User talk:Drmies/Archive 88

Comment

Drmies, i just wanted to say that i appreciated your kind note to DeBerryTexas. Soham321 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I hope it was kind... Drmies (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Section blanking

You're an admin. You know that blanking on a 1RR page without discussion on talk is disruptive. If you want to propose article improvements discuss on Talk:Center for Medical Progress (political organization). Do not violate 1RR. -- Callinus (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• You're a fool. There is no 1R established for that article. The stuff you cited, that's essays, not policy. Calling my edit "vandalism", on the other hand, violates actual policy. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for advice on whether to report potential edit warring

I would like to ask your advice on whether or not I should report Ring Cinema for edit warring, since his editing may not explicitly violate the 3RR, but as I understand it you have had to warn him for edit warring before (around September 19, 2014 that was not an explict violation of that rule. The edits in question revolve around two Michael Caine films, Deathtrap (film) and Sleuth (1972 film) Two days ago I added a sentence to the leads of both of these article noting the similarities of these films, and providing citations of reviews by Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin that explicitly mention the similarities between these films, as well as three published books that mention the similarities. Yesterday Ring Cinema repeatedly reverted these changes on the Deathtrap article. At that point, I attempted to start a discussion with him. Since then, he has reverted the change again. This is his third revert. His first revert was 16:25, 4 August 2015‎, and his last revert was 16:51, 5 August 2015‎. At 16:51, 5 August 2015, he also reverted the almost exact same sentence in the Sleuth article. So while it's two different articles, it is the exact same issue with the exact same editors in the two articles, and he is at 4 reverts of it in barely over 24 hours. This feels like edit warring if not a cut-and-dried violation of 3RR. I have opened a discussion of the content dispute on WP:DRN, but do you think I should also go to ANI/3rr? Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ha, I responded on Winkelvi's talk page. Hope it's of some use to you. I'd check the edit myself, but it's time for a dip in the pool. Admin privilege, you know. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it is helpful, I appreciate it. After reviewing WP:FILMLEAD I got an idea of how I could change my sentence so that it does double duty of talking about critic reaction, which WP:FILMLEAD encourages in the lead, while acknowledging that part of the critics' reaction was to note similarities to the other film. My hope is that Ring Cinema will recognize that as a reasonable compromise, so I'm going to wait and see, and not take further action unless he starts reverting again. I also think if I do have to go to the edit warning ANI board, it'll show I was making good-faith efforts to find a middle ground, not just reverting back and forth. Thanks again. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like he has decided to persist in reverting on both pages, so I have decided to go ahead and file a report. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Deep concerns about problematic editing/potential propaganda efforts on an ISIL-related article

Hey Drmies, I'm bringing this to you as the issue at hand strikes me as urgent and possibly representative of a major abuse of an article by an extremist group, but my time today is extremely constrained, so I'm looking for some administrative input here in how best to address the matter. This issue concerns Military activities of ISIL and what I fear may be sock-puppet supported efforts to force content into it which glamourizes the organization and their military strength and influence. Over the last couple of days, user LightandDark2000 has re-introduced a lot of content that was previously removed to bring the article in line with encyclopedic tone, and contested a clear consensus on the renaming of the article.

I left the majority of his reverts unchanged until I have time to RfC them or otherwise invite comment to a talk page that has been very quiet since the changes LightandDark is reverting or contesting were first implemented. But one seemed so obviously and completely in contradiction of basic and unambigous policies on what constitutes encyclopedic summary of a topic and the format that content ought to take, that I reverted it back to the stable version and then went to the talk page to post a thread on the issue. Within a moment, while I was composing that thread, the change was reverted by "another" editor with a name strikingly similar to that of LightandDark2000 (LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774). Aside from the similarity of the names and the fact that the revert came instantly, my suspicions are heightened further by the fact that LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 shows detailed understanding of policy despite the fact that the account is not yet two months old and the content of their user page doesn't do a whole lot in assuring me as to their neutral point of view on the topic of Islamist movements.

I think there's more than enough to pass the duck test here, and normally I'd take this to SPI, but for two critical factors. One, my time for pursuing that course and presenting the requisite argument and investigation into the account (which from a cursory examination do seem to be concerned with largely the same general type of topic) is incredibly limited just now. The other factor is the seriousness of the circumstances and the possibility that one of our articles might be co-opped by an extremist group with a massive and aggressive online presence in order to exalt it's military strength for those who would be drawn to such a display; certainly the edit in question seems to me to be a kind of military fetishism that goes well beyond what we accept even for our articles on formal militaries that dwarf ISIL in scope.

Under the circumstances, I was considering taking the matter and my concerns directly to ANI, so that others with more time than I have at present might look into the issue in detail -- so the entire purpose of my post here and elucidating the details of the matter is to get your impression on whether you thought I'd be jumping the gun in doing so. Normally I'd wait days or weeks through the content dispute process (or at least pursue a sock investigation) before even considering such a move, but given the profile of the article and the nature of the content, my thinking is that every moment it stays up represents a significant issue for the integrity of the project and the possibility that we are being leveraged to try to legitimize the group, at least insofar as celebrating their military strength by representing in in a non-neutral and non-encyclopedic fashion. Any advice would be appreciated. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting, Snow Rise. Ha, "military fetishism"--don't let the folks at MILHIST hear that term. (I sure hope The ed17 is not listening.) Personally I think that such a list is indeed just that, but if other, comparable articles have it, well, then military fetishism is wiki-allowed. (Ed, is this accepted widely?) Now, if there's a clear consensus, somewhere on the talk page, reverting "per consensus" is fine--"stable version" is, for better or for worse, not widely accepted, as I'm sure you understand.

  The socking business is probably more straightforward and you could simply file an WP:SPI, briefly present some behavioral evidence (and you want to look for similar phrasing, similar edit summaries, same sources, same spelling habits, etc.) and ask for CU to look into it. That may take a day or two (or three, if Bbb23 and Ponyo haven't returned from their tryst in the South Pacific, or wherever CUs go), but if it turns out your hunch was right then the sock will be blocked and the master too--and if the master isn't blocked, at least they will have lost all credibility.

  That's two cents. I'm working on a big plate of sweet potatoes and hot sauce, with pulled pork and jalapenos, and will be glad to look more carefully in a little bit. This is important enough for us to pay attention to. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, there's this. BTW, all those flags--that's fetishism too, as if weapons somehow "represent" the countries they were made in. It's like the Olympics of guns. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• As for an SPI--this is a ridiculous amount of overlap, considering the Limitations account is what, two weeks old. And I think they might be playing good hand, bad hand on Light's talk page. Go ahead and file it, and ask for CU. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Thanks for the attention and the advice. As you feel that SPI is a better first step than ANI, I'll proceed in that fashion and try to find time to format and open the request later tonight or tomorrow morning. I do have a concern that if this is a socking issue and an effort at direct propaganda -- and to be clear, I'm not certain that even if it is that the parties in question would be directly involved with ISIL; I AGF on the intent of any parties for the moment -- but were it a matter of socking by someone working on that group's behalf, I should think they would have the technical skills necessary to complicate a CU. But I suppose that doesn't mean it shouldn't come first in any event. As to the military fetishism aspect, I don't think that all of this content needs to necessarily go away part and parcel; I proposed on the talk page that it be summarized in prose and that this, depending on how it was approached, would likely constitute useful and neutrally-presented information for our readers. But these massive tables, complete with images for every form of armament, large or small, that any single source has speculated ISIL might have, are way overboard and, I suspect, meant to sell an image of righteous warriors, and I know of no article under the umbrella of MILHIST that uses this approach, even those for major modern militaries. There's a few different sections that violate WP:PROSE that LightandDark2000 is reverting back into the article, but these are the most problematic. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure. And meating is a possibility too, of course. Perhaps (since Ed hasn't shown up--perhaps his bike had a flat tire) you can leave a note on the MILHIST talk page. And perhaps sourcing is a serious problem as well. I mean, if basically all your organization does is steal other people's shit, we might as well list all the shit in the world, no? My typical advice in such cases, if we want to AGF and call it a simple content dispute, is to get an RfC, a decent and clear consensus on the talk page, and take it from there. Good luck with it, and keep me posted if you like. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• {Surprisingly?) there's no Military of ISIS article, so I think the list is good to have in this article. It's a pretty common list in military articles. No flat tire, just three sets of tennis. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, but there's some obvious problems here, if you get your stuff by stealing it (at least partly). Really? Y'all are cool with those lists, with pictures and all? Who writes these articles and sets these guidelines, Ed? Thirteen-year olds who still play with their plastic war toys? (I always thought the MP44 was the coolest gun in the world.) And I'm glad you got some exercise--editing Wikipedia makes one pudgy, as my doctor indicated today. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• @The ed17:, a few thoughts in this context. A) the reason that there is no "Military of ISIS" article is because consensus from recurrent discussion on the topic has consistently found that this would be in blatant violation of WP:V/WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT; there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of sources on the topic of ISIS, and yet it's almost impossible to find a reference which represents a WP:RS that classifies their fighting force as a military; they are referenced as militants or terrorists primarily and a whole slew of other terminology but (presumably because the world community and nearly all sources do not consider ISIL a state) their armed wing is not regarded or referenced as a military, by either primary or secondary sources.

B) What other military articles contain lists of this nature, other than those for which the explicit topic is military hardware. We're not talking about an article like List of assault rifles, which is 1) a list article and 2) specifically about military hardware. We're talking about a military force, and as far as I've been able to discern, there isn't a single article on this manner of topic on all of en.wikipedia that contains such an exhaustive list. Let's look at our articles for the worlds top ten largest militaries: Military of the United States, Military of Russia, Military of China, Military of Saudi Arabia, Military of the United Kingdom, Military of South Korea, Military of Germany, Military of Japan, Military of France, and Military of India. These are all high-quality articles on important topics of deep interest to a great many of our readers and editors and correspondingly they are massive, including in-depth detail on these institutions, but not a single one of them attempts the kind of exhaustive list-style approach of detailing their armaments in the non-contextual and military "eye-candy" approach of the content which this editor is trying to force into the ISIL article. And as well they should not. These articles are meant to supply an encyclopedic and neutral summary of these armed forces and their social and military relevance as human institutions, not revel in the minutia of their hardware in a manner that is quite clearly in contradiction to numerous principles of WP:What Wikipedia is not. These are military forces that dwarf ISIL's in scope, in history, in direct ties to military engineering and, crucially with regard to sourcing which confirms their hard assets. If it is not appropriate to create such an exhaustive list in these top ten cases, surely it's not for an encyclopedic summary of ISIL's military strength. This is not a list article; any discussion of the group's military hardware should be presented in WP:PROSE and should be limited, per WP:WEIGHT to a summary of the major points of their acquisitions as verified by multiple reliable sources.

C) We have a clear obligation here not to allow our articles to be skewed towards non-neutral representation, especially when we're talking about an article about an extremist group being bent towards what looks like a subtle advertisement for the group, by fetishizing it's military hardware for those who might be inclined to view this as a sign of strength and legitmacy. I honestly cannot imagine content that is less neutral and less appropriate for an article of this nature. And frankly, I'm surprised you don't see it the same way as I'd expect editors with a strong interest in military history to be more likely to see these issues, not less. Do you really want there to be even the slightest potential for one of our military articles becoming a promotional tool for such an organization?

On a side note, is {{u|}} working again for pings? Snow ^{let's rap} 05:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have split the military-fetishistic wankage to Military equipment of ISIL, following the pattern of many such articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It should, like all those articles, come with a parental warning. Thanks. Yes, Snow Rise, I think the pings have been working. Ha, I'm glad they're putting so many of our weapons to use; it would be a shame if they'd just be sitting gathering dust and rust. I think we need to make and export more weapons and give them away--no one should be deprived of them, the right to bear arms should be universal, like the right to healthcare and education. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good split, although I'd disagree that it's "military-fetishistic wankage." It's basic statistics akin to listing the contributors to a tv show or a list of cities in a geographical area. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@The ed17: I was joking a bit about that. These lists can be useful, although sometimes I have to wonder about the selection of information. It's highly relevant (and upsetting) to know ISIL might have 52 M198 howitzers, but most of the SALW stuff is cruft - who cares if they use AKMs or M16s? I wouldn't want to remove that information, but it's only likely to interest buffs. Also, it's fine to say that they have 200 or so tanks, but I'm sure they don't have the logistical capacity to operate more than a few, so this gives me no indication of how many they are actually using. These lists also often omit some of the most highly relevant but less sexy equipment, like radios and other electronics. And pistols, really? Might as well tell us what brand socks they wear. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Update on this affair: a new suspicious account (Dannis243) has begun reverting still more changes, including Sammy1339's move of the article to a new location, per the consensus reached here; said consensus was overwhelming and the policies in this regard are pretty unambiguous in any event. In reverting this, I made a right mess of the move on a technical level but the article, TP, and redirects should all be in order now, except that the new home is "Military activity of ISIL" (as opposed to "activities"; activity was the result of a mistake, but I felt it worked just as well or better, so left it there). I continue to feel that the behaviours of these accounts are highly suspect and I'll be launching the SPI (and probably ANI discussion) without a doubt if there is further revert against consensus. I've only held off as long as I have because my time is incredibly limited right now, and, as you know, I allowed myself to get distracted by an issue that was less deserving of attention than this serious concern. Hopefully, these users (or user, if they are in fact one party) take the warning to heart this time, but I am not optimistic. In the meantime, Drmies, it's worth at least one admin being aware of the continued activities there. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic IP editor

I'm sorry to bother you with drama, but I'm having some issues with 203.109.161.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who you may have seen pop up in Basic income in the Netherlands. The editor is removing categories, templates, and stub tags, then edit warring to maintain these changes. The changes are not really major, but it's turning into petty disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is right and who is wrong? 203.109.161.2 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the edit warrior can be right in the edit and wrong to edit war over it. NinjaRobotPirate, in Basic income, Category:Income distribution is already "under" Category:Income (see WP:DIFFUSE). Same with the other one. As for the stubs, I looked at one article where they instated or reinstated stubs, but having more than one is fine. IP editor, I don't know which category shortcut you meant to link to. Y'all, please, it's a shitty day on Wikipedia already. Let's not make it worse. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not what I would have said, but alright. I'll drop it. It's pointless to argue over this, as any edit I make will just end up reverted by the IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. If the IP had explained on your talk page (did they?) or given the correct blue link in that edit summary, maybe no one would have been angry with the other. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: I see now that you've been doing this for a couple of days

• I see now that you've been doing this for a couple of days, under different IPs. I'm going to semi-protect the article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, it has been very satisfying to do so. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.119.138 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You see, I just don't see how something like that is satisfying. It's not like you're sticking it to the man. You're just wasting electricity, and in a dishonest way--"please discuss on talkspace". But then, I also don't understand video games, or 4chan, or fishing. Flags. Baseball. Margarine. Manga. Monster trucks. The weather. Patriotism. Truckballs. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

yes, true it is slightly dishonest and a definite waste of electricity on an Energy Flex Alert day. Cheers friend, --User sometimes known as 66,87,119, (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Charles' edits

Charles is pretty adamant that his colors are right... even when there is a contrast issue. In my opinion, if the Snook tool says "sort of...", then I take that as a "no". In the Boise State–Idaho football rivalry article, this edit is hard to read. I think it is hard to read Idaho's colors as well. I'm not sure how many times it has to be told to Charles, but apparently he still doesn't get it. It is starting to get old and I'm tired of dealing with it. I know other users have taken notice of this issue as well. Corkythehornetfan 02:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. I agree: "sort of" means "no". I'm going to wait and see if they're maybe giving my comments some thought. But isn't it funny, the visibility he desires for the colors makes the actual text illegible for those who can't easily see colors anyway. I've gone through dozens of college football articles, and I'm sick of the Crayola culture in them. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem! It is funny, but you think he'd learn and think of those who cannot see like he can! Corkythehornetfan 03:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, he may have come up with a solution. As my eyes are getting older, I take these things more seriously--it's a pity I didn't realize it before, but that's how it goes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Estuary English

Hi, Thanks for your advice. I hope I can manage the slight change of emphasis without messing up the basic factual content of the article. I've discussed this with John Wells and he has encouraged me to go ahead. RoachPeter (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent, RoachPeter, thanks for your note. FWIW, I wish my school still cared for linguistics; I guess it's only the big schools that still have certified linguists on faculty. We're a dying breed, since we don't train students in it, and if we don't teach the classes, no one is going to be interested in its academic pursuit... Drmies (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swati Maliwal and subsequent WP:G4 deletion

Pinging @Rahul89f:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @ChunnuBhai: as well.

Drmies,

I didn't particpate in the AfD.

The article was created again, then deleted under WP:G4 by me.

While I might possibly disagree with the outcome of the AfD, as an admin I must follow the consensus.

As an alternative to the niceties and nastities of Wikipedia:Deletion review, should we perhaps create Draft:Swati Maliwal and see what the independent WP:AFC assessors have to say?

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

ps: <belated 2014 FIFA World Cup observation> I was hoping the Final would be between Netherlands and France. Instead of the trophy, the winner could have Belgium. </belated 2014 FIFA World Cup observation>

This was the forth attempt to create this article as shown by deleted logs. Also another page with title Swati Jaihind was also deleted earlier on. Pinging @Jimfbleak: and @NawlinWiki: ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for ping. The version I deleted was tagged for SD by @SpacemanSpiff: and notability didn't come into it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I had deleted Swati JaiHind once under G11, but my participation at the AfD is when I got involved with the subject. The coverage is all about a controversy on her appointment to the post and as I opined at the AfD that sort of content belongs in the organization/chief minister's article, not in a page about her.—SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

related to recent IP trolling on your page

Huh? Do you know what was that? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, not really, but it's true--I am of Earth. And I wouldn't call that trolling, necessarily, but maybe I have a higher threshold for that sort of thing, haha. Anyone who actually responds and shows a sense of humor isn't much of a troll: trolls are assholes. Note they made an account. Perhaps they have changed their evil, evil ways! Thanks Staszek Lem, Drmies (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that he's the only one so he should have his own category. The rest of us are all from elsewhere. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Too much honor Geoff... Drmies (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for nomming me to the category. I'll gladly be a member until someone decides to make it disappear. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

After I did it I stole a user box from your page. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That's just ducky! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Dutch article

Aidan Mikdad, a 13-year old pianist, doesn't look notable to me. However, several of the articles listed are in Dutch. Could you check it out.

On another note, I was reading on Mentalfloss the other day that Ilan Mitchell-Smith, one of the stars of Weird Science is professor of medieval English literature at Cal State Long Beach. Bgwhite (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Bg, that's not easy. The only reliable one is this (it's highly reliable), but all it does is cite the jury report, "astonishing musical comprehensiveness". He's been on Pauw & Witteman, but that's just another TV show (I mean, it's huge for him, but it's not much in the grand scheme of things). I found one more article from Het Parool, this one, and it's much more extensive--it's an actual portrait of him. He seems to be an audience favorite. Now, if this was AfD, it would boil down to whether those awards make him notable. They all seem to be decent; they don't have articles here, but that's just a lack of globalization. And he has won three, not just one. I wonder if Gerda Arendt has anything to offer here. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not really, offer I mean. Audience favorites don't need an article, no? Well known anyway. But I never supported a Delete. The article should have a shorter lead and don't use first name only, but I have more than enough other topics ;) - We can still dig up treasures. For years a list here had a work by Glazunow: Cantata after Pushkin, for women's choir et. al.. The DYK on the composer's 150th birthday will say that is is not after Pushkin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not factor Talk pages

Please do not factor Talk pages as you did here.

