICAE🎄18:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you, Grinch--it sure is a weird article. I wish I'd had that job when I was 14; I'm sure it paid better and was less onerous than peeling tulip bulbs. And let me add that I find the whole thing hard to follow (I mean the history, and the article, and the sources--all of it), and I actually haven't even looked at the lawsuit--what I did was a bit of pruning, that's all. But it's being discussed in various places, and that's all I can say about it right now. But there was broad agreement on the suppression of material, and I am not going to second-guess that. Don't put too much time and effort into that article. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Assistance requested
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sorry to bother you, but I need help. The following IP address, 69.121.181.163, a known WP:VANDAL who has been blocked before, is disrupting Wikipedia. Most recently, they tried to transfer information from the Tinkerer's page to an unrelated character twice for no good reason. I have undone these, but I just know they are going to do it again. They also have no respect for Wikipedia or their fellow Wikipedians, as they keep violating rules from the WP:MOS such as WP:OR and WP:EGG as well as writing information so that only they and fans of the material they edit understand it and not general readers. Even worse, they only ever use the excuse "Minor changes" in their edit summary when they are making massive changes such as removing references for no reason or making bold claims with no sourcing at all. I have tried to reason with them, but they insist on leaving disruptive edits in their wake with no sign of stopping, forcing others like myself to clean up their mess. Please respond when you can. Blazewing16 (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how is this vandalism? The edits are unexplained but that's par for the course in that area. The real Wikipedia crime is the occurrence of "seemingly dies" in that article, which is horrible, and the fact that we have the dumb article in the first place--another "fictional blah blah" with no secondary sourcing, written up by people with no concept of what an encyclopedia should do. Sorry, but if you want me to do something about this person, you need to indicate exactly what their vandalism consists of. And you accused them of not being concise--so why reinstate all this trivia? Don't get me wrong, I might still block them if I see more disruptive stuff, but they are no more disruptive than many other editors in that area. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Best wishes for the holidays
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Johnbod, that is very kind of you: I am honored to receive your best wishes. All the best to you and your family--from a very dreary and cold Alabama. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please look at Draft:Tachash/stub and perhaps there can be a mediated-form of edits, meaning that Tachash would be updated every 48-72 hours from a doubly copied Tachash/stub. The process might resemble this:
copy stub to a read-only spot at time X.
allow comments until time X+48 hours.
if all is well, the copied version replaces the new MAIN read-only.
At all times the stub will be available for editing - the same text that could become the WP:OVERDUE "plan" portion of Tabernacle, but hasn't (?yet). This way, a Tachash would be available to the reading public (remember- they're the main goal, not the subset who are editors, or the still smaller set: squabblers).
P.S. If the above all-manual system works for a while, a bot-aided version could allow a vote-based system, that collects "m of n" votes every 24 hours, using the rule that a NO needs three YES to override, with a negative score having the bot add time to the inter-version cycling, and allow more "offline" (growing stub) editing among the disputants to occur. Pi314m (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Natalis soli invicto!
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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) 14:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Merry Christmas Drmies
Hi Drmies, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010Talk19:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doc, You're welcome and many thanks, Many thanks and you keep the good work too!, Haha don't worry I most certainly plan too, Without rambling on I've certainly realised my behaviour has steadily got worse over the years but ofcourse actions speak louder than words!,
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I realized too late that 1 went over de 3RR. If deemed suitable, hammer me for that.
Point is that a new user was removing text and sources without explanation. But what really made my hair stand up, was this edit. I have no experience with paid editing so like to hand over this case. The Bannertalk20:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint_by_Coastside. Thank you. Coastside (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC) [Updated link] 17:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Instance of admin abuse by Drmies. Thank you. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 16:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
Administrator changes
Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