Regarding the current storm in a tea cup at Featured Pictures you seem intent on bringing to the WP dramah boards, I responded to Crisco here and copy it below for the benefit of your page followers:

My reply was this:

• There's no block evasion. I have a legitimate account. But after the histrionics over the WPPilot business, no user would want to trust their account to this user's threats and histrionics. That's a legitimate use of an IP to be found in WP guidance. Stop blocking me or I will take you to an ANI. As for that user an obvious diva is obvious and it's high time he was put to the test and asked to explain himself. It's simple too. 138.199.77.183 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

138.199.75.213 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Amsterdam)

I see Drmies has protected the page. Really I should bring this to ANI, but I am frankly concerned for the well being of the user concerned. Really I would prefer to keep this within Featured Pictures. I shall wait until the nomination finishes and then decide what to do. Unless this user has made a satisfactory explanation and made (if need be, but it surely must needs be) an adequate apology, then I don't see how I can do else but bring the matter to the attention of the larger community. An obvious cabal is obvious. 138.199.75.213 (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Amsterdam)

In my view this user is extremely vulnerable. He hasn't edited since I first brought the issue up, and while evading scrutiny by absenting himself is past pattern behaviour, on this occasion I do feel a degree of alarm. He has been indulged far too much for far too long by a group of editors and I fear his world is collapsing around him and he can't cope.

I should have hoped for a more mature response from you. 138.199.69.243 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Amsterdam, @ a big office - walk long enough in the same direction and you come back to where you started)

• Ah, Amsterdam, a lovely city--the most beautiful in the world. Of course, I've never been to Rome, Venice, Naples, Barcelona... Let's pretend I don't know who you are, and that you actually have a legitimate account. And let's pretend that WPPilot was not blocked for egregious violations of just about everything, and let's give "this user", Hafspajen, a name, and let's make clear that they are not guilty of "threats". This is all very strange, you know. You speak of Drmies as if you're not talking to me, and you talk about "this user" who is extremely vulnerable--that "this user", is that Hafspajen you're analyzing/baiting? I suppose that NeilN is part of the cabal too.

  Now, I'll be glad to engage you in conversation, the moment you stop talking shit about me off-wiki. A little birdy has told me that you said on a certain website that a certain someone is getting paid by the WMF to get their students to write articles for Wikipedia as mandatory assignments/unpaid labor. You're too smart to believe that, but do you think your audience is really dumb enough to believe it? Enjoy your time in Amsterdam. Get out of the office if you can (I hope it's not in Zuidoost or Diemen) and try out the nieuwe haring. Consider attending service in the Westerkerk this Sunday, with soprano Elena van Slogteren and Jos van der Kooy on organ. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it is (and I've been to all those other places). I have a home there and also Dordrecht, which is where my family on my mother's side hails from. We go back generations. Amongst other things we helped construct the Kinderdijk polder system. We came over to England during the last war and I'm British. I'm not WPPIlot, though I do know the drama. When I was referring to "Drmies" I wasn't being schizoid. That's a copy of stuff I sent Crisco. And I do damn well have a legitimate account (several). I don't talk shit about you off-wiki. You need to replenish your aviary. I never said that about you, although the thought has crossed my mind looking at other university instructors of Wikipedia who require their students to write an article.

As for H (and he does make threats), I do think he needs counselling. It's hard to know whether this latest effort of his is an editorial lapse or a deliberate hoax. I see he's still absenting himself. Don't feel bad about not engaging in conversation with me. 138.199.74.200 (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a bit confused by the royal "we". BTW, I didn't live on the Prinsengracht, but I appreciate you following me so closely. Badmouthing me behind my back with half-truths and innuendo--well, aren't you glad someone invented the internet? Drmies (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Stupid cunt"? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Input Requested

Hello, I noticed you recently edited La Salle College High School. I have created a talk page discussion to discuss the issues related to the page, including the Public Relations campaign waged by the school and the "pool mass" topic. Your input would be appreciated. Talk:La Salle College High School

Thanks! 70.192.131.83 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Thank you for creating the discussion. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity of other editors

I need your advice. One editor (Joy) wrote a comment in which he wrote his speculation about my ethnicity (diff). Let me remind you that this editor was blocked after I pointed (diff) at the issue with his actions. He reported me immediately after he was unblocked, and based on his report I was banned. I politely asked if it is allowed to comment other editors i.e. their ethnicity. Based on his reply I conclude that he believes that it is allowed to write comments about my ethnicity/nationality (diff) because of the topic area of the ban. Is he correct? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I find that very, very problematic. I mean, it's one thing to say "Antidiskriminator is clearly biased towards Serbs [insert group], because their edits prove it", and quite another to say "Antidiskriminator is clearly biased towards Serbs, because they're Serbian". "Some Serbian people (including AD)" seems to me to be on the edge, since no direct accusation is made of cause and effect, but, Joy, I believe you should stay well away from that edge, if only because it invalidates your argument. Speaking personally, I detest such generalizing (by ethnicity, class, gender, etc.), esp. on the internet. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. What about speculations about ethnicity of other editors? Is Joy really right when he say that he is allowed to speculate about my ethnicity because of the topic area of the ban? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No. In my opinion, no. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow! This is completely nuts! There was nothing improper about mentioning that factoid, because that is the locus of the dispute - whether AD's ban for pushing egregious Serbian nationalist tripe on Wikipedia should be rescinded or not. To anyone who has ever dealt with AD on Wikipedia, there's no doubt that they're Serbian. He edits extensively in the topic area, frequently cites Serbian (Cyrillic) sources, etc. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of that per se, because there's literally hundreds or thousands of people like that. On the other hand, to anyone who has ever dealt with AD on Wikipedia, there's also no doubt that he espouses the positions of a Serbian nationalist, and the case in point is a perfect demonstration - he has advocated the stance that Pavle Đurišić has not received that Nazi decoration and caused massive disruption on the article and its talk page. It's not possible to characterize this position fairly as anything other than a product of some misguided effort to whitewash the history of this Serbian person during WWII, a well-known flash point of contentiousness in the topic area from which AD was banned.

Please don't fall for this cheap trick, a piece of wikilawyering that tries to smear me for no reason other than to avoid talking about the actual relevant facts and circumstances of the topic ban.

Heck, this pattern of abuse, goading me just before I was blocked (for overzealously enforcing policies against Croatian+Serbian nationalist edit warring at the Vukovar article, another well-known flamewar target) and now using it again as a talking point - this basically confirms that AD has been engaging in a WP:DEPE campaign against me. If I wasn't such a thick-skinned old fart in terms of withstanding Wikipedia abuse, I'd actually be upset. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Joy, if you cannot differentiate between "Editor X is obviously German" and "Editor X obviously edits with a bias that makes him promote German", you have no business discussing bias. You can argue the latter kind of thing, not the former. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I can differentiate between the two, but the distinction is meaningless in this particular case. I was not making any sweeping statements about ethnicity or bias, I was referring to specific facts of the matter at hand. AD himself talked about this controversial issue and introduced several purported sources to advance his position, but they were all Serbian and they were not deemed reliable enough to be able to contradict the preponderance of other sources, which were definitely not all Serbian. From the information the user presented, it was apparent that they were trying to make Wikipedia rely on Serbian sources. I don't remember any other more generic but still distinct unifying characteristic of those sources other than that, so I mentioned that characteristic. If there is one, I'm perfectly willing to use one.

You can read more about the specific issue that I was talking about at Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 4#Iron cross controversy, where incidentally my sole contribution at the end was actually to lend a bit of conditional support to one of AD's sources! I was trying to explain how they can make sure they find a source that is comparatively reliable, in a manner that adheres to both the text and the spirit of relevant Wikipedia policies. (As opposed to the flawed way AD was introducing that source, which in turn is why it was rejected.)

If this was any other discussion, with any reasonable person, who also assumes good faith, nobody would take such an trivial description and grouping as an insult. This case is special because AD seems to like to grandstand, and disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Note that he still hasn't responded with anything useful, no admission of guilt, no remorse, no promise to reform. Just more of this.

Thanks for reading. I imagine this must be very tiring to follow. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"To anyone who has ever dealt with AD on Wikipedia, there's no doubt that they're Serbian." (diff) wrote Joy after you stated that speculations about ethnicity of other editors are not allowed and after you advised him to stay away from ethnicity based generalisations. Drmies, can you please advise me what to do now? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this edit (diff) of Joy another comment which contains speculation about my ethnicity?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I kindly remind you about my above question? After your warning Joy again wrote a comment with speculation about my ethnicity(diff). Whether X people include me or not is none of his business, as I explained to him (diff). He has a history of comments about other editors' ethnicity (diff), link, ... and apparently refuses to stop with it. What is the purpose of warning if you don't act againt it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. My answer is no, Joy is commenting on aspects of the discussion. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please take a closer look. Are you sure that comment " some Serbian people (including AD)" does not contain speculation about my ethnicity? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Joy is quoting from an earlier discussion, I assume, or he doesn't know how to use quotation marks. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

So his comment does contain speculation about my ethnicity? Is he allowed to repeatedly post comments with speculations about ethnicity of other editors as long as it is quote of his comment from earlier discussion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The question does not pertain. There is no king of France. Antidiskriminator, you've taken this line of questioning as far as you could have taken it, and then you took it a little farther. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Two of us disagree here. One of us is right. I appologize if am wrong here. I will respect WP:DR and seek for third opinion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And, I might add, editors that openly speculate that I must be Croatian because of any number of reasons they've dreamed up in their heads. Strangely, only those who take a consistently pro-Serb POV ever clash with me. I work well with several editors who claim to be fluent in Serbian Cyrillic, it's just that they accept consensus, don't flame war, and discuss calmly without edit-warring. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: An editor involved in this discussion has made a request for a Third Opinion (3O), which has been removed (i.e. declined) because like DRN and MEDCOM, 3O does not handle cases which are primarily disputes involving the conduct of an editor. For conduct disputes, refer the matter to an adminstrator or to ANI, AN, or ARBCOM (or one of its subforums for amendment or enforcement). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

Thank you. I posted a question at WP:ANI (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI headings

This puzzled me. Every ANI heading is an assertion of misconduct, by its nature non-neutral, to be disputed by the other party. Could you clarify this for me? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Ethnic slur" is a really loaded term, and in fact my attention was drawn to the thread when I saw an edit in that section (by Abecedare, I think) go by in Recent changes. Naming it thus, as if it's a fact, is of course not neutral. "Accusation of" would be be much better. I will grant you that frequently ANI headings are not neutral, and I've probably made some non-neutral ones myself, and I will grant you also that this was a judgment call: in my judgment, that particular heading was too assertive. In the current climate, the accusation of having made an ethnic slur is very loaded. Does that help? I can't hope to fully convince you and everyone else, of course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh I have no objection to changing the heading, I was just puzzled by the statement that "they should be neutral" given that ANI headings are routinely non-neutral in my experience. Just look at the current TOC. Thanks for the clarification. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In this matter, there is a middle ground between neutral and inflammatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think there's a significant difference between that one and "Editor X refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page" or "Bad faith editing at TV articles by User:Y". Sure, one could say those aren't neutral, but the charges there are more directly related to the edits, to the project. Ideally, those could all do with some tweaking, sure. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Selective redaction.

You redact this and leave the main section-title List of highest grossest Indian films, which insults 1.2 Billion Indians, alone !!! J'accuse !!!! Admin abuse !!!!! Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Aiaiai. Don't tell SpacemanSpiff, or he'll stop sending me Diwali cards... Drmies (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Until today's ANI I didn't realize that this movie was causing so much ethnic conflict. Perhaps I should see it! Doc, you can earn your Diwali card this year by visiting the Kapoor family. —SpacemanSpiff 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I cain't visit them no more, Spiffy--surely you heard about me and that daughter... Drmies (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, Spifsterix, your turn: references, please, for Trilok Kapoor. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A question

Hi Drmies, I came across 2015 Miss Supertalent of the World Season 6 today, and wondered if it's substantially the same as this [1], with the attendant blocked user issues. For when you have the time. And hello, it's 99, looking for something to do while under the weather. Best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ha, only half an hour ago, when I was cleaning the pool in a zen-like state, I was thinking of you. Good to hear from you. Why ask me? You're usually right! Get well soon. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Done. Article deleted, sock blocked, SPI filed (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misssupertalent). Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

First: Thank you. I asked you because you deleted and blocked previously, which turned out to be a convenient rationale for saying hello. Also, you'd be able to see the old deleted article, whereas I can only have a hunch as to whether it's the same; likewise the identity of the editor. Potentially disturbing for this editor is the knowledge that skimming algae off the top of your pool's water somehow evokes a memory of me. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ha, worse: from the bottom. (Which is good, cause that means it's dead.) I think I was thinking about editors I've invited to join me here. Writ Keeper is another, as is Dennis Brown. But I suppose I'm too far south for y'all. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• That's not something to take personally; I grew up much farther south, and make the trek a few times a year for family reasons only. Some friends from Tennessee--one of whom I'm writing an article about for publication right now--just visited here, which reminds me that a nice case of ale is always at the ready, should you decide to journey northward. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Only if Mandarax can come too. He lives out west, of course, and so he probably has a Tesla and it'd be cool to hitch a ride with him. Make sure, please, that you stack up on vegetarian pork rinds. But yes, 99, it's a fun thing to contemplate. Many people here, particularly old Mandarax, I've known for years. With Kelapstick I have the feeling that we used to hang out or something like that. Maybe we should all meet up somewhere in the middle, though halfway between Kelapstick and me is still South Dakota or some other bleak place in Canada. Halfway between you and me (or between you and I) is...Dennis Brown! And I'll pick up LadyofShalott along the way. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Cheezus, South Dakota. We have got to do better than that. Mandarax is always invited, as are LoS and the others--though I don't know them as well, I'll have to trust your say-so. I once drove through Pennsylvania on the way to West Virginia--in my life, this qualifies as a major adventure--and saw a great deal of beautiful country that was a revelation to me. Posh on the veggie rinds. Remember, we've got lobster rolls. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, 99 and Drmies.
  99, I hope you're feeling better. It's always nice to see you around. I hope you won't be offended if I don't refer to you as "2601". BTW, if you edit articles on my Watchlist and I welcome whatever IP you might be at the time, but you want to remain anonymous, please feel free to not reveal your identity.
  Drmies, your "y'all" above makes me wonder how prevalent that is in your part of the world. I recently saw a group of people talking on TV, and every sentence included at least one "y'all". My ears were litterally bleeding.
  Both of you (yes, just plain "you") are probably aware that I never use Facebook; however, I'm constantly getting emails from them asking if I know the listed people. Well, I was stunned to receive notices about both of you! Facebook sees all and knows all. Facebook is omniscient and omnipotent. Drmies, when you first mentioned Facebook to me years ago, I looked for you. I initially found someone, but was pretty sure that wasn't you; eventually I was able to discover your real identity. Oddly enough, I've tried to find me and have been completely unable to do so. I did take a look at your page a while ago, and the photo of your younger self reminded me very much of an actor I've seen somewhere or other, possibly Kyle Howard. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm pretty easy to find there, and it would be good to keep up with both of you on FB as well. Always good to hear from you, Mandarax. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, when your name popped up among the Facebook suggestions, it was easy to recognize, with no prior stalking required. As for keeping up there, the problem is that I almost never go there, and I've never written a single word on my or anybody else's page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ha, that's funny--goodlooking young man, but I'm not much older than him. I suppose I should look into who all gets to see my stuff. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I should've been more precise: the younger you reminded me of a younger him. Well, actually, this was a while ago, so to be even more precise, the younger you reminded a younger me of a younger him. (At least I think it's him; it's possible I'm actually thinking of some other actor who looked like both of you.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd enjoy a meet-up with some of my favorite Wikipedians. As for other online ventures… I am on Facebook, and Drmies and Kelapstick know my identity. If either of them were to suggest a connection with another friendly 'pedian, well, that would be fine. LadyofShalott 16:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Likewise, I'd be good with that. Like I'm not already spending enough time on FB. 2601:188:0:ABE6:F51F:3422:6AAA:30D0 (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• We will see where I end up in a year, I am not entirely convinced it will be Canada, but who can tell. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• As far as my house, the boat is in the shop and the water at the lake is low, but the beer is cold, and since it is going back to the bank, I don't mind if we trash the place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Lady, I think you and I should meet one of these days. We might be headed out to that book festival some time. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Elvey

Hi Doc. Have you logged Elvey's topic ban anywhere, and/or linked to the ANI discussion? I don't think "topic banned from COI, broadly construed" is completely clear in itself, but a link to the discussion that led up to it would probably help. I'd add one myself on Elvey's page, except that s/he has removed your topic ban notice, so I don't quite know how. Compare also this request. Sorry to raise such things at this time of year. I will now re-join the mad dogs and Englishmen out in the midday sun, or rather out in the shade of the crabapple tree. Bishonen | talk 12:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

• Yep: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. The link to the ANI discussion is in there. I thought I put it on their page too, but apparently I forgot. They requested a pocketing? Well. I'd never heard of them before, I think, but that was one hell of an obvious result; the mystery is that it was still open. And yes, the wording is a bit vague, perhaps, but I don't think it was up to me to define it, and I think the discussion, though lengthy, should be clear enough--it included discussion of COIN, etc. Thank you, dear, for your comment. DYK that today is Drmies's twelve-year wedding anniversary? Drmies (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That's cool then. You made those hordes of kids in just twelve years? You deserve a barnstar or something. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

Yep. Well, hordes...enough to keep me busy, yes. No barnstar necessary, but I'll take cash, cause they eat more than me. Oh, Rosie (6) tried sushi tonight! I'm very proud of her. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Seneff

Hi Drmies, I saw your ping but had no time to look at it then and now it has already been archived. I looked briefly. This person seems to be a notable computer scientist (if the h-index is indeed that high, she'd sail through AfD), even though to the general public she seems to be more known for unconventional ideas on autism that have not generated much scientific interest. The article is rather unbalanced, I'll post a note on the talk page, but have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved more than that. --Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• How do you like being the go-to guy? Note the piping here and the move from the very specific to the general. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh man... Hey, that comes with being one of the top admins here. People just think that another word for "admin" is "Drmies". I'm a "Drmies", you're a "Drmies", she's a "Drmies", all admins are "Drmies"! --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think the new model has a new name, Randykitty. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Are there any other Drmies I should know about? Everymorning talk 01:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ha, Spongebob. I guess there's a first time for everything! So I just read Squidward Tentacles, but got a little bored with it--I don't think I would care much for the show. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Achievement Hunter

I have restored the article to the version prior to your pruning as its pruning was controversial, please discus it on the talk page. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 21:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Right back atcha: your reinstatement of promotional and unverified material is likewise controversial, and in violation of WP policy. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  Please don't template me again. You wanna discuss, just say so. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 22:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, taking a step back here. I jumped the gun and let my fanboy-ism overcome me for a moment. I still think the timeline should be there, but you're right about everything else. Mea culpa. I fucked up. Still don't appreciate you templating me, however. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 22:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's fine. I understand. But please look at that content, in some detail, and at the edit summaries I wrote the first time around. The article needs to be better than it is, but it cannot be done like what it was before. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Death Be Not Proud

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night part 2

An English Bonfire (2008)

• 22:52, 7 August 2015‎ Drmies (→‎Threaded discussion: per tyrannical, dictatorial administrative fiat)

See the history of the talk page article. I don't think as an editor of the page you ought to have responded to the ANI. But now that you have, I think you need to stop the continuing edit war (Says he taking out traditional Nov. 5th food and settling down for the show). -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• PBS, I'll be glad to have a look, once I'm done with a very important cleaning operation. As for my response to the ANI, and for closing down that silly thread in hopes of preventing blocks on both sides, you're welcome. I am firmly of the opinion that administrators can act neutrally in articles they might be claimed to be invooooolved with; it's context-bound, for starters. Surely you agree that stopping a bunch of people from yelling at each other can be done even by someone who has edited the article (have I actually edited it? cool!). Drmies (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Wow, PBS, you were right--what silliness. I left a message for AnonNep rather than blocking them; I really do hope that all these editors see the light. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for helping out with that confounded Bollywood bio, Drmies. Sometimes I get exasperated with myself, and I didn't want you to think I was peeved with you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not at all. I just didn't expect that person to be back so soon, so I didn't see it until almost-bedtime. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Catflap versus H88 drama

I'm sorry to bug you, but can you please actually enforce the iBan? Or else they will be back shortly. Every single time I visit ANI there is a report about them. There is no point if iBans given as a final warning are not strictly applied. This should have been dealt with at the very first violation of the iBan: At this point I don't think either of them can think rationally - if one breaks the iBan and gets away with it, you are challenging the other to do the same thing. I am sure I am not the only one who feels this is a premature close. I understand from your "lack of service" template that you clearly do not have any more time to spend on these two, but I think this really deserves admin attention. I am happy to request ArbCom weigh in, as I do not think ANI may not be capable of handling these anymore... I have a feeling that one could Hiri88 could report CatFlap for reverting his past 500 edits and both would get banned (or vice versa) because it seems everyone is so sick of them it doesn't matter anymore who actually does what. Thank you. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to, but I don't want to--not for that report. I'm caught up in the "one last warning" cycle, I suppose. Catflap's report was not followed up on, and Hijiri's was so full of old diffs that it was ridiculous. I suppose I should update the "lack of service" note, but I can't be the only one enforcing this. On the bright side, I'm getting to the point where I'm ready to start blocking. I understand your frustration, but believe me, I feel as much as or more than you: I've been involved with this situation for quite some time. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Drmies. Hopefully, by some miracle, peace will occur between these two. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I gave up believing in miracles. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sonali Bendre

Hi Dr; she's returned from the block for more of the same. It's hard to call this straight vandalism, but it might be time to lock the article. Cheers 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Are you feeling better? Drmies (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

For the most part, yes--thank you for asking. You know, if you ever venture up here, I suspect we'll have some good stories to exchange re: family and professional life, with Wiki business a pale topic by comparison. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• My professional life is far from exciting, 99, and my personal life...well, married for 12 years, haha. But we have a new puppy... I'm happy to hear about the most part. Not all can be well, of course, and there's always Trump. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• We love our dogs. Every day I'm grateful for the gift of Trump, our nation's most unabashed 6-year old. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please Stop Al Khazar

How do you all find me?

Hello Admin, please stop Al Khazar. He is edit warring on Type 99 tank

Thank you.

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• How do you all find me? Is my name being tweeted around? Drmies (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

When i first noticed on Drmies talk page, i saw that Al Khazar Edit warring on Type 99 tank, and i feel suspicious. Whakaoriori (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't need the AN3 report, haha, it was clear enough--but thanks. Boy, I should get paid for this. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Be happy you aren't as famous as Abecedare or me. I'm wondering if that qualifies as significant coverage for an article. —SpacemanSpiff 18:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Alford Academy

Drmies why did you edit the Alford academy page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.160.8 (talk • contribs)

• Well, it's Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Why did you vandalize the article? Drmies (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Johan Simons

There's much more on an interesting person in Dutch than English. Why best now: Ruhrtriennale will open 14 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

additional opinion needed

At this afd. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ronnynephew1182

Thanks for blocking this user. Looks like you might want to also block their talk page access..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the item that prompted Dbrodbeck's concern. MarnetteD|Talk 01:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. Just a teenage troll. Revert if you like. DYK I never had acne? Drmies (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent reply. An actual LOL from me. Well done. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I thank you for blocking Al Khazar since i reported it. Whakaoriori (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Beer is good. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Wait. Look at Khazar's talk page again. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Dog collar

This user has lost their moose. Have you seen a moose wandering around?

Can't remember if you watch any dog articles, but if you do you should probably add this one. Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• And this is probably our dog friend. Or something very similar. Archibald Leach (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I don't really watch dog articles--watching dogs is already enough work. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A m00se once bit my sister.... No realli! She was Karving a post on the WP:Great Dismal Swamp with the sharpened keyboard of a Raspberry Pi given to her by her brother in law 0laf, star of many lovely Arbcom threads: "Gamergate II - this time it's pers0nal", "Manning the Passion Fruit" and "I left my Inf0box in San Fransico...." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice

Are footsteps a means of transport? Asking you as User:SpacemanSpiff told to ask you. Check at Tirupati#Transport.--Vin09 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• I saw--I provided an alternative in the article. See what you think. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Tirupati

There are some grammar and copy edit. If you are free can you. I did some. If you are busy, then not a problem.--Vin09 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted articles, history re: PowerISO

Hi, just wondering if articles that get deleted are actually still viewable from a historical point of view AFTER they are deleted as i noticed you deleted the Power ISO article and I was hoping to see what the deleted articles content actually was. It is also a shame that when articles are given the time to be discussed for deletion, that there isn't a better mechanism in place that basically allows people like yourself to actually push bad articles in the direction of the few that actually add to wiki. Admins are very useful on wiki but also article editors and creators are and it is a shame that both work detached from each other when it comes to articles ending up being deleted due to lacking content or being straight repeats of info on products official sites etc.

Hope you understand where I am coming from and that you don't think I'm criticising you for deleting it - I do understand why you deleted the article ;o)

Regards, wellen1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.88.29 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I deleted the article because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PowerISO, which had a clear consensus. Yes, deleted articles continue to lead a shadowy life. What's possible is to move it to user space, basically to a user's WP:Sandbox, but for that you really have to be a registered user. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That was a quick reply. Thanks for the info on user spaces. Rock on \m/ wellen1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.88.29 (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Get an account and we'll talk. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina and "Fortune 20" company

I don't know if you have seen this discussion, but I thought I would share it with you. Best, --ML (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes I did. And I think you need to take it easy. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll see how it goes!--ML (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Overturning unanimous consensus

Hey, what's the big idea overturning a proposed definition that enjoyed 100% support? Hrumph.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I saw that and felt bad for you. It sucks to be in something that just peters out. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • While we're sympathizing, I must say that I also 100% support the little guy above who says "Don't club me plz", though I would not arrest a polar bear who needs some seal sustenance. Let's just forget this little definition thing happened. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Winter's coming and a need a new coat, one with just one colour. As a side note, I saw you also had been cleaning house on Bernie Sanders. It's not protected and right now it doesn't look like it has to be, but if you see it escalate, drop me a line. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Will do. It might have been an innocent mistake.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Though the discussion was indeed like speaking to a brick wall, on June 8 I went ahead and proactively made the best link, which has stood untouched since that time. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

In your abundant spare time...

... perhaps you can lend a hand with an admin who's having a slowmotion meltdown. Other than what you see here, I have no idea where this is coming from. Can you try to snap him out of it?

• [2] "a clear demonstration of your congenital inability to drop the proverbial stick (but perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh ... like far too many other Harvard legacy admits, you've got it too far up your ass to reach )"

"Keep up like this, and one of these days you're going to be sitting in front of the ArbCom, nervously twitching as they decide whether you will have any future at the project to speak of."

• [3] "as for you, as the common expression ends ' ... I would have farted.'" (Apparently there's a clever saying, "If I'd wanted to hear from an asshole, I would have farted.")

"I believe your further presence in this nomination is toxic and objectively disruptive, as I no longer believe you can be considered to be contributing to it in good faith, based on your sniveling..."

• [4] "OK, I see everyone's point, especially now that EEng has stepped off."

"Could someone (other than EEng, whom I don't trust to do this honestly) please..."

• [5] "How obtuse are you going to be?"

"... the way they're formatted makes your widdle Harvard-educated head hurt"

• [6] "[EEng's] ongoing temper tantrum, and since I am in every way a better person than he is, was or ever will be, whatever he thinks he's entitled to think about himself because he went to Harvard" (Note that in this post, the text "I have realized he has one mildly legitimate concern" links to a page headed "Jerkass Has a Point".)
• See also my edit summaries here: [7][8][9]

EEng (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hey EEng, are these all on your talk page? I looked at the first diff, but that way of listing diffs you use doesn't allow me to hover and see where it is. My internet connection is slow and my laptop old. And are they all related to Daniel Case? Daniel, that exchange in July was far from cordial or collegial. (Though, EEng, that note about watchlisting--I agree with Daniel, that pinging or dropping a note is the right thing in case of such extensive commentary, though I probably frequently forget to do so myself.) That head-up-ass commentary and the Harvard bit, it's allowed, I suppose, and I imagine those words were spoken in anger, but still. Mixing that metaphor (EEng has a stick up their ass?) also isn't helpful.

  I looked at the last diff on Template:Did you know nominations/Skintern too--please Daniel, drop the Harvard stick. Please don't claim to be a better man in the terms in which you do. Show, don't tell: if you're indeed the better man, deal with the matter at hand in the most dispassionate way possible. EEng, I don't know, not having followed everything, whether you're taunting or not (and you can answer honestly to yourself), but I urge you to get off the Case. Daniel, please, no more of this. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Only the first is from my talkpage; the rest are from the Skintern nomination. Can you please clarify... "That head-up-ass commentary and the Harvard bit, it's allowed, I suppose" -- it's allowed??? What?

There's no baiting, all my comments are completely serious, and his behavior is absolutely abyssmal. Please, if you will be so kind, look at the diffs, read the DYK nom, and tell me if there isn't something seriously wrong here. Sorry if I caught you on an off day, but if you don't have time to actually look at this, perhaps I should take it elsewhere. EEng (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. EEngie, I think he actually makes you look comparatively good. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC) p.s. ... is that a Harvard stick?

"Allowed"--yeah, lots of things are allowed... Daniel didn't get blocked for it, ergo... Or, to put it another way, I personally think it's pretty uncivil, but I'm not really in a blocking mood today, hoping also that my pinging Daniel Case and commenting on their inappropriate comments would suffice. (It's not really an off-day, but I think I've seen enough, and I don't think you'll get a block at ANI with these comments, though I will agree that esp. admins ought to be held to a higher standard. And really, if you want a civility block, I'm the worst person in the world to ask. Dennis Brown, do you think there's blockability in these here diffs?) Drmies (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a block‍—‌that's partly why I came here and not ANI. But the other reason I came here is that I was hoping you'd tell him, in no uncertain terms, how completely unacceptable his behavior is. "Your congenital inability ... you've got it too far up your ass to reach ... your sniveling ... How obtuse are you going to be? ... your widdle Harvard-educated head ... I am in every way a better person than he is, was or ever will be, whatever he thinks he's entitled to think about himself because he went to Harvard"? What disappoints me is that you're making it sound like there are two sides to this. There aren't. I've done nothing but comment civilly and constructively about serious problems in the article he's nominated, and he's felt free to vent abuse in every single post he's made‍—‌not to mention that he seems to have no understanding of basic policies such as OR. EEng (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know how you can with a straight face claim to be perceived as "civil" and "constructive" when this discussion started off on the wrong foot with you (wrongly, as Drmies agrees) mishandled my complaint (which I tried to voice as civilly as possible) about not being notified of your critique of the article (which led me to make most of the changes in any event, despite the brusqueness of your tone). And then claiming you saw no need to apologize—and in the same edit, acting as if mouthing off rudely to someone with the power to block you was some sort of badge of honor.

This was after an AfD in which, while I decided I needed to do no more than speak my piece, you showed no sign of accepting a consensus to keep so overwhelming that it was non-admin closed after five days. Instead, you continued to argue at the DYK nom in a way that seemed as if you were really continuing to fight the AfD. (And I won't even get into what I see as a serious policy violation—as I said, your unique complaints about how I format my posts notwthstanding, you do not have the right to delete them outright, personal attacks notwithstanding.

You have from the first come across as combative, confrontational and defiant. You are one of only two people ever on Wikipedia to have demonstrated such rudeness and disregard in any personal interaction; the other one was later desysopped by ArbCom over an unrelated matter. I'm sorry but I cannot help but see you as tendentious (see here and here especially). You have also demonstrated a strong affection, as I pointed out in one of the comments you deleted, for the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy: "It's someone's blog! Not an RS" "It's on the Washington Post's website" "Well the way it was phrased it was a tease"! It's the Black Night all over again, except it isn't funny.

I have avoided the DYK nom for days at a time because of how intellectually and emotionally frustrating it is to see anything with your name at the end. For the first time in ten years on Wikipedia I understood why people leave—if they have to deal with people like you on a regular basis to get anything accomplished, it just isn't worth it. Fortunately I don't.

I'm pretty sure you'll take this as a personal attack, so it seems like a waste of time to type, but for my sanity I have to tell you this if you really don't understand (or don't want to understand) why I reacted to you this way: You rubbed me the wrong way and kept doing it. I would apologize for the personal attacks but I don't see anything in you that convinces me it would have any beneficial effect. When you started out this way and kept at it needling you was about the only thing I could do that would make me feel like I was still a human being dealing with you, which I did because I want the DYK nomination to succeed. You are not only uncollegial, you seem utterly unconcerned about being perceived that way.

Again, I am not sure whether this is a productive use of my time, but here is how this could have been so much different on your part:

• "I'm sorry I didn't notify you about my critique of the article; I had assumed you watchlisted it like most people do. In the future I'll be more proactive."
• "I think some of the things you wrote in that article might be a little OR-ish. Do you think we could fix them and work on it together?" (Using language so sweeping as to just say "classic OR" about an editor whose work you are familiar with is a failure to assume good faith. It's entirely possible that people might not be aware of something when they write it in good faith; that's how you should approach it ... "Maybe you didn't notice, but ...")
• "I'm sorry Daniel but I find the way you respond interjectively to my comments hard to read as we work on improving the article together so it can make a great DYK hook. I know I'm sort of unusual among Wikipedians since everybody and their brother here doesn't seem to mind, but ... well, I just do. Do you think you could do things differently so we can work together more constructively?"
• "Would you care to strike that through?"
• "Alright, I agree that a newspaper's blog is a reliable source and that we cannot apply our own editorial policies to reliable sources like the schmuck who started this AfD did. I'll take a break from Wikipedia for a while so I can think of a better argument and how I can phrase it civilly and courteously."

Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Like it says at Template_talk:Did_you_know#To_nominate_an_article, "Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion." People ping each other if there's some urgency or they think something will be overlooked. If you didn't have it watchlisted, sooner or later you'd have checked the discussion and seen my comments. In fact, that's what happened. So what?
• "mouthing off rudely to someone with the power to block you" – Right, I forgot that admins should be shown special respect. And, sorry, I just want to be sure – this link is me mouthing off rudely? Really???
• I nominated the article at AfD, and a few hours later listed the OR problems on the DYK nom page. That's not "continued to argue at the DYK nom in a way that seemed as if you were really continuing to fight the AfD". What, because it's at AfD I shouldn't also mention the obvious OR problems?
• I deleted one of your posts because, as I said elsewhere [10],

your post inserted your words right in the middle of sentences or paragraphs of mine, making a mess which a newcomer could not possibly decode. You've done this repeatedly, and several times I went the trouble of going through and fixing your formatting [11]; finally I warned you [12] that if you did it again I'd simply revert your post. ... You are welcome to reinsert your comments, but in a way that others can tell who's saying what.

As for the rest, I invite anyone interested to read Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Skintern. It's shocking enough that an admin doesn't understand that an article can't say, "Such-and-such appears to have been the first recorded use of the term skintern", with the only supporting citation being a footnote reading, "Searches on different search engines did not locate any earlier uses." But that was just the beginning, and instead of coming to your senses you just kept up your (not very clever, by the way) abuse. EEng (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Daniel, I think you drew first blood in that discussion. I'm sure this came from the AfD (I assume your comments in the AfD precede those in the DYK nomination--there's no time stamps in the DYK nom, where you interspersed your comments with EEng's), but still, that tone is not, in my opinion, appropriate. EEng, "blockable" doesn't necessarily mean an editor should be blocked. I told Daniel what I think, just my opinion, on his talk page and here, which is about all I can do. Daniel, please. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You are letting EEng off the hook here. I drew first blood? This was my initial outreach at his talk page. This is the rude and intemperately phrased response I got. EEng hasn't disputed that. And you told him he was wrong on this one, as I would have expected from someone who's been around here as long as you have been and whom I know and trust. So what's his response ... "So what, it happened anyway." How can anyone not read that and see that this is someone who has not the slightest idea what courtesy means, or cares to learn? He has never even considered the possibility that he went about this the wrong way ... [only reiterating that] he is human and he needs to be loved, just like everyone else does.

His response above is instructive in this regard:

• It's not just me that has experienced this. Elsewhere on his talk page, around the same time, he insults another user's prose.
• By "mouthing off" I did not mean you (sorry^{See that word? You and it would make a great couple.}, perhaps I should have been clearer in my wording). I think you knew very well what behavior I was referring to, both now and then, and were hoping to confuse readers to your benefit. But for good faith's sake I'll clarify: In this edit, where you insist you have nothing to apologize for, you say "Being blocked for calling someone‍—‌the blocking admin himself, in fact!‍—‌a "self-satisfied roving enforcer" is hardly a badge of shame", which you link to this edit (where you, who are supposedly so above having to personally attack and abuse people, call the blocking admin "thin-skinned and petty"), which then takes us to this edit which got you blocked in the first place.

  Tell me, what conclusions would you expect someone coming upon your posts for the first time to draw about you, not just as an editor but as a person, from reading all this? (This is not a rhetorical question ... I'm really interested in what sort of answer you would give).

• "I nominated the article at AfD, and a few hours later listed the OR problems on the DYK nom page." Again, I think you are confusing the issue. After the AfD was closed as keep, after I had addressed your enumerated concerns (and I will say here that your point about the unreliability of Google, which you demonstrated with your point about how the ngram missed the 2005 usage (possibly because The Hill had moved it from their main site into their archives, which I've noticed Google doesn't do a great job at picking up), you continued to keep throwing up new arguments which, it seemed, were really aimed at the notability of the article, rather than the suitability of any particular DYK hook. I cannot shake the feeling this whole thing has been about continuing the AfD by other means.
• "because it's at AfD I shouldn't also mention the obvious OR problems?" I would think they would have been more relevant to have brought up at the AfD, rather than the DYK. Certainly if I felt an article should be deleted because its subject was insufficiently notable, purported OR would be among the first things I'd raise at the AfD. By contrast, raising them at the DYK nomination, which was properly on hold at the time while the AfD was open, would tend to support the impression you were just purposely being difficult.
• "I deleted one of your posts because ..." ... the rest isn't relevant because we have very clear policy on deleting other people's posts from pages (which I already linked to above), and an editor's discomfort with another editor's formatting isn't a permissible reason to do so, even if you warned him or her to that effect. Especially when such deletion also removed substantive responses to your criticisms, which you have never bothered replying to, much less acknowledging.

  If the issue were solely my personal attacks, I would have struck them through or redacted them if you'd taken the time to ask, as is the custom. Again, I have said this before.

  This is the sort of thing that, frankly, you should be blocked again for, my intemperate behavior with you notwithstanding.

• "It's shocking enough that an admin doesn't understand that an article can't say, 'Such-and-such appears to have been the first recorded use of the term skintern", with the only supporting citation being a footnote reading ...'" You are confusing your interpretation of an area our policies aren't clear on with the letter of policy. I admit that this is a gray area; however I didn't find anything specific enough to say we ought not to do this (You seem to have a very civil-law take on policy, i.e., that it prohibits what it does not explicitly permit; whereas most of the rest of us have a more common-law approach, that what is not explicitly prohibited is permitted. Perhaps you should reflect on this).

  The question of, in the absence of any scholarly work on the etymology of what is otherwise a notable word of apparently recent coinage, what extent we can go ourselves to establish an "earliest use" (I won't say "first use"; as the whole discussion pointed out that would be OR) is one of first impression as far as I can tell. If we were to open a discussion of whether what I did would be within the bounds of NOTOR on the appropriate talk page, perhaps getting the people in the Etymology task force to weigh in, and consensus were to be that it would not, then I would accept it. But I will definitely not accept that it is so because you believe it's so, and keep saying so in sweeping, judgemental tones (I note again, that in your response above you said nothing whatsoever about my suggestions as to how you could have phrased various comments of yours more respectfully. I find this lack of empathy disturbing ...) that fail to assume good faith on my part (again, I would really like to see you explain how you were assuming good faith at any time during this fracas).

Drmies, I accept your criticism. But I really feel you're enabling a toxic user here with that "please" regardless of your intentions. Just look at how much he does not respond to ... because he knows he's in the wrong.

And how can his staggering indifference to the idea that he should have apologized for rubbing me the wrong way at the beginning of all this not concern you deeply? Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Daniel; that shows good sense. I don't think I'm enabling anyone simply by letting them talk--disabling would mean blocking them. I can't read EEng's mind (many have tried and failed--there's too much code), and while I think that the first response you cited is cocky, it's not really out of bounds. You may well argue that this long, long thread here is becoming incivilly long, and I certainly think that on both sides amends should be made. Now, it is obvious that not every problem on Wikipedia can be solved, certainly not by me. Y'all are just going to have to get along. Daniel, that means that you, in this case, will just have to suck it up a little bit: I know that it is not easy to accept criticism especially if it's harshly phrased. EEng, you're not new to this game, and you're smart enough to know exactly how far you can go; that's a great skill to have, and your collaborative ethics will shine as much as your tactical rhetoric if you draw that line a bit closer. That's all I have to say: there isn't much more to say. Thank you both for your many, many contributions to Wikipedia. Daniel, now that I have your ear, thanks for that barrel duty you keep performing at UAA. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Case, I don't have to apologize at your demand, I don't have to couch article criticism in language you prefer, and I certainly can revert a talk post which turns my own comments into an unreadable mess. Meanwhile, you never, ever get to say these things to anyone: "Your congenital inability ... Harvard legacy admit [with it] too far up your ass to reach ... your sniveling ... How obtuse are you going to be? ... your widdle Harvard-educated head ... I am in every way a better person than he is, was or ever will be, whatever he thinks he's entitled to think about himself because he went to Harvard ... asshole ... jerkass".

Now have the last word if you wish. Your lengthening rants make you look unhinged, and the Harvard Harvard Harvard preoccupation... wow. EEng (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Drmies, thanks for trying.

Need consultation

"It hurts when I go like this..." Hi Drmies, I saw this edit. Lovely work. I used to edit this article back circa 2013 but became extraordinarily frustrated when dealing with an editor who kept submitting voluminous and circular plot rehashings and other indiscriminate content into the article. A dramatization:

• Joe - In season one he goes to a grocery store to buy a lime and meets a produce spritzer, Jessie, only to get shot to death by an unknown gunman, who later is revealed to be a clown named Dimples.
• Jessie - While working as a produce spritzer at the grocery store, she meets Joe, who is there to buy a lime, and witnesses him being shot by an unknown gunman. She eventually helps the fuzz track down Joe's killer, a clown named Dimples.
• Dimples - A clown who hates produce spritzers, but who is also a terrible marksman. By the end of season one, he is revealed as Joe's killer, having shot him accidentally while aiming for Jessie, a produce spritzer at the local grocery who was standing near a pyramid of limes.

Levity aside, this stuff is problematic for a number of reasons, including that it is repetitive, in the case of the TMNT article it probably constitutes a derivative work, it's completely in-universe, it's a bloody text wall, etc. Dealing with this editor was frustrating in part because he would engage in sneaky editing and I wasn't confident he even understood the purpose of guidelines. We had a discussion on the talk page where I was complaining about the unnecessary wikilinks he kept adding, then sneakily re-adding. When I asked why we should keep wikilinks for common words like "rat", "fish" and "spider" his response was just an explanation of what a wikilink does: "I think some of those Wikilinks should remain so that those people who visit the pages can know about what animal each mutant was based off of. That way, they can click on the link to visit that page." I don't get the sense that the editor understands that there are ideal standards for articles (FA, GA) and that his verbose additions consistently divert articles from these goals. So my question is two-fold: 1) What can we do to pare that article down? 2) What can be done to educate this user, who has 87,000 edits under his belt and should understand what we're doing after 10 years of editing? Note also that I'm still haranguing him about unnecessary wikilinks two years later, as are other editors. I've considered ANI, but I wonder if there's not a better approach. Sorry for the rant, and thanks for any input you have. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Holy shit. That's over 200k. I love your dramatization, by the way. OK. Rtkat3, look at this edit. I don't see how "shoulder pad" is so difficult to understand that we need to deviate from WP:OVERLINK. Stuff like "For some unknown reason" is clearly original research. "They both bellow into the sky in pain, confusion, and anger" is some pretty fancy interpretative work, thus original research. "It was also mentioned that" is a terrible passive sentence, and it's typical of this kind of crufty summary; it's the kind of English up with which we must not put. This edit is more recent and contains such gems as "while doing something to get the Technodrome to work on retro-mutagen" and "Mickey and Raph came to save him Kari's snake came out of Casey's clothes and bite them". In that edit you added 3000k of wholly excessive, poorly written, and of course very unverified detail.

  In general, Cyphoidbomb is absolutely correct. The material is excessive, poorly verified, crufty. It has no place in an encyclopedia, since it's undue and original research, and confuses plot with description. It needs to be cut. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Since we now have Rtkat3 on the phone, it is important for me to stress to you, Rtkat3, that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to replace the experience of reading/watching the fictional work. The purpose is to provide a general overview of the most important aspects. Character summaries are not plot synopses. They should describe who the character is, not everything the character has done or experienced. That means when you write about characters, you will have to leave tons and tons of details out, like the Soviet insignia on Stearanko's brass knuckles. Content that is too detailed can constitute a serious copyright violation. Also, as explained in MOS:TV, there should be real-world information about the character and the actor who portrays them. These guidelines aren't limited to TV articles, by the way, they're pretty much universal throughout the project. As I've expressed above, I'm greatly concerned that you may not understand what the Wikipedia community expects. You have made thousands of contributions to television articles, and I'm sure all of them are made with the best of intentions, but you don't seem to be following the various manuals of style. MOS:TV? MOS:FILM? MOS:FICTION? Are you participating in community discussions to have questions answered when you are unsure of something? Are you opening talk page discussions to to discuss controversial changes beforehand? I'm also really concerned about your tendency to quietly restore content that other users have found problematic. For example here where you restore without explanation or discussion content that was removed a year earlier for being "hypercruft". Much of this stuff would be excusable for a new editor, but you have been here for ten years. Surely you must be aware that you are often not editing according to community standards. ? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, the cuts were amazing. Thank you for trudging through that. I originally wrote the dramatization for a thread on Aussie's page. You might notice that we only learn about four pieces of information from the 130 or so words. That's exactly the problem with these types of character write-ups, which are so rampant here. Everything's circular. It's like you're watching one of those early novelty DVDs where you could adjust camera angles and "enjoy" a film from three different perspectives, as if that's something anyone would want to do. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I congratulate you for the edits you made to the character page of the 2012 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles pages where you cut down the bios of the characters. The cutdowns are similar to the brief infos that I had previously added to the characters for the 80's TV series and the 2003 TV series since none of them have their own character pages. I'm just letting you know that. Any other future info for the characters that have pages here we can add to their pages like any later infos on the 2012 incarnations of the Foot Clan and the Purple Dragons to name some examples. Outside of that, what do you think of the series so far? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Rtkat3, please look at the comments above, esp. the notes by Cyphoidbomb. I think that at some point many of the fans are going to have to live with the fact that a lot of the information you want to be included in Wikipedia simply isn't encyclopedic. Now, there's a host of problems, including repetition, non-MOS compliance, duplication (how many articles on Ninja Turtle characters are there?), poor writing (I think many of the IPs are highschoolers), etc. But the main problem, and it's the way Wikipedia works, is lack of reliable sources discussing the subject matter. Now, in those (admittedly drastic) cuts I made, I said something like "you got one sentence: make it count", and I think we should try to work it that way. The better that sentence is, the better the article will be.

  As for what I think about the series--honestly, I don't know which series the kids watch on Netflix. I find them to be a bit repetitive and emotionally void, but maybe that's just me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll just point out that there was no acknowledgment from Rtkat3 that he was editing against consensus or that he wasn't focused on specific community goals, or that he planned to do something differently in the future. This is exactly the problem that I've been having with him, and his ability to weasel out of uncomfortable discussions is admirable. Asking you what you think of the series is a behavior he frequently employs, and I believe it is intended to deflect scrutiny. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Secret Wars (2015)

Drmies, I have noticed your work on the Secret Wars. I previously left a note involving around "Last Days," Battlezone," and "Warworld" and how it can be hard to list each character whose Battleworld sections taken from some unnamed Earths on their page. Perhaps they can be like how some people did to Stingray and Rumiko Fujikawa (who has a niece in the "Armor Wars" miniseries). If you want to help make each of it's info brief, go right ahead. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Dutch letter

	Dutch letter
	Dutch letter in trouble Hafspajen (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Malik case

Hey, I fully understand where you're coming from, but I think the precedent is pretty strong that if you use the tools through a block in an abusive manner the tools need removal for the duration of figuring out what happened. I don't get what this was all about and what provoked him, and we need to look at that. He's a well known long term good guy. But I think we need the temporary desysop for the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, but it was once--he hasn't done it since. If he does it again, that's a different matter. But (if I remember correctly) this happened two minutes after he was reblocked, or his block was upgraded or whatever, and that's that. Or, I don't see the imminent danger, and I hope Malik doesn't prove me wrong in the next couple of hours or days. Thanks (I really do appreciate your note), Drmies (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I am just very sad about the whole thing. 8-( Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, but why then start the emergency desysop? I mean--was there really some clear and present danger? You said yourself it was unlike him... Drmies (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I also want to say that this whole thing is immensely unfortunate. I reciprocally blocked Bryan Dyer for provoking a normally composed admin to being summarily desysoped. And I hope to God that Malik isn't permanently desysoped. He was obviously angry. That shouldn't be held against him forever. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm. Dyer should have been blocked rightaway, the moment he made that comment, and it should have been done for the racial insult, not necessarily what its effect was. Blocking him, and blocking Dissident Agressor over some stupid remarks, doesn't solve the problem here. If anything, we need more admins like him who worked in that awful topic area where, I feel, he was frequently left alone (it's just not an area where I'm very knowledgeable). And I think also that his comment was less a comment on ethnicity as it was on what I suppose he thought the editor's political conviction was. That is, I think his "jewboy" should probably be read as "Zionist watercarrier". Whether that makes it much better I leave for the voters to decide. But I maintain that these emergency procedures over one edit were over the top, and if it's going to be difficult for Malik to get his bit back (if indeed he returns to Wikipedia) it will be in part because we made so much to-do about it. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I do not deny for even a moment that Malik is valuable. But he wasn't desysopped for comments, he was desysopped for using his tools despite his block. If he has the impetus to do that when he is angry, it does beg the question what else he could do. Admin tools are powerful; anger + power is not a good combination, as history so aptly shows us. I believe a temporary desysop was in order. I do not think a permanent desysop is, though. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but again, it was once, just once. WWI doesn't really come into that. BTW, thank you for striking that one remark. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank goodness for temporary sanctions. Forgive the unfortunate analogy, but a permanent desysop would be the electronic equivalent of a lynching. I'm not sure I buy the comparison to World War I. I get that admin tools can be destructive, and that admins are held to a higher standard -- and at least the editor who lit the match didn't get off scot free -- but in the morning, a lot of incredulous people are going to say, "What the hell happened?" DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I wasn't comparing it to WWI. That was an intentionally (even laughably) extreme or exaggerated case. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Lynching? That is a poor analogy at best. It is more like getting fired from a job. Chillum 03:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, like getting fired for a single, goaded tantrum after 8 years of loyal service, doing the jobs that no one else wanted to do. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me add that it's easy for me to criticize this action as hasty, and perhaps ill-advised, from my Monday-morning-quarterback seat. I understand that the arbs acted in good faith, and made a snap decision because they felt it was necessary. I just hope we haven't lost one of our very best admins as a result of it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In the end, the Second Law of Wikipedia is inexorable. I've always been impressed by Malik Shabazz, in particular by his ability to keep his cool. But everyone is human. You can't do this job forever, because, as the law states, ignorance is infinite while patience is finite. The rest is just math. It was Malik today; it will be me, or Drmies, blowing up and catching a "Level 1" some other day. MastCell ^Talk 04:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The First Law might be even more applicable here: If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 06:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I wrestled with a basset hound once: it was a dumb idea. But MastCell, I think Malik was goaded in a way that you or I probably can't be--I'm assuming you're white too. That insult combined racism with utter disrespect, in a word that has centuries of history in American racist speak. Then again, I never had Malik's patience; it takes a lot less to get me riled up. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; while we all have buttons that can be pressed, I'm a white, heterosexual, cisgendered, right-handed male, so I have a lot fewer than most. There is literally nothing that anyone can say to me that will carry the offensive cultural resonance of what was said to Malik. But that point he reached? I think we'll all reach it sooner or later. It's the way this site is structured—we make endless allowances for ignorance, racism, obstructionism, and incompetence, but we have zero tolerance for anything other than unfailing politeness in dealing with them. It's depressing but increasingly predictable; that was my point. For what it's worth, I've always had a very positive impression of Malik and I hope he's back in the fold soon, because he is/was an excellent admin and editor. MastCell ^Talk 17:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You have Jimbo Wales to thank for that. Eric Corbett 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, although I think it's more of a structural problem with the community rather than the fault of one person. We seem willing to expend endless energy on hopelessly naive Internet-based behavior modification and attempts to reform or "rehabilitate" obviously unsuitable editors, but we won't lift a finger to support people who are doing good work in the trenches (until they snap, by which time it's too late). I guess I feel a sense of collective responsibility that we (as a community) didn't step in when Malik was called "sonny boy". At that point, someone familiar with the context of that term should have decisively put a stop to things.

Then again, I'm not surprised; I still recall when we had an editor who was an active member of the Ku Klux Klan, and who uploaded photos of (among other things) a cross burning. The "community", in its wisdom, felt that we should allow the KKK member to continue editing, because to do otherwise would be to punish someone for his personal beliefs, or some such horseshit. One admin even went so far as to unironically celebrate the fact that we had a KKK member editing the Ku Klux Klan article, because he would ostensibly bring an "expert" perpsective to the article. After I saw that, I realized how utterly clueless this "community" is, in aggregate, and I decided I would never again fault an African-American editor for feeling the same way. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

we make endless allowances for ignorance, racism, obstructionism, and incompetence, but we have zero tolerance for anything other than unfailing politeness in dealing with them. I think that just about sums up ANI and a lot of our "behavior enforcement" activity. You have to let someone disrupt for at least a hundred edits before we can call it that, draining the time and energy of content editors and the monitoring admins. —SpacemanSpiff 18:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, we have Jimbo Wales and his long-term crusade against "toxic personalities" to thank for that, along with his blindness to anything that isn't likely to raise the roof at WikiMania, however worthwhile it might be. The fish rots from the head. Eric Corbett 18:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You know I don't like talking bad about the boss so I won't. I did see that "toxic list" reference and I think it's entirely unhelpful. I think you know that I tend to really understate the things I think are very important. But I agree with MastCell, who probably pooped more wisdom this morning than I've gained since becoming an admin, that it's the community as a whole. As for me, the more I think about yesterday, and I've been thinking about it all day today, the more I am disappointed with myself. I should have unblocked Malik, given him his TPA back, without waiting for grandfather Floq to do it. I think I had too much respect for ArbCom and a dozen admins; really, I was a coward. Also, Malik was in a pretty bad mood when I was following the story...but still, I could have done more than just send him an email and make a few comments here and there. And I could have blocked that jerk, but I guess I was thinking more of the other side of the dispute (and maybe I thought he was already blocked--it just never occurred to me, though usually I jump on racist shit pretty quick), about what was happening to Malik, without even realizing that my not blocking the guy in fact confirmed Malik's opinion of the system, of us. Malik Shabazz, I was a coward last night. I hope you haven't lost all faith in all of us. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I think you're being altogether too hard on yourself. A lot of folks could have done a lot of things in that perfect world we call hindsight -- woulda, coulda, shoulda -- but as Anna pointed out, this "perfect storm" erupted over the course of 13 minutes. Not a whole lot of reaction time. And nobody could have anticipated where it would eventually go -- your mop didn't come with a crystal ball, did it? Malik's reaction was so unlike him that my first thought was that his account had been hacked. Sure, you could have blocked the troll -- if I were an admin, that would be my regret too, in retrospect -- but none of us, as we watched that train wreck evolve, had the luxury of knowing where it was going, or who would get hurt, or what action, exactly, might have kept it from going there. Hopefully we have all learned something for next time, though. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI

You've been mentioned at ANI, in this thread. The forms must be obeyed... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, only just saw this--got sidetracked by corruption. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, right, that one--I saw that in passing. AD really needs to stop it. Listen, Writ Keeper, and I'll ping you just to make sure you see this, any time I click on one of those ANI links I first get directed to that section, but in seconds I get moved a few sections below. Very strange. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that happens to me too. It's the banner at the top of the page; it gets loaded after the page has already moved down to the thread, and the extra vertical space taken up by the banner bumps everything down. If you close it, it should stop showing up. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi Drmies, it's 99, looking under the various rocks, of which there are so many lying around this place. Among these are an endless supply of spammy bios, including my flavor of the day, Steve Altes. If you, or any of the helpful array of talk page denizens who look in, are in the mood to make this presentable, please have at it. I've started on the intro, and mucked up the cites as a result. It's almost a WP:TNT situation. It looks like there's all sorts of COI that extends to several related articles--sort of a 'pick your noticeboard' smorgasbord. I've started a thread at the BLP noticeboard. Thanks, and hope you're staying cool. Very best regards, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• OMG, you gotta be kidding. That is the worst BLP I've seen since I looked at something by some fringy writer on aliens and stuff. That was years ago. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  That's not even the worst one I've seen this week, but thank you for corroborating my take on it. Some day I'll show you the worst one I ever came across, quite similar to this, a kind of jack-of-all-trades bio. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• 99, is this person notable in the first place? Drmies (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• There's probably enough there to support notability, but you have to slog through a lot of crap to find the pearl. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have got to spend less time here, and more time drinking. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• The two activities are by no means mutually exclusive. And I speak from personal experience. Like right now. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, if you want to see a pretty admirable example of the determination to place an autobiography in Wikipedia, take a moment to read this [13], and have a look at the deleted article. I don't remember it being like this when I started editing a decade ago--maybe I'm wrong, but it seems there's a much stronger general sense of entitlement than there once was, as in 'Everyone else has an article, I ought to, too. And my business. And my lizard.' The ferocity with which people insist on publishing their lives here, and accuse any who would contradict them of entertaining nefarious agendas, speaks to a delusional sense of self-importance that's fairly common. Ah, well. Perhaps I'm just getting older. And not drinking enough. Did I mention that already? 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

'Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."' (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1797)

EEng (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Long was his beard and mixed with white hair, similar to the hairs of his head, which fell to his breast in two strands." (Dante on Cato) Should've used "Just for Men". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Especially with Dante on him. EEng (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I bet neither Cato nor Dante ever managed to pack the drama room at the Camrose Composite High School. Losers. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Query your admin action

Why have you protected a page in a way that allows only admins to edit it, when two of the antagonists involved in an edit-war on the page are admins. One has just made a subsequent edit. This is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. Please explain. Tony (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And before you explain, I might say that you've lost any credibility you had with me. I won't be speaking well of you. Tony (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ahem. You want me to explain why someone else did what they did? Sorry, not a mindreader. As for the you not getting blocked for edit warring because someone protected the article and protected you against yourself, you're welcome. Now, you're a grownup: win your argument on the article talk page, don't come pissing on mine. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You could drop the personal insults and belittling. The two admins you've allowed to continue editing the article were involved in edit-warring. But it seems they're your friends, which would explain your lopsided action. It shows why admins are often regarded as being corrupt on this site.

And thanks for the "you're welcome" sarcasm. I certainly will let it be known that you engage in corrupt admin behaviour. Tony (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. I took the liberty of removing that ridiculous comment from the article talk page. Drmies (talk)

Under the circumstances, a mature admin would refrain from referring to an editor's actions as "ridiculous". You really have no idea of good adminning, do you. I don't mind that you removed that thread, although you should have asked me first as a matter of accepted protocol on talkpages. But who cares about protocols when you're a corrupt admin? Tony (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Diplomacy is maybe not my strong suit, but I'm not going to learn it from you either. And no, there was no reason for me to ask you for permission to remove it: you violated WP:AGF and WP:NPA with your comments about David Eppstein. I could have slapped a warning template on your talk page, for instance. Do not respond here anymore until you can speak to me differently: Wikipedia is already crappy enough right now without you adding to that shit pile. this is all very inappropriate and immature--and I'm very surprised, since I always thought of you as one of the reasonable, level-headed editors. But this stuff about corruption and my math friends, that's nothing but bullshit, pure bullshit. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't say "final word" after spraying so many insults my way. You are a profound failure as an admin, and should resign. Tony (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else revel in the irony of someone using terms such as "failure" and "corrupt" towards others, while protesting against insults? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I have learned something that I actually follow about 65% of the time. Rather than tell someone who is being unfair to stop posting on your talk page, just let them have the last word. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent advice. Getting the last word is important to a lot of people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To editor Tony1: In case you are not aware, admins too are barred from editing fully protected pages except for making non-controversial edits, removing copyright or BLP violations, etc. Involved admins certainly cannot remove or restore the content they prefer, at the pain of losing their bit. So full-protection of a page really does not favor admins in a dispute. Abecedare (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Need adminly help

Hi D, I need some adminly advice if you're around. A user was making physical threats against another editor at User talk:Levdr1lostpassword. I emailed emergency, then indeffed the offending user because they went way overboard with some really unsavory threats. I'm hoping you can look at my decision-making and lemme know if I did the right thing. I feel somewhat odd because the user has a ton of GAs and FAs and is otherwise constructive. (I know that indef doesn't mean infinite, though) I wasn't sure if I was supposed to revdel the offending user's comments from the talk page, or all of the comments, so after a half dozen tries I figured out how to revdel all of them. May I please entreat you to please evaluate my trial by fire? Mocha-choco-lata thank ya. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Cyphoidbomb, I really don't know. I think we're supposed to take threats seriously even if they're borderline ridiculous, and I think these are at least somewhat ridiculous--I mean, the axe, the broken fingers, that's for thirteen-year olds (though many think maturity is overrated). So, I don't really now about the revdel--I probably wouldn't have done it, but there's other things that push my buttons where I probably revdel earlier than others. As for the block, I think it's justified: such comments ought to be followed by some explanation, some commentary, and an indefblock is the proper way to go about it. I was going to say, don't be afraid to add a note to the user's talk page, but I see now that they already placed an unblock template. If I were you, I'd add my own thoughts/response to it, and leave it to someone else to decide on the unblock. Thanks, and thanks for helping keep the place clean. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the input. I'm happy to learn through mistakes. In this case I felt I had to err on the side of caution. I'd be happy if another admin did some un-revedeling if they felt like it. I need to know when I eff up so I know what to do right the next time. Much appreciated, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There was no mistake, Cyphoidbomb--better safe than sorry, certainly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

North Carolina

Job and his friends

Where were you during the year you spent there? I've signed for you at Malik's talk page, you're almost as bad as I am! (you forgot to sign at Acroterion's talk page) I hope you are watching the Arb's section at the case request page where we are discussing returning the tools and investigating the I-P area. Doug Weller (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And I've just proposed a formal motion. Doug Weller (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am not at liberty to tell you, but I'll just say it offered a lovely view of Mount Pisgah. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• Short and sweet, Doug--thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice area, but I spend my NC time about 8 miles north of Mount Mitchell (on foot or 4x4 on the Old Tollway road to Pensacola). Doug Weller (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ha, that was a long walk up to Mount Mitchell! Lovely, Doug. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Great. Thanks to your section heading, I have this old-school joint stuck in my head again. I always wondered what happened to Petey Pablo. Thanks to Wikipedia, I now know that he was incarcerated for trying to carry a stolen burner onto a commercial airliner, so... yeah. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia rules. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow. He has a MySpace page. So I click on a song with Explicit Lyrics and hear a woman talk about how great it is when women feel comfortable in their skin--turns out it's an Alicia Keyes commercial for Levi's. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hanneke Ippisch

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading this article brought tears to my eyes. The good kind of tears. I shared it with Mrs. Cullen and she was touched too. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Henry Voordecker

Henry Voordecker. Xanty made it, is mainspaced. Hafspajen (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Allora & Calzadilla

Why is this considered promotional material? I have edited it well, citing resources, with a neutral point of view. Your editing has turned abusive. Marinaorangina (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Because you turned the article into a portfolio, with the help of primary, not secondary, sources. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• By primary you mean i'm describing the pieces? now, why are you still saying it's an ad, when i'm CORRECTING incomplete information (birth dates, colleges...i've added ALL published references) Marinaorangina (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Primary sources is what you're using; Wikipedia works by way of secondary sources. The enormous amount of things you added (events, exhibitions, etc), combined with the lack of properly verified text, crosses what is called the "spam horizon". In its current form the article is unacceptable and benefits no one except for the subjects and their agent. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Would you take a look at the page as it stands right now? what can you criticise? Marinaorangina (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • How about just one quick thing: use the list in "Selected Articles and Reviews" to verify information in the rest of the article. Then cut the list. Having a list means making a resume; using the list means writing an article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

i'm TRYING here. i will seek out help, thank you. the ad tag was, i believe, unnecessary since everything describing the pieces was deleted. i also used catalogues and reviews from respectable sources in other parts of the entry. i think you deleted everything, the good and the bad. how is a Brooklyn Rail blog quote more respectable for Wiki than a quote from Okwui Enwezor, the curator of the Biennale? Marinaorangina (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Either way, the tag wasn't yours to remove. OK. Catalogs aren't secondary sources. Government documents aren't secondary sources. A bio on the Guggenheim website also is not a secondary source. A curator is an expert, but a curator's quote in his own catalog, that's a blurb. A bibliography of catalogs, that's resume writing, again. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

hello

hello

As much as I appreciate you trying to make my information accurate, the information I have provided is absolutely accurate, as I am the actress Katie Walder. I was born in Philadelphia, PA on October 13, 1982, and if you wish to see a copy of my birth certificate, I will happily provide it. It is the other websites on the internet that have the incorrect age, you are on of the only ones to provide accurate inofrmation, hence my corrections. Yesterday it appeared that somebody tried to change my birthdate to something that was far off, and I had no choice but to correct it. Thank you so much. All the best, Katie Walder Katsuya1234 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Katsuya, the issue here is not just of correctness and reliable sources, but also all the other stuff you removed. This edit removed the only reliable sources the article had, and you followed it up with this, in which something that's decidedly not a reliable sources. Whether you are the subject or not is in some ways irrelevant since your edits did not improve the article--removal of reliable sources, of reference list, etc. In other ways it is relevant, of course, but that is not a matter on which I will decide: the thing to do is to go to Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard, where you can post a comment and/or email a volunteer. I'm not rightly sure how all that works, but there are experienced users there who do know, and I'll ping two of them already--Diannaa, Salvidrim!? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• And about that birthdate--it's really not so interesting to me (since I'm from before 1976 anyway, and I only reverted that last time because it was part of a whole series of edits)), but I see that there's been plenty of ado about it. "Reliable source"--well, IMDB is not considered a reliable source here, yet at least one editor mistakenly thought it was. Here's another "correction". You've been changing it back more or less continuously; I'm glad we're having this chat so we can set the matter straight once and for all. Now, at least two similar IPs (76.104.131.29 and 76.104.155.12) have changed it; it's possible you have a troll. I placed a few more warning templates and blocked a vandalism-only account, but I do suggest you read User talk:184.76.109.223 and head their advice. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• You can send an e-mail to info-en-qwikimedia.org with any documentation or proof of your identity and a OTRS volunteer will be able to confirm the private information. The main purpose of this would be to prevent impersonation (i.e.: make sure the person behind the Katsuya1234 is not an individual pretending to be Katie Walder; it would not necessarily confer any right or control over the article about Katie Walder. However, I suppose the private documentation could be used as confirmation of your real birth date. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, again

As your name has been invoked, you might want to comment at WP:ANI#Hounding by Hijiri 88. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Valiant (play)

Hello, friend. Could you userify this to me? Deleted by a PROD in 2011. I am simply interested to see if its the same play by Holworthy Hall and Robert Middlemass, which I intend to transform it into, if it is not. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, that is what it is--now at User:Milowent/The Valiant (play). Have a nice day, Milowent--always a pleasure to see you. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks much. A somewhat sad deletion, the prods that no one cares for!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As you are a friend of the Kapoor family...

Ms Kapoor greets the good doctor.

...can you figure out if Karisma and Kareena are Anglo-Indians? There's a slow edit war on both articles on this issue, referring to the mom and I looked at her article to find that her mother was a Christian from the UK, but nothing about ethnicity, could very well be an Indian Christian, and I used the Googles to see if I could get some help, but this has all given me a big headache now. I only have both articles on my watchlist as they are vandalism magnets. —SpacemanSpiff 17:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There should be a special barnstar and free Wikipedia swag for life for anyone willing to delve into the Kapoor family articles. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"British national" could mean anything; in common usage (as far as I remember) it's used to refer to someone who's not a British citizen, and may not have been resident at any time in the UK. "Anglo-Indian" is some rara avis- I've only ever met two or three. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why was there even a ethnicity field in the infobox?! I removed it as "undue, irrelevant, OR, BLP etc". I think/hope there is a more directly relevant policy addressing such classification (@Sitush:?), although I'll probably now be informed that it was my common-sense edit that violated some rule/consensus. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS cover it. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

		The Kapoor Family Barnstar
		This Syringa vulgaris Radz Kapur plant is offered to Drmies for his exceptional service to the Kapoor family. —SpacemanSpiff 18:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why, thank you! So I can leave the ethnicity question alone? Cause I'm not well equipped to handle that, especially since I'm always dazzled by Karisma's beauty. You know she is my sun, my moon, my date palm. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• • ...and, if memory serves ... available ... DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I think the sisters are fine now, but mum would like you to visit sometime. —SpacemanSpiff 20:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh they are fine indeed. Mom is my mom's age. Listen, Babita's article, the lead, it's bad--it's sexist. It needs to be rewritten: she is cast entirely in family terms, as if women are nothing more than appendages. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
        • That's par for the course, every time an actress gets married I have to do a lot of clean up after drive by editors who decide that if a woman gets married then she has to change her last name and either move the article or copy-paste it to "married-name" titles. See Amala Paul or Kareena Kapoor Khan, and worse, a combination of screen name and spouse's last name -- Simran Bagga. And then you have Cruelty against Husband in India. I've done some clean up of Babita's article now. —SpacemanSpiff 04:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
          • No you don't! :) Drmies (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• On that point, what encyclopaedic purpose do userboxes like User:Edu Mabbitt/Userboxes/Japanese Girl serve? —SpacemanSpiff 14:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  Well, I got a gay marriage box on my page which probably doesn't serve much of an encyclopedic purpose. The difference is, of course, that mine is cool and funny and this is somewhat revolting and sexist, but that's just me. I've been looking at your editor's contributions. I closed the AfD and put one of their user categories up at MfD. That essay is still in their sandbox. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've changed the transclusion to a link -- I was MfDing it after my post here and came back to find all sorts of deletion links on this page. I get having some sort of personal opinions/info in userboxes as it gives an idea about the person behind the username, but this one seemed to be taking it too far in my opinion. Don't know if this opinion resonates with the rest of the editing community, we'll see. —SpacemanSpiff 14:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• That category you sent for deletion is a result of transcluding {{Scapegoat_of_Dowry_Law}} (I'm not transcluding that template here as I don't want Mrs Drmies coming after me with a machete for placing you in a "Scapegoat of Dowry law" category.) —SpacemanSpiff 15:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack

Drmies, the latest hook is one that Gareth seems happy with, so would you like to continue the review, or should I find another reviewer? Just let me know here or review there. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be hard to believe, but I don't see any evidence that the article was reviewed to the standard DYK criteria during the long, long back-and-forth process getting various aspects of the article fixed: no mention of length and timeliness, neutrality or close paraphrasing, sourcing, etc. If you checked these today, can you please specify what you found? With such an involved nomination, it's important to make clear what was checked in awarding the tick so the person promoting to prep can see it. Thanks, and sorry to have to bother you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset, I'm sure it wasn't easy for you to ask this, knowing that you know how I feel about this bureaucratic stuff which makes DYK so much less fun. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for adding the review info; I'm hoping it being there means the promotion will occur soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Recreat:I want to recreat A page that you deleted

Hello Drmies, hope all is well. I am trying to recreat a page that you deleted Kobort Koffa . Learned that you deleted the page because the player's club is in the 3rd level of the Danish league ( therefore making him not notabe), however, given all facts, the Danish 3rd level of football is higher then the American 3rd level (by fifa ranking), and yet 83 percent of players playing in the USL which is the 3rd tie of football in the USA have a wiki page. You can research that if need be... But the main reason i recommend a recreat of the page is, 1. the player is an african (from liberia) and given his country's low fifa ranking, players from the said country playing in leagues at that level aborad are monitored nationally by thier locals - google search engine has proven that the player is widely googled a few thousand times so far. And the liberian national team usually call players on national duties from those league, proving nobiity to them. I think what dosn't prove nobility in one sense, could in another (given the heritage) therefore could pass at GMT or some point. Also, the player has moved to a biger ( according to news here in Denmaark). Please let me know your advice on the matter. As an experience wiki adm., your take on the matter would prove essential. Look forward to your soonest response as to how or when the page shoud be recreated. cheers,Dksport2015 (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I deleted it, sure, but it follows discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobort Koffa, which I'm sure you're familiar with. I'd tell you what I'd tell anyone in a case like this: if you think he passes WP:GNG or WP:FOOTY, write it up again. If the sources prove him notable, a three-sentence article ought to do. You don't need my permission for it, so you don't have to plead your case here. At any rate I don't have any opinion on any of it--I don't know what the USL is, but if you're right that would be a sad statement. I always thought that soccer players came to the US to cash in for a few years before retiring, so that they were always automatically notable. But in the end it's connoisseurs like GiantSnowman, whom I ping way too frequently these days, whose opinion is worth more than mine. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

A pretty plant

	The Flowerpot award
	No particular reason at all. From the London Underground (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I thank you for it! Very nice, LU. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa

My second day at Suspected copyvio.

Who has they tools at hands, just delete this, Fight Vols, Fight this article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because it is a copy-and-paste page move - copivio ... Hafspajen (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: If you believe the entire article constitutes copyright infringement, you should have tagged it per WP:CSD#G12, not nominated it for deletion. That said, it's not clear to me that everything has been copied from the YouTube page. Do you mean just the lyrics?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• You got me. I am very new to this copyvio procedure, so I might not proceeded correct... I think that it was copied from the youtube line, and many articles that are pure copivio are deleted entirely, as far as I understood. Hafspajen (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you mean that's worth saving...?

[offensive content redacted]

This above is the copivio. You directed me to where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving, dunno. Hafspajen (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I saved a priest - (that somebody else nominated); if is to any consolation .... Hafspajen (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen, you know so little about America, about the South, about the SEC. Come on, you don't go put the Volunteers fight song on an Alabama fan's talk page! Tide rolls, can you find the appropriate warning template for this abomination? Or is a block in order? Or, Hafspajen, is this a scheme you hatched with that nogoodnik AuburnPilot? RTR! Drmies (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

For the good of my family, I must confess I have never been anything but a fan of the Crimson Tide. It always made for an interesting conversation walking through Auburn's campus during football season wearing a shirt signed by Gene Stallings. I like to think I was smart enough to have been an Auburn student but not foolish enough to be an Auburn fan. ;-) You can't grow up with Alabama grads for parents and yell anything but ROLL TIDE!! --auburnpilot talk 17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Professor. No block, no template. I propose education. voilà. Tiderolls 01:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC) ^{OH. Thanks I feel much more educated now, Tide rolls... really much educational. Hafspajen (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)}

• Well, done is done. You go and save it. Won't stop you. Hafspajen (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've edited the article and commented at the AfD. If anyone wants to disagree with me on either, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There is after all crimson small c and crimson big c. Juan Riley (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I performed a kind of procedural close, with a redirect to Tennessee Volunteers. If a redirect elsewhere is more appropriate, no doubt some Tennessee fan will scold me for it, in which case I'll say just fix it. BTW, there was a nice story on NPR today (read it on the website) whose indirect relevance to this orange discussion is made clear in the opening sentences. Careful, trigger warning: contains details about murder, skeletons, and science. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I tried ... here, but I probably give up, if I don't have Moonriddengirl to hold my hand while I am trying. She wanted me to help, but this is all very new to me yet. Hafspajen (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, it's a copyvio, having been copied from somewhere. But then again, it's lyrics, not very creative content (sorry Tennessee fans) so I'm not inclined to burn it with fire and delete/revdelete. Maybe MRG is stricter--if she is, she can go right ahead. Anywayz, Bbb's advice was sound: AfD is not the proper route, CSD tagging is. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I am listening to your admin-wisdom. Hafspajen (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, no, listen to Bbb. They know policy better than me. And Dennis Brown knows most everything else better than me.

  Dennis, hope you're doing well. I'm having a beer, and I'm saluting you. Football is about to start. That's good. I had to block a guy for discretionary sanctions and that's not good, but he's taking it well. I had to yell at someone for edit warring and they stopped, so that's alright. Besides that, we gave that little boy a haircut and he cried some. He's in love with monster trucks and cars, and I have no idea how he got that--I was hoping I'd raise him like the girls. He does look really good in the pink dress his sisters always put him in. Also, when he pees he goes three feet and farther; I'm very jealous. Take care old friend. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Dennis is out with the girls. Hafspajen (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Plenty will argue I don't know anything Drmies. And Hafspajen, I quit going out with the girls to just stay with one that almost understands me. Dating younger girls sounds a lot more fun than it really was, so I found someone my own age who is very down to earth and appreciates a good man who knows how to cook and clean up after himself. She even laughs at my jokes and is into my guitar playing, so I just might keep her. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, Dennis Brown. Some people are like fine quality wine, they get just better with age. Hafspajen (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of us age more like milk, but I do the best with what I have ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggest switching to yogurt then. Anyway, Fight Vols, Fight is much in this class of performance. Any complaints are to be leaved here: . Hafspajen (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Its hard to describe how impressed I am with your handling of the LesVegas case, and with LesVegas too. Makes me feel hopeful about aspects of WP I have felt very hopeless about for along time.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC))

• But I didn't handle anything--I blocked him... He sounded like a pretty decent guy but, you know (and I'm sure you know), it's easy to get along with people who edit in very different fields. Thanks for your note, and take care, Drmies (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The block was thoughtful and as far as you saw it, whether I agreed or not, honest, neutral, and very fair. I don't always see that. Further you were nice about it as was LesVegas. I don't often see that either.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC))

RE: Abuse of admin tools

Go to hell. I couldn't give a crap what you removed. At the end of the day, the user will see it because it is forever in the Wikipedia history, so your little "booyah" is totally ineffectual. You just keep abusing your admin tools. It'll eventually catch up with you and I will then be sending you that same message I sent him. Just you wait. All the rest of your replies to me won't be read. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies, I remember this user. All I can say is you have company. He hates me, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I have addressed the above administrator, Bbb23, at his article here [14], letting him know that I have a lot of respect for him as an administrator.AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• That's great. What are you doing here? Or are you going to apologize for all this "worst abusive admin ever" nonsense? If you've been here as long as you have, you must know a. that you were gravedancing and b. that our community despises gravedancing. I have had plenty of disagreements with Kww, but gloating over his misfortunes is revolting, and doing it publicly is even worse. And if someone is going to take advantage of the situation to give him a shot below the belt, it is perfectly within my purview as an administrator to undo such disruption/personal attacks, and to take appropriate measures if need be. If you don't understand all the stuff that came after "If you've been here as long as you have", then you haven't been paying attention all the time you were on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think that the edit summary and content of the edit on Kww's page should be redacted, so not even Kevin can see that, as he is going through a horrific time as is and doesn't need to be dragged through the mud any further. I think the first message of AD86's on this page should be scratched out by him and him alone and most of all, any remaining hatchets should be buried. I'm on good terms with AD86, Kww, Drmies and Bbb23 at this point, but if there is any bad blood, those affairs should be straightened out and laid to rest permanently. While I admit that I hated the message AD86 left on Kww's page, I understand the resentment, though I hope we can all agree to move past this. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Kevin is a big boy, and this isn't the worse he had to deal with the last couple of weeks--I don't think it rises to revdel level, but perhaps Chillum has a different opinion--if you do, Chillum, feel free to act. As for the response, I'm not that good at blocking, as I said at ANI recently. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I see no reason to revdel the edit, it speaks for more to the character of AmericanDad86 than Kevin. Chillum 01:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In case there is any doubt, I can say from experience here that the community does indeed have little tolerance for grave dancing. A revert and a warning is one of the lesser responses I have seen to such schadenfreude. Chillum 00:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny! I have seen many a time where administrators and their close friends jump in, gang up on, and make snide comments to other users who are being blocked and/or assailed not only against myself but countless other non-administrative editors here at Wikipedia. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, but let the same thing happen to an administrator, then there's shouts of "Schadenfreude," "gravedancing," "murder," "blasphemy." When it comes to these behaviors directed at an admin, his friends bounce on the scene and scream and shout how behaviors that those who don't politic are regularly subject to are unacceptable towards administrators or former admin. It just goes to show the ridiculous level of politics that play a hideous role on this site. I just learned of a website the other day from reading a discussion on Bbb23's page called Wikipediocracy and even saw where there's a whole community who is complaining about behaviors like this. There is literally a whole website dedicated to the ridiculous iniquitous behaviors that go on at this website as it relates to admin friendships, biases, and politicking. For the sake of my sanity, I am not going to return here and read any more comments. My advice to each of you is to cut the dramatics, friendship-guided behaviors as opposed to logic-guided behaviors, and stop with the politics winning out. I have seen it many many times before where the worst editors who engage in these behaviors end up being on the receiving end of them after awhile and leave in a huff. I used Wikipedia as an IP user since 2006 and it never fails. I know this website and the iniquities that steer people away inside and out. I probably have been on here a lot longer than most of you if not all of you. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You are acting silly. Nobody is ganging up on you. I think you will find that that sort of snotty comment to a person who just had a bad time is looked on poorly regardless of who it is. Stop playing the victim. Chillum 01:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Drmies I suggest we just ignore this user(something I admit you done a better job at so far than myself), at this point they are just blowing off steam. I doubt they will engage in further grave dancing, if so then action can be taken. My talk page is of course always open to you. Chillum 01:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds good Chillum. AmericanDad, don't come to my talk page to insult my guests. It's bad manners. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

NO! Don't end this now! What am I supposed to do with all of this popcorn? GregJackP Boomer! 02:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• We should charge admission. But if you got nothing better to do, have a look at Template talk:Islam and try to figure out who that IP is yelling at. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL, ah, no. I've already had my fill of contentious editing areas by being sanctioned, blocked, and topic-banned by ArbCom in the Climate Change arena. There's no way I'll get involved in the religious wars (although I'm pretty neutral on it, all of the religions are nuts, lol). But I can see that you're having loads of fun there... GregJackP Boomer! 06:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I consider AmericanDad96's puerile behaviour relatively predictable, and I'm certain that in days to come I will be witness to nearly every block I have ever made being questioned simply on the grounds that I made it. As Chillum points out, I'm a big boy. I certainly wish that I could have gotten people to focus this heavily on the case. It was disconcerting to see a routine block of a disruptive editor blow up to the point that I lost my bit simply because TRM was a popular disruptive editor.—Kww(talk) 04:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww was removed as an admin precisely because of the "popularity" reasons. Terrible. Another good admin gets silenced. Disgusting, really. Doc talk 04:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww, I would have defended you had I been active at the time. I'm sorry I wasn't there when you needed help. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Kww, I don't think it was Chillum who said that--he's much too formal for that. ;) I don't know how popular TRM is, I really can't say. How popularity works out before ArbCom is anybody's guess. I thought (I think you know I thought that) that the block was unwise, but in general I think we're a bit hasty in blocking longtime editors and pulling bits. Malik is obviously still on my mind too. Kevin, if the next unhappy customer comes by to complain I'll be happy to help out: I think I can be pretty impartial. Take care. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww, grave-dancing is usually performed from on top of the grave, not underneath. If you wouldn't mind, it would be more useful if you didn't continue casting aspersions after the dispute has been resolved, adjudicated, arbitrated and well and truly finished. In my book, trying to restart the fight is disruptive behaviour. However, I won't be misusing my admin tools in order to deal with my personal definition of disruptive behaviour. Just leave it. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not popular, I've been described as "the worst admin on Wikipedia" and per the ANI discussion regarding my sysop flag, which I initiated, it was clear that many, many users here dislike me, more than who actually like me. Difference is I pledged to change my approach, unlike others. The ongoing horse-flogging and claims really need to stop now, I'm sick of seeing my name being dragged around, especially when those doing so don't even offer the courtesy of notifying me that they're doing it. Ongoing acts of bad faith like that really underline the problems here. After 134,000+ edits, 162 GAs, dozens of FLs, a score or so of FAs and a demand for good sourcing, to be described as a "disruptive editor" is terribly insulting; it's clear from the community and Arbcom that this position is isolated. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• TRM, I take offense at that statement--the very heading of this thread indicates that I am the worst admin here, and there's plenty more evidence on ANI and in my talk page archives. Please don't take offense at not being pinged, though--there is no legal or even moral requirement to do so. If we can't gossip, then where's the fun? I'm glad I don't always get pinged, and part of "moving on" is to let bygones be bygones. My talk page is not ANI, it's not that widely visited, and we don't do consensus on who's being disruptive and who is not and then act on it. This, Kevin, applies to you as well, of course.

  Having said that, let me hasten to add that I really don't mind if people speak their mind here as long as they do so somewhat courteously. We're all going to have to live with great, great differences of opinion, and that Kevin would feel shafted is, let's face it, not extraordinary. But, and Dweller makes a valid point, there is little purpose in rehashing the case--but venting is allowed, and we admins typically grant editors some room for it. BTW, I don't endorse anyone's opinion by letting it stand here, and my opinion on this ArbCom case is well documented in a forum I'll share with no one; I do reserve the right to remove stuff I find objectionable for one reason or another. All the best to you all, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  Drmies, under no circumstances would I normally expect to be summarily pinged, however in a situation when I'm being snidely accused of being a "disruptive editor", I prefer the opportunity to refute the accusation. Good faith is something that is seriously lacking in the former admin which is probably a singularly good reason for the status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not being snide. While I've seen you be conciliatory on the issue of edit-warring, I have not seen any commitment from you to never again restore challenged material to an article prior to locating and including sources that support the challenged material. If I missed any statements from you to that effect, feel free to indicate to me when and where you made it. ping.—Kww(talk) 20:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I answered the community's criticisms directly. You keep playing innocent victim. Nothing more to say, other than your bad faith is astonishing. Time to move on, as many have suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'll take that as a "no".—Kww(talk) 20:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

admins

• Any complaints are to be leaved here: . Complaint Generator (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I am pinging you to let you know that I have no low opinion of you whatsoever. It was you who discovered that horrifying editor and sock master, Zhoban, in the first place and it was you who encouraged me to take responsible and courteous action in the first place. I hold you in just as high of regard as Drmies, Kww and Bbb23. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I could list a few users who think I am the worst admin here, if you guys really want a contest I could probably dig up some diffs. If you believe what people say about me I am a power tripping tyrant who hunts down content creators with a formal tone and uses his cabal to unfairly police their civility! Chillum 18:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In matters like Kww's, ordinary editors do not get a !vote much less a vote. Even if the results would be exactly the same as ArbCom's (which is very doubtful), I think most editors would have a lot more confidence if these decisions were made in each case by a randomly-selected jury-type body.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

May I ask you why you think a random number generator will somehow represent the community better than the community chosen arbcom? Seems to me that would involve the community less, and chance more. Would it really serve the community to stop the community from deciding who does these things and just choosing random? I really am trying to understand your reasoning. Chillum 19:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(feel free to respond on my talk page if you prefer) Chillum 19:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about a random number generator.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

When I pick up unpopularity, poor old Doug Weller gets more unpopular, because people think we're the same person. Sorry, Doug. I refer anyone confused to the notice at the top of my userpage. --Dweller (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol. I have an email address I've given up using for various reasons, dweller at ramtops - the Ramtops being mountains in Terry Pratchett's disc world. Doug Weller (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It is true that Doug Weller gets double-shafted, but he's really asking for it, living in a world of opinion with all his sciency stuff. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Roger, Roland (Orlando) and Rinaldo

Angelika und Medor- Angelika und Medor, Szene aus "Der rasende Roland" (Orlando furioso) von Ludovico Ariosto

Can you please sort out Roger, Roland (Orlando) and Rinaldo in this new article you created? Roger freeing Angelica (Böcklin). My head spins. Hafspajen (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't Roger marrying Angelica, if he saves her? And why aren't Roland and Rinaldo saving her, if they are the ones inloved with her? EH? Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Translation gives me : Armed went about from beach to beach . Hafspajen (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Medor, too. And one more, an other guy. Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And why doesn't a hippogriff have the head of a hippo and the arse of a Griffon Bruxellois? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hehe. Hafspajen (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Medor should have been called Redor, too. Just to make things more difficult. Hafspajen (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• All in due time, Hafs. I have to read Sophocles's three Theban plays before I get to Orlando. Remember, I'm the only person you know who's read the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, and 2666. Don't ask too much. And DON'T ask me about the Fairie Queene: there will be no Spenser on this talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hipper. It's a Belgian thing. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Charline Arthur

I have absolutely no problem with someone changing an edit, but I have a real problem with people doing it without communicating. Rosie asked for input on the article. But I see no point with you reverting without communication. I cannot access the link you apparently can, as I do not live in the US and I don't do aggressive. Good luck, she's worth saving. SusunW (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)That's quite wise; I done aggressive once and I ended up with a scar on my ankle. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thing is, though, that article's written in some local kind of American English. We learn that Arthur toured the country in a caravan on a Greyhound bus, she was a woman before her time (is that something to do with American marriage customs?) and her image caused a disconnect with her fans. And, the commas. It's like those articles written on Indian subjects- don't know how far to reduce them to some kind of international blandness. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Xanthomelanoussprog I didn't write that bit, but as a US citizen who lives abroad it makes perfect sense to me, so possibly it is a US phrase. "A woman before her time" has nothing to do with marriage. It means that she behaved in a manner that was suited for a later, more modern era. She wore pants, she spoke suggestively, she smoked, she did not talk about marriage and children (and domestic chores), she looked at the people talking to her rather than the ground. None of those things would be seen as unusual now, but they were seen as unladylike then. SusunW (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Eh, SusunW, I don't rightly know what you mean. I removed a citation that you added because that same thing was already cited. The Neely article was published in Southern Cultures and republished in A Boy Named Sue: Gender and Country Music. What is the problem? I left an edit summary explaining it. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As I explained, I could not open your Southern Cultures source. Removing it was unnecessary no harm would have come from it remaining until you communicated, other than that is apparently just not the Wikiway. SusunW (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, as I explained, we would have two different citations for the same source, as I communicated in my edit summary, which is their function. And at the risk of ticking you off even more, I am going to redo notes 4 and 5, which point to the same article reprinted in the edited collection, because right now we have two citations that don't point directly to a source. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies I don't do ticked off. I walk away. Way too many people act like Wikipedia is a dire emergency or crisis. It is not. It could be a much more inviting place. Please, do what you think will improve the article. That was my only reason for going there to begin with. SusunW (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• You can't accuse me of aggressively editing without communicating when I didn't edit "aggressively" (whatever that may mean in this case) and left a perfectly clear edit summary. Well, you can, and you did, but it has no merit, only an effect--that I will stay away from that project, though I know it's dear to Rosiestep's heart, as it is to mine. And that my behavior would be sadder because I'm a woman, that's a microaggression. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I still find it hard to believe you're not male, no offence ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems to be (now) a US phrase, e.g. as used in the title of a film about Freydun Atturaya. Otherwise it reads like "She became a woman before her time to be a woman".Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Xanthomelanoussprog That made me laugh, because it often happens to me here that things get lost in translation, but usually it is the double entendre in Spanish that catches me up. So...she was a child bride, eh? SusunW (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A comment

94.175.97.40 (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC) hi Have no problem with you editing the article but between you and the other one -- you have changed it into a hatchet job. Would ask you remove it and leave her story untold if that is what you wish to tell the world.

DMIes , get Rosiesteo to read this as well. You have really annoyed me. So ignored my spelling.

Please remove the article. I posted it as a man to show she was an influeance and someone others look up to-- you have subverted my intention and mirrored Charlenes Carreer, as the moderator pointed out to Jimbleak there is value here.... so you have remove it. My intention was not to idolize the women, but to highlight that she was a thread between many other famous musicians.

I included a lot of disc information but see none of that, no record labels or support musicians. 

What I put was not perfect it was a first attempt. It will also be my last. I won't bother support WIKIPEADIA financially or otherwise now, (note the spelling), in future. Nor will I use you or refer others to you. Your strange article bears no relationship told in the Rockabilly hall of fame, of a trailblazer and Maverick. It appears to be done by a woman hater, which I find strange as you say you are nuetrally -sexual. Whether you like her or not she was different, upset people and courted some controversy in a strict man's world. A good role model for todays girls as we fight the dark forces of multinationals, perhaps. please remove the article. Go backand talk to the second moderator for some balance please. What is all that rubbish below?

• Don't know what rubbish you mean--perhaps it would have been helpful if you hadn't posted in the middle of a conversation. As for the article, thanks for contributing it--what I and other editors have done is make it conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. You may not like it as much anymore, but it is now a decent article that will be on the frontpage, if we can work that out. And then you'll see that your work was good for something, even if it looks different from what you had. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Email

Just in case you haven't noticed, I've sent you an e-mail. If you choose to reply by email, please leave a brief note on my user page to ensure your reply doesn't get lost in my spam, etc. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Can somebody explain to me why this falls under P-I? I thought it was a case of admin behavior and supposed admin abuse, and its circumstances? That it happened over edits at a P-I article seems inconsequential to me: an admin gets called a terribly racist thing and uses the tool inappropriately, once (just once, only once), and gets desysopped. What's P-I about this? And what are we supposed to do at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence? Say what we already said? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I-P is where this all took place though, so whatever can be done to de-toxify that area...though I am rather jaded that anything can actually be done...would be good. Lockdown every article to a 1000 edit / 60 days old threshold for starters. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but if I block you over a dispute we have over some restaurant in Florida, abusing my tool (let's say I delete the articles you wrote as well), we wouldn't start considering Discretionary Sanctions over Florida restaurants. The toxification here was caused by an explicit racist remark, not by a P-I issue. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, how you doin', Tarc? Always good to see you, though you usually are a harbinger of trouble. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And I appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination). I even enjoyed them. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

But if a bunch—an inordinate number—of heated disputes involving Florida restaurants were erupting, you would start looking for common denominators, and for what might be done to decrease the hostility and its resultant collateral damage. I think that's the rationale. Edit limits & time thresholds sound like good starting points to me as well. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A harbinger of doom, eh? I think of myself the same way an old Real World contestant did, a malcontent who said "I am the straw that stirs the drink". The incel thing is just bunk, no one talks about it as a thing unto itself apart from some fringe web forums. They've tried to glom themsevlwes onto legitimate studies into celibacy and abstinence, and a few gullible editors here heat it up and synth/or it into a giant waste of an article. I'm cautiously optimistic that we're making headway in burying this stuff once and for all. As for the other thing, if "Florida restaurants" had a 10-year Wiki history of history of edit-warring, agenda-enabling, off-wiki coordination, then it certainly would be ripe for discretionary sanctions. The Wikipedia is just another front in the propaganda war for these people. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I, Too, Am Harvard

Drmies, I think you have missed the point of the table in I, Too, Am Harvard. It's a timeline and not a directory. I think most people have interpreted it that way since it did have plenty of eyes on it when it went through DYK. I have no problem with excluding the external links in the timeline (I just thought that they would be helpful to the reader interested in this movement), but I do think the timeline is informative since it is about a notable movement. It also appears to me to be clearly within policy. I haven't followed this movement since I created the article. I thought it may have died out, but maybe not [15] --I am One of Many (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, but a timeline in the form of a table with all the URLs in there, that's well beyond what we should allow in such articles... In addition, the article is about the organization at Harvard, an apparently notable movement, but I don't think that goes automatically for the others. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A Heineken for you

Of course you're still my favorite Admin - don't be silly! :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Keeping in touch and aspie experimental edit

Hello friend,

As you know, I am an aspie, an aspie with very strong visual preferences.

I tried an experiment and want to get your personal feedback: my edit on Blended Wing Body

Everything is factually correct, and cited, but I added visual symbols that includes an annotation of each symbol.

I appreciate your feedback, friend!

Me (user sometimes known as ....) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User sometimes known as 66,87,119, (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I kept the content, but copyedited it and removed the symbols. Everywhere. Using symbols that way is not the right style for an encyclopedia. --Srleffler (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hey sometimes, I responded this morning but apparently my edit never made it through. Yeah, sorry, I'm with Srleffler here--the images aren't conform our manual of style. Also, it's not so likely that someone with Asperger's (or anyone else) will find themselves in one of those aircraft going, shit, we're crashing, what were we supposed to do? and looks it up on Wikipedia. I hope that you noticed that your edit is still partially preserved, and led to a flurry of edits, so you can rest assured that it went somewhere, and all this goes toward your positive edit count, of course. Hey, thanks for the note and good to hear from you. Take care. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

too slow

BlueSalix (talk) has drunk the pint that another user has bought you! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

More booze is the last thing you need right now.

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• Wait--someone drank my beer? And I haven't even had a second cup of coffee! Drmies (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Until Dawn

Considering that Until Dawn is indeed a plot determined by player choice, should we not have a plot summary, then? Or should I just heavily shorten the summary? Valenka (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• If there is choice involved, how can you give a plot summary? You can only give one for one scenario (which is indeed what you suggested), but why choose that one? That seems arbitrary. Also, ask yourself, what purpose does a plot summary serve if many if not all players will probably see a totally different plot line? But yes, it was too long. If I were you I'd try to summarize the plot in much more general terms, and maybe indicate what some important turning points/choices are. Maybe the article does that already, I don't know. Good luck, and choose wisely. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Have a look at Heavy Rain. Another game with choices and a (generic) plot summary. If it's okay with you, I'll go ahead and do something similar for Until Dawn. Valenka (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I will, but note that another article having something doesn't necessarily make it good. The best thing to do is to look for the good articles and see how they handle it. Fortunately, you can get a list at WP:GA and an even more exclusive one at WP:FA, and I'm sure there's a category for "games". Have fun, and thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Have a look at the Until Dawn page and tell me what you think. I think it's as generic (but decent) as it can get without going into too much detail or giving everything away. :) Valenka (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Looks pretty professional and tight. Any gamers around who have a better eye for this than me? Woohoo, Gamergate? Thank you Valenka, Drmies (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a chip on your shoulder

Or are you just living a sad life that has no real meaning and these Wikipedia people are your social only groupies. It is interesting to watch but you might want to consider therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.17.74 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ha! It's Pasternak, back from the beyond. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah...another Walking Dead of Wikipedia?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nah. It's probably something that lives under a bridge in Scandinavia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps the OP might want to study our article Question mark. I hope that I am not being too pedantic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Pasternak has no use for question marks. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, this person is partly right, but my health insurance doesn't pay for therapy and Wikipedia is free. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why do you need therapy when anonymous editors are always there to provide useful advice? Gamaliel (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just last week my shrink asked if any members of my family suffer from insanity. I replied no, we all seem to enjoy it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lessing

Hello Drmies, I would be most grateful if you could explain why you have deleted all the links I have given to various Lessings on the German site of Wikipedia. The Lessing family Wikipedia page is in English but the Lessing family is a German family and many of the Lessings only have pages on the German Wikipedia. Until English pages are written for them doesn't it make sense to keep the links I have put up? Thank you for your help Lessimon 27 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessimon (talk • contribs)

• Hi Lessimon, in a nutshell (gotta run): the red links are there as an invitation to editors to write the articles; the German link is given nicely templated, without that arrow thingy indicating an external links. I'm sure there's other technical advantages, possibly Wikidata related. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies for explaining. The one problem that I see with this is that when people click on the red link it ends up saying the 'page does not exist', therefore nobody can actually see the German pages to translate if they wanted to. I don't wish to be controversial but I can't see the benefit in this system for readers. When you have time I would be grateful if you could explain how we can still give readers the links in question without causing problems with wikidata. Many thanks and apologies for any confusion I have caused when trying to resolve what seemed like a technical fault. Lessimon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessimon (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have now looked at the page again and I now understand the system, one needs to click on the 'de' to get to the German site. I now understand. Thanks for your help and apologies for inconvenience caused Lessimon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessimon (talk • contribs) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• No problem. If you wink too nicely at User:Gerda Arendt she's going to want you to translate all those articles from the German wiki, so be careful. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The other day, I translated three articles because someone deleted the {{ill}} links. Use them generously. At present I am of no help. Dealing with health issues, I had the extra pleasure of having been reverted (and others as well) like a vandal (discussion on project opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Gerda, you just can't help it, can you? Sticking something unrelated in? I hope you're better soon. All the best. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the butterfly, and for driving by. My prize: my favourite discussion, short and a bit literary, two years old. "joy in the effort of awakening". - My place it's already the anniversary of my friend Andy almost banned because he uncollapsed an infobox. When will we ever learn? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• ... and thanks for all the courtesy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• feeling better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Good, I'm glad to hear that. Andy--the one who was yelling at me? I've been brushing up my German, but it remains a tedious language. At some point, though, I have to get through the stack of three or four dozen articles on Boniface. My desk is full. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Still in hospital, slow line. Andy, the one who calmly explained that I had gone to the talk pages as prescibed and there had been no objection. Someone could also explain that the first inspiring editor who added infoboxes to Wagner operas has nothing to do with WP:QAI. I am pleased with the merciful close of a "discussion" which should not have started, - what a waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Kikism

Thanks for deleting that draft. There were some nasty words being thrown about. GAB^Hello! 00:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the block. Much appreciated! GAB^Hello! 00:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• That was easy. The bitch was inventing the candygram, and they probably won't give me credit for it. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess we all have to live with disappointment. The IP at least gave me another fun personal attack to use in a userbox:

This user is not relevant.

Just a little hobby of mine. GAB^Hello! 19:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well shucky darn and slap the chickens! Drmies (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State's de facto governing of parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan

Why did you remove Pakistan and Afghanistan from the list of country's territory Islamic State is governing? Islamic state has made a de facto presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Do you know what does de facto means? Shochenkotaras (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Do you understand the difference between "having a presence" and "occupying"? Also, you're limited to one revert, and you are in no position to hand out last warnings. Feel free to plead your case on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No Mandarin names for Uyghurs/Erkin Alptekin

How dare you associate a Uyghur with a mandarin name? We Uyghurs are NOT Chinese. Our East Turkestan is not a part of China. Chinese is not a race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shochenkotaras (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't associate anything: I just removed an edit you made with a racist edit summary. That you don't really know what "racist" means is irrelevant. To anyone passing by: "No Chinese here. East Turkestan is not part of China. Keep your obnoxious Han Chinese population and culture away from Kashgaria/East Turkestan". You do sound like an adorable human being. Drmies (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at some of his others? -- e.g. "You Han Chinese better fuck off from our lands." And "No Indian words will be tolerated. Indian languages and food are inferior." He's not serious, right? This is just incredibly lame trolling? I hope? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Whoa. I did, but I guess I didn't see those. Thanks DoctorJoeE. It took a village, but the troll is blocked. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Mongo just pawn in game of life. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Help Requested

Hey Drmies, Marchjuly (talk · contribs) is going through numerous articles and commenting-out images, logos and the like. Mostly these are radio and TV station articles, but I have seen sports articles as well. The user is posting in the edit summary that the images are in violation of WP:NFCC#8. After reading this talk page post from the user, I don't think he/she really understands the rules.

Could you take a look at the whole thing and let me know who is in the right and how I should proceed? Hope all is well with you. Take Care....Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I did something about this, Neutralhomer, didn't I? Take care, Drmies (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless something has drastically changed, at last check Marchjuly had reverted his edits (which is fine with me) and we are going to let the policy/image people rangle that one out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Question on edits

Hi Drmies. I'm trying to understand some of your edits but also rework some that you pointed. I was in the process of reworking the page but if you keep changing before I have a chance to rework it. One thing I don't understand is the issue with the "Controversy" section and the sourcing. Can you explain further please? Thank you.Km3k3c (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Km3k3c, thank you for bringing this up. First of all, the lead, as you tweaked it, was not neutral: "...serves the travel industry..." Second, and more importantly, the "Controversy" section is indeed discouraged here, as explained in WP:CSECTION. This makes good sense since "controversy" needs to be balanced--separate sections easily give it undue weight. Moreover, there was no evidence that I could see that this dispute was somehow deemed to be controversial: not every dispute is. Then, the first part of it was not based on secondary sources, and especially such sections need to be. There was a secondary source cited in the second part (I do not know how reliable that source is), and thus some of that content can probably stand--but there is no reason not to bring that into the regular "History" section. Finally, that long list of services, we don't do that, certainly not at such length and without citing any secondary sources at all--that's for the company brochure, or the company website, which is linked at the bottom of the article. I encourage improvements to the article, but within Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know

"Madras Presidency" was a province. DS (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• So it doesn't mean person X was the president of something? It's just where they're from? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Did you already forget that your forefathers lost Fort Geldria, resulting in the expansion of the Madras Presidency?—SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• My forefathers are West-Frisian, thank you very much--not a bunch of snobby reserve Germans from the land of that blasted duke of Gelre. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that's all just Dutch to me. BTW, Fort Vijf Sinnen is still red, I think it might make for a good read, I'll look for some refs, better than sifting through copyvios. —SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not red anymore, User:SpacemanSpiff. Have a look at the image on Commons--in the larger category, "Maps of the Dutch East India Company - India", there need to be some subcategories. Finding more stuff is not easy, because there doesn't seem to be much, and there are two words with many alternate spellings--"vijf" and "vyf", and "Nagapattinam" with all its varieties. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Right, I found an elevation map and a couple of sources a few days back, but as usual I've been lazy and didn't start the article. I've left them on the talk page for now. I have a vague feeling that I've actually visited this fort and have a few (print) photographs of it stocked up somewhere, I will dig up my archives. —SpacemanSpiff 14:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• The Danes may not have been as successful as the Dutch on the Coromandel, but they got a WP:Good Article out of their fort!—SpacemanSpiff 15:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  The Danes can kiss my Dutch ass. I haven't forgotten--bunch of beach bums. And don't get me started on Brazil, and that **** Bebetu, with his offside goal. Or goals. Whatever. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the invite, but I think I'll pass. To quote Morticia Addams: "Don't torment yourself, that's my job!", and I recommend watching this brand new flick, which should rub plenty of salt and vinegar in old wounds. Favonian (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice - August 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SpyMagician (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, | I was chided for opening an ANI without working things out with you here. So here is my take: | You threatening me with placing a template on my talk page and your general decision to chide people on a talk page topic that died off 24 hours ago coupled with yet another personal criticism of another user’s signature comes off as bullying to me. You don’t agree? I don’t care in the deepest sense of the word. Why you are deciding to engage other editors and chide the as “kind of inexperienced?” No idea; speaks more to your persona and desire to “prove something” than my behavior. Best wishes to you in your journeys editing. If we meet again I hope it to be on better terms. Cheers! --SpyMagician (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, bullying. If you had been more experienced you'd have known about not linking dates and stuff. And why criticism, and calling you out on a personal attack, should be called bullying is a mystery to me. You made a personal attack, I said that you did. If anyone was "bullying", it was you, with your "you don't even know how to sign your name nah nah nananah" remark to that IP. There were things to comment on in regard to the IP's comment, but "you're stupid" was not one of them. So cheers to you too. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

“If you had been more experienced you'd have known about not linking dates and stuff.” That point is moot and irrelevant to the core discussion of the page. You showed up out of nowhere to the talk page for Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward and chastised me for calling out an IP user and then criticized me and another user over signature related issues. What is that about? Does that talk page warrant that kind of pedantic nonsense? Not really. Maybe if you left a talk comment on my page or the other user’s page, then perhaps your unwanted assistance might warrant some basic validity. But as it stands, you show up 24 hours after a discussion, add pretty much nothing to the debate and then wag your tongue about your “experience.” Your behavior reeks of a classic form of Wiki-bullying. And your comments here do little to dispel it. Take care! --SpyMagician (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You attacked a user. I said you attacked a user. (Others agree you attacked a user.) You cry "mommy I'm being bullied". That's classic...whining. NPA is not pedantic, or unrelated to the core discussion of the page, it's fucking policy. Learn it--you've been here long enough to know it. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Some background, if useful

WRT to User talk:125.165.20.18, see User:Albert20009. Involved in some way with ongoing disruption of Singapore/Malay/Indonesia/Philippine media/entertainment articles. Very boring and very silly; still, requires clean up betimes. Thanks for the help, Professor. Tiderolls 06:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, irritating. Is there an SPI? And do we have a quarterback yet? And is Volunteer Marek ready for what could be a very painful year? Drmies (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)==
  • Good luck to the thousands of toothless townies in Tuscaloosa Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you glance at the talk page for Birdman (film)

Thanks for your comments at the recent review of the poetry pages. Recently, the various IP-editors from there appear to have started some sort of retribution for my edits outside of the normal edit process as they have done on the Talk page for Birdman (film). I would like to prepare that page for renomination to GA status and possibly you have better ways to address retribution edits from the IP-editors. Perhaps you could glance at the Talk page there. MusicAngels (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Again, if that wasn't clear, it pains me that those articles had to be deleted. Come to think of it, maybe you should have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines; I think it's run by The Transhumanist, and it's information done in a way that might appeal to you. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:MusicAngels has a bias against editors who use IP addresses and this bias colors all of his disruptive edits. Please tell him/her that we are equal citizens. In the case of the poetry pages there was strenuous scholarly consensus against the existence of those pages. Now he is using his bias against IP editors in other pages. This needs to stop.199.48.243.7 (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think they know that. As for you, please see WP:NPA. Take your little feud elsewhere please. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[I am posting this here so you can see it. Please no that these are not "petty feuds" I could care less about User:MusicAngels. I speak for IP editors.] Dear User:Neuroxic thank you for your efforts re: Birdman (film) which, like the thankfully deleted (and woefully bad) poetry pages created by User:MusicAngels have a great deal of scholarly interest. Unfortunately User:Drmies is not unbiased. Many scholar-editors at universities have stopped using accounts (and edit with IPs) because of institutional scrutiny of wikipedia activity. Nobody is completely anonymous with a Wikipedia account and it could be uncomfortable to have one's edit history scrutinized by a dean or a group of students, frankly. So many scholar-editors use IPs. However, IP users are still considered by many to be second-class Wikipedia citizens. [[User:Drmi is one of these editors. So I write here simply to say I appreciate support against those IP editors who are trying to maintain quality on Wikipedia. There are no personal attacks by any of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.48.243.168 (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• IP (well, IPs--there's three or four of you by now?), you're a complete idiot. If you knew anything about me at all you'd know that you couldn't be more wrong about my position on IP editors. You also completely bypass the fact that you and your cohorts are violating WP:NPA. Personal attacks on an editor are simply not allowed. In other words, I wonder how much you really know about Wikipedia, since what I'm doing is follow our policies. Has nothing to do with you being a half dozen IP editors.

  You don't really sound like an academic editor, by the way; that MusicAngels's articles were deleted did not raise any academic dust. You're just whistling Dixie. And you don't seem to realize that I was one of the ones advocating deletion of those articles. Finally, this academic scrutiny business, that's highly overrated. There is one more thing you don't seem to realize: if you have an account, your IP information isn't out on the street for everyone to see. Now, if you got something meaningful to say, if you're not just some dumb high-school kid with a personal grudge against an editor who's trolling Wikipedia pulling arguments out of their ass, feel free to email me. Use a real name if you do. Then we'll talk. Drmies (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

My Sandbox Page

I feel as though the page was unfairly deleted. I had it for nearly a year. It wasn't inappropriate and I thought everyone had one for themselves ToddGuy4 (talk)

• Feelings are great, but what's the argument? Drmies (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• I think JohnCD said it quite well on your talk page. We are not a webhost. I may be the only who doesn't have a fantasy TV reality show, but that's just fine with me. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Drmies, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

• Maybe I should have never started. Can't believe I made almost 200,000 edits and Jimbo never even said hello here. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Was that pie made by renowned Canadian chef Masaokis? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Talk:Saint Anne Byzantine Catholic Church.
Message added 04:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr. Subtropical-Man

Can you ax User:Subtropical-man/sandbox as well, since it is the same content as the "Catfight" subpage? He can recreate it to work on new stuff sans history of this...whatever it is. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Gladly. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Wrong delete. User:Subtropical-man/sandbox is primary sandbox of user, from May 2010. Catfight section is only part of page and one of newest edits in page (one edit in August 2015, see history of changes). Administrator can not remove whole sandbox page, if this is not vandalism. If one of my edit is bad, please hide/delete edit (administrators have the right tools), but not delete whole page. Please restore page. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 22:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Drmies, I've gone ahead and restored the non-catfight history. He did say "please". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• That is very true, Dr. Floquenbeam. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

James, brother of Jesus

Hi, Dr., it's 99. I want to open a thread here, for the enjoyment of you and interested talk page stalkers. There's been a conversation percolating at the article talk page for a few days, and an SPI was, I think, properly started as a result, though it hasn't got any traction yet [16]. As I noted in the discussion, Britannica has no problem with the designation, but Wikipedia is, for better and worse, open. Any thoughts re: socks, meats, and the argument in general will be appreciated. Hope you're very well, and cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• That's a bunch of foolishness. If that NY editor calls someone a heretic one more time, ask Floquenbeam if they can please block them indefinitely for POV editing. I saw the SPI--yeah, it's not very exciting and it's IPs, so there isn't much to do for CU, and unless it's real bad the master wouldn't be indeffed for it. The important thing is to keep the disruption on the talk page and in the article(s) to a minimum. I just weighed in there, by the way--seems like a pretty simple affair, at heart. I'll look again at the IPs, but if they only made a couple of edits I'm not going to worry much about them. Now, if you're not yet done with it, go look at what links to the old redirect, James the Just, and edit accordingly. Your brother, Drmies (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you for your observations at the SPI and at the article's discussion, said far more knowledgeably than I could have managed. What I sensed, you put into words. And if necessary I'll take your advice and page Floquenbeam. Very best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Aw shucks. You too kind. Just make sure that every time you say "Floquenbeam" you say "Floquenbeam"--make sure you ping the hell out of them. And Favonian. And I like to throw in gratuitous pings to Kudpung and GiantSnowman as well, just because I can. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ping me all you want, it's nice to feel popular ;) GiantSnowman 11:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Also: But what do i expect from someone who worships President Osama. Osama isn't the worst president, the worst president is every future dumocraptic president from here on out (except Hilary Klintoon)

  I'm going to lard my conversations with paragraphs from this weird-ass email I got. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Did your email pen pal have anything colorful to say about Bernie? I need humorous material for my Facebook page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, but if you want another gem...

  Ever hear of Sir Stephen Hawking??? He is the smartest scientist alive .His theory is the many worlds interpretation. There are actually millions of alternate realities where black slavery was fully accepted by 80+ of americans in the 2000s,2010s,2020s,2030s,2040s (in those alternate realities slavery kept going on in the USA until the 3000s). In some alternate realities over 90 percent of white americans are as racist as Neo Nazi groups are (in the 2010s,2020s,2030s,2040s,2050s)

  And yes Dr, many of your alternate reality clones hate blacks MORE than the KKK leaders of the 1960s did by far.

  That crazy enough, Cullen? Drmies (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is this en.wiki spam or something you received as a prelude to the Alabama primaries? —SpacemanSpiff 19:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding user space pages of long absent editor

User:Michael C Price has not edited for roughly two years now, and retains User:Michael C Price/mega and User:Michael C Price/links. I don't keep up with the guidelines regarding the possible deletion of user space pages of retired users but am curious whether you think that those pages might be reasonably eligible or not. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) ‎

• John, I don't think I think much about it. We don't typically do expiration dates, though the AfC process is a notable exception. I'd put them up at AfD, and perhaps you can argue for both that they're kind of like abandoned drafts? Drmies (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

From a quick look, these two sub-pages seem innocuous. It's probably not worth taking them to MfD, if the editor is not going to resume carrying on any related disputes. One of these pages has a few comments left over from a 2007 problem that reached the Arbitration Committee. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've had a look at these pages and I've MfD'd them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Kudpung. Also, Between other planets and alternate realities all of my extreme right conservative wants are met in full. I can sleep easy knowing that. to all Liberals suck it. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for... hey, where did my admin bit go? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think this notice should say "You have been blocked from editing for operating under the delusion that this is an encyclopaedia." —SpacemanSpiff 05:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about directory

Hi! First of all, I wanted to thank you for all your contributions to the Little Baby Bum article. I wanted to ask you too about the deletion of the list of songs the list of songs with the comment "not a directory". Could you please tell me how to fix it? I mean, I thought like in an artist article the list of albums or songs are included in a list, in this channel a list of songs published should be included. Could you help me with that? Thanks so much! :) Maria-546565Talk 09:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Maria--well, such a list is rarely of great encyclopedic value and it overwhelmed the article. If these things can be argued to be notable one way or another, like if they've been individually reviewed, that's something else--that's how we list artists' singles. But we don't typically list every poem a poet wrote, or every article a scholar wrote. You kinda have to think about the big picture. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your help! :) Maria-546565Talk 17:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar - R is for reply

Why I am still here when I'm not having all the fun I should eludes both me and the overall cosmic understanding, but I guess since I am the barnstar is somewhat merited (not going to play the humble card over and over again), and much appreciated. Take care --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• You too VASCO. Take care of yourself: I appreciate you, and so do a couple others. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you are happy I remain, a little hand if possible: please lay down the law (a lengthy protection, I don't give a fuck not being able to edit there anymore) at Manuel Cajuda, a (insert word here, since you can't say "idiot") continues to turn the man's article into a parade of compliments and roses, with no refs whatsoever. This time, he (girlfriend, son, wife, Mr. Cajuda himself? Go figure) was kinder to us, did not remove the existing refs as habitually and toned down the poetics, but still contributed with N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry to impose, i'll just revert/ignore. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm, yeah, I saw you were asking for page protection. Ah, you're talking about 89.155.6.85. I don't think you'll get protection since there's not that many such edits--revert/ignore is probably the way to go. Brilliant! Drmies (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Good for a laugh, I guess

But still: any chance you could comment in a way this gets shut down soon? I'd rather not have this hanging over our heads. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's already shut down, I see. Yep, you've been around as long as you (and me), you get this. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • One other thing: I suppose whoever is out to get me can't do this? - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, they can and they did, but they shouldn't and they won't. Or something like that. Thanks--sorry you're having to deal with a troll. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
      • And thank you for helping out. I've amused myself thinking we may have a KGB-type operative on our hands, though we are probably dealing with something more mundane, like a disgruntled individual whose article I put up for deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protect still on

Thanks for the page protect on Birdman (film). Hopefully the Talk page discussion there can continue now. Regarding the WP:CWW issue from the other articles, I looked to see if it might be helpful to rewrite some parts of WP:CWW in order that other Wikipedia editors are not led down the same primrose path as I was. Should other editors be given instructions on how they can apply CWW so that it is not challenged and include the instructions on the page for WP:CWW (such instructions currently are not there). I tried to contact User:Bear on his Talk page, who seems to be experienced in all things about copyrights at Wikipedia, but only discovered that he seems to have retired. MusicAngels (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I give up

Wichita Falls, Texas, with its recent history. For attempting to remove improperly or unsourced content, and restore sourced text, I've received a warning for edit warring. Wishing you all the best, and signing off, 99. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• But I see you worked things out with John from Idegon, no? Drmies (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• My favorite part was the threat that if edit warring continued, the "next stop will be WP:NPP". I guess the plan was to write a new article about you, and then let those harsh guys at NPP rip you apart. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ha, while I have the two of you, Dion Johnson is an Orangemoody creation I didn't delete. Artweek LA might just be relevant, and I find it difficult to kill artists in the first place. Maybe you two can do something with it? Drmies (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I just took a look, and see that it's been deleted. There's not a lot there: three reviews, none of them very expansive, and no articles, as far as I can see, about him. A few gallery shows and museum group shows, without mention that his work is in a notable museum collection. Mandarax, if you find more, be my guest. Didn't work things out, Drmies, so much as just let it be. But I did also notice the NPP threat, which was kind of neat. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The ANI you commented on

Drmines, the ANI you commented here where you asked if Drmies was PoeticBent , Drmies answered you but it looks like he took a shot at you as well (it's near the bottom of the topic) feel free to check it out and see if you agree KoshVorlon We are all Kosh

I hereby accuse Drmines of being a Drmies sock. No, wait a Volunteer Marek sock. Wait, I'm getting confused... KoshVorlon is my sock, accusing Volunteer Marek of being Drmies' sock, while in reality it was Drmines being a Poeticbent sock. Right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that I was accused of being a sock of Drmies last week, would that make me a sock of Volunteer Marek?—SpacemanSpiff 17:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Since we're all bullies, yeah, I can see how someone would say that. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hold on, I am a sock of Volunteer Marek [17]? Are you telling me now he also has other socks? I feel betrayed now... No such user (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wait--you mean that Volunteer Marek was taking a shot at me? Yes, that was to be expected, since we have five quarterbacks they got nuttin'. But what we need to know is whether Poeticbent is also an Auburn fan. If so, then they must be the same person. The likelihood of two Auburn fans in Wikipedia is just about zero. I'll ask AuburnPilot (a deceptive name) to block them both. But KoshVorlon, I suspect you didn't know that my question was prompted by the rant Hyrdlak posted in various places, and I suspect that you didn't read the rant. Look for the section "Are Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek the Same User?" Drmies (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am an Auburn fan, therefore you are the same person as I. Live with it. Poeticbent talk 18:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You're my dark opposite then! Drmies (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The usual good cop / bad cop routine in socking for controversial subjects. Poeticbent talk 18:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"we have five quarterbacks they got nuttin'" - Drmies (or is it Volunteer PoeticSpacemanSpiffBent from Vorlon?), frankly, I'm surprised you can put a coherent sentence together.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That' funny--thanks for that. Did you see the pedantic commenter who wants to repunctuate the yell to produce "Roll, Tide"? There's one of those in every crowd. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Grammar issues aside - and please correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't five quarterbacks qualify as too many men on the field? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Harej, is your thanking me for having used it an example of performative speech? I've never heard of Wikipedia:WikiProject X. I'm not sure what a "community space" is. Don't be too hard on me: I'm trying to catch on with the modern times. I'm on Facebook! I learned what mlearning is! I twerked! But I don't know what this is. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If you've edited one or more of six particular WikiProjects between July 10 and September 1 of this year, or signed up as a member of those projects, you were selected for the survey. Unfortunately I don't have more details than that. Sorry for the confusion. Harej (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Harej. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis (county clerk)

I understand fully why the move request was closed the way it was, but I would argue that if one reads many of the news accounts about Kim Davis, they would easily conclude she has been playing up the recent controversy as a general politician would, with Kentucky's GOP gubernatorial candidate giving her vocal support. She is operating in a highly politicized state which belies mere description as a "county clerk". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Of course, but that's not how we roll with the naming business (plus it's original research...). And in her case "politician" wouldn't even be the right term--it's too nice a word. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Original research? In Kentucky, county clerks are politicians by definition. They run for office and are elected to their positions, thereby making them politicians. There's no stretch there. On top of that, I don't know why we have to have the obvious documented purely -- if one is acting politically as detailed in all the reports, surely we don't have to wait for the reports to spell it out in nice clean terms, to call her a 'politician'? As for your commentary about this person, I concur.  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    • What you seemed to be saying was "she acts like a politician so etc." Also, I just learned she makes 80k a year, in a county where, according to our article, the median income is $33,081. This is starting to sound like a sinecure. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Dion Johnson

I zapped the page; it's an unattributed copy/paste from Draft:Dion Johnson. The problem with OM socks is that even when the subject is probably notable, the article is usually still a copyvio from somewhere. T. Canens (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Shoot. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello D. As a courtesy I wanted to let you know that you are mentioned here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Sock abuse under protection. It is hard to decipher what it is about but I suspect the IP won't notify you. MarnetteD|Talk 00:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. That was exhilarating. (I think that shouldn't be spelled with two a's, but hey.) Drmies (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• You are welcome. Isn't it funny how odd some words look - even if you've gone to the dictionary to double check? :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Helicopter Sunday

Copied by User:Johnelwaq from User talk:Johnelwaq#Helicopter Sunday:

Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? If I weren't such a lovely, cuddly administrator I'd block you on the spot--someone else still might. But, Mr. Nazi-fighter, following the rules (Wikipedia:Copyrights) isn't optional. It's mandatory. (As is WP:NPA.) Drmies (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• • If you allowed contributors to complete edits then there would be no copying visible. Administrator you might be but Wikipedia and access to it is not up to you to decide. PS block a user and they can register again under a difference username, problem solved Johnelwaq (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Wrong. You don't seem to know how this works. The text you copied is still in the history, and thus continues to be a copyright violation. You can try to be smart about this, or you can just read the policy and find how wrong you are--no, you don't get time to finish something, you acknowledge it in the very first edit. "WIKI NAZI"--pff. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Poetry in the early 21st century

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Poetry in the early 21st century. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MusicAngels (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A customer

So since I dont know how to reply to you and you sent me this message "

• It doesn't matter. You reverted Random86, which is foolish, and you got some valuable advice from Dr.K. (in the last edit summary). Follow that advice, please. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing more to conclude than that Wiki is not a truthful site, since, the Girls name is Ri-Sae, and I was "Foolish" to undo a anything by someone named "Random86. So be it/ Lets call the dead girl Rise. Happy Random86. Why do I care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by What the hell is this (talk • contribs)

• I don't know why you should care, but you obviously did. Reverting Random86 is foolish because Random86 lives for K-pop, like I live for Tamil cinema. And what Dr.K. told you is that you need to take this discussion up on the article talk page. Here, on this page, you're wasting time, since nothing will be decided here, and none of us are getting any younger. So argue your case on Talk:Kwon Ri-se. Thank you, and good luck. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Block of User:Meganofyourlife

I'd just like to let you know that before creating the account, they made a few vandalism edits from the IP User:69.116.74.34, so you may wish to block the IP address too. Or perhaps it is already covered? Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I didn't see an autoblock, so I just blocked them some more. What foolishness, huh? Drmies (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • • Alas, more tearful kittens. Sorry, I'm not adding an image of a cute quadruped. You'll have to imagine. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, thank you. Couldn't have done it quicker myself. Well, can't do it myself at all, but that's a different problem... AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Jackson Tan

Hi Doc! Saw the blpprod on this. After further digging, that's actually a G4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ JT Crow^Caw 19:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Good caw. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• :) What do you think about sockage between User Eicasuk (new) and Cnbclindamorgan who has a history around this article? Crow^Caw 19:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't do much thinking--don't have the brain for it. That does look odd, though--if you have a moment, just file an SPI and ask for CU. Let me know if this nonsense gets recreated and I'll salt it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Too bad so sad

It took Lute88 (no doubt someone you approve of) only 10 minutes to erase the section I opened on the talk page of the article Russian intervention etc.. and after I restored it it took you only one minute to erase it again. All this with no explanation from you or Lute88 apart from the edit summary WP: NOTAFORUM in Lute88' edit summary and a childish "Too bad so sad" in yours. Not only is this extremely rude, but it goes against Wikipedia's policies. You should know that, since you are an admin. One wonders what you are afraid of, that you find it necessary to erase so swiftly a new section. In my naivety, I thought that article talk pages were made just for that, discussions, proposals etc. Apparently I am wrong, there are some texts that no one should be allowed to read under any circumstances. Especially, if they are in any way not toeing the line about Russia. Lute88, an extremely neutral Ukrainian user has made it a habit to delete without explanation any edit I make on that subject. It seems he has now found some backing. The fact is that I challenge the impartiality and neutrality of a good number of articles on Russia. You may not like it, but this is my right. The best way to achieve objectivity is through the confrontation of ideas. I hope you will give me a response, but I have few Illusions. Erase this section too as you did the other, if you so wish. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I had the kids running around all day. It happens. Yes, your post was a forum post, and a tendentious one at that--pointy. I don't know Lute88 from Adam, so I can't comment on them as an editor, only that they were right. As for rude, I thought your talk page post was kind of rude, since you know very well what Wikipedia is and what is and isn't supposed to be on here. And the whole "what am I afraid of"--well, I'll file that under the old blah blah blah censorship conspiracy government etc. tab. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk: Denali

Hello Drmies, Emotions are running high on this talk page. Someone "ignored all rules" and moved the article from Mount McKinley to Denali a bit out of process but the current title seems to enjoy broad consensus as I read it. However, a few editors are vehemently opposed to the move, and I fear a disruptive battle will break out once the full protection expires September 7. As I am being accused of the sin of wikilawyering, I am hoping that someone who does not have a horse in the race can take a look. Is some sort of formal close establishing consensus in order? Should protection be extended? Any help or advice you can provide will be appreciated. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I think there are editors who have had their nose so deep into the Wiki alphabet soup of policies, procedures, and guidelines that how the outside world functions is a completely alien concept to them. It's a mountain that is no longer called McKinley, but rather Denali. How hard can it be to deduce that an encyclopedia article on said mountain should follow suit? Tarc (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wow. Cullen328, do you happen to know when this became an ArbCom matter? (And, if I may ask a rhetorical question, why on earth do we need a separate article on the g*damn naming dispute when we're not the news and two months from now no one but Sarah Palin and some folks in Ohio will care?) I see that Slakr got off their slacking butt and protected the article for another week. Slakr, I hope you don't mind but I added a couple of weeks to the move protection, in the expectation that there will be an RM discussion/RfC. If much disruption is going to happen, it will be a moving violation, I expect.

  Anyway, Cullen, I don't know what to say. I'm tempted to just hat that entire last thread, which has very little discussion that's on the topic, but I'm held back a bit because there's a few content notels in there. Moreover, I don't want the natives to feel oppressed: good old Beeblebrox commented in it as well, and they're ranked higher than I am. I hope that cooler heads will prevail. Let the trolls troll, and let the rest of them pontificate. I could say something there, and try to make it sound like it's coming from Moses (which, incidentally, is one of the nicknames my father used to call me), but let's just wait and see what happens. Thanks for the note, and for being pretty damn sane. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  @Drmies: Yeah, no prob w/ the move protection. It's not explicitly an arb issue (i.e., not named in any case to my knowledge), but it's rather an implicit one (via post-1932 American Politics and its discretionary sanctions). That said, the protections thus far haven't been logged as AE remedies (since it's still simple edit warring), though if the edit warring continues over the name stuff, my feeling is that the next thing to try is WP:1RR just for name-related edits to the page for a few months or something. I mean, from what I can tell the whole page / whole topic isn't political, just the naming stuff. --slakr^\ talk / 05:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oh my goodness, we put ArbCom in that as well? I do like ArbCom involvement, though: I think it means I can just block left and right anytime I see something I don't like, with no repercussions. It's like the old Wild West, which was pre-1932. Also, yes, that makes good sense. Thanks Slakr, Drmies (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you, as always as the years roll along, for giving me a positive reality check. To the best of my knowledge, ArbCom has shown no interest thusfar in really high Alaskan mountain peaks and their names. But I could be wrong. As far as the separate article, the two can be merged when passions cool, which I predict will be sooner than when Gamergate trolls move on. As for Palin, she is trying to play both ends against the middle and failing, in my opinion. I think you know that I am an elderly retired California mountaineer, so I care about such things though I never climbed a peak so grand. But I actually wrote letters to members of Congress back in the 1970s, advocating a park called McKinley and a peak called Denali. They did the opposite, creating a festering 35 year battle. I learned today that Ted Stevens, my political opposite, favored the the same compromise before he departed this plane of reality. Most Alaska leaders have agreed about Denali for 40 years now. My wife sends her greetings. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing that Palin now opposes it, even though she called it "Denali" in her resignation speech, and it was also her Secret Service codename in 2008. Tarc (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Aw you guys with your optimism. Who else but an inveterate optimist could find anything Palin-related "amusing"? Cullen, I've said it before and I'll say it again, and I want Tarc, a youngster, to listen to: everyone should listen to you more. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Palin is a train wreck, and as a rule Alaskans of all political bents have long ago stopped caring what she says. In fact, it was our Republican senator, Murkowski, who had been agitating Obama to do this. This is not a right/left issue up here, just common sense. I've mostly stayed out of the fighting because I do have strong personal feelings about it, so my admin powers are solidly off the table here. If I get around to it, I'll show ya'll some of the amazing pictures I took of Denali, I was actually camping at Denali State Park when the name change took place. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

My WP:ANRFC close requests are getting removed without consensus

Hi Drmies. I don't know how to handle this. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#I have restored close requests removed without consensus but was reverted with no response there. Cunard (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This is related to my comment in July at User talk:Drmies/Archive 87#Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process about how one editor was saying that my ANRFC posts were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Cunard (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Reverted. With apologies to AlbinoFerret and Jenks24 and Yobol--I'm sorry I had to run over y'all's edits. I don't know if they need to be redone, so I hope you don't mind doing it again if it needs to be done. Cunard, I'm going over to the talk page right now. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No dramas. I thought that might happen when I added it, but wasn't really interested enough to look into what was going on with the reverts. Are you sure "y'all's" is a word? Jenks24 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Same, easily fixed. AlbinoFerret 20:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you both. Jenks, I've been using "y'all's" for years; you're the first one to question it. Let's put it up at ANI. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• Cunard, I shouldn't be doing big stuff when I clearly need a nap. Anyway, it's re-done. And I promise I will get back to your list and tick off a couple more items in the next few days. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've merged in the changes from Yobol and the deleted section started by Erpert, so everything should be good now. Thank you Drmies for taking a look! I'll take a sleepy Drmies over no Drmies any day of the week. :) Cunard (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What? Where? When? I'm not sure what's going on, but all seems well, so thanks to all involved. Yobol (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Had to make a big revert. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

1891 $5 Silver Certificate depicting Ulysses S. Grant.

Here's the $5 I owe you, Drmies. Since it's from 1891, I'd wager I'm overpaying you by quite a bit, so I expect a partial refund. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• How about I pay you on Tuesday with a cheeseburger? Sorry, we only take Confederate money down here...yeah it's not worth a crap... Drmies (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Now you owe me two hamburgers. Cunard (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Three hamburgers. Wow, I'm going to be very full today! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• I figured I'd continue until my battery ran out, which is right about now. Also, I felt kind of bad about reverting Francis Schonken since if there's anyone who likes to clean up pages it's me, so I thought I'd close as much as I could. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Drmies. Your hard work and AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs)'s hard work in assessing the consensus in the discussions are greatly appreciated. It seems like I'm the one owing both of you hamburgers...I'm going to run away now. Cunard (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, there's that--they're beating me. Also, I am going to have a beer and see if I can read over that IDENTITY thing, which is much more important than some infobox parameter or whatever. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification definitely is a more important discussion than infobox parameters. I suspect that that discussion has remained open for so long because it was waiting for a closer with your gravitas. Now hopefully you'll still be conscious to close the discussion because your one beer doesn't turn into two beers and then three beers... Cunard (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Once I have one beer its usually 5 or 6 before I stop. :) AlbinoFerret 04:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere, Cunard--and did you just call me fat? No, there was a kitchen to clean up. I'm still nursing that one beer but it's getting very close to bedtime. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll ingratiate myself and kowtow before anyone who closes discussions at WP:ANRFC even if that will get me nowhere. You must be getting really sleepy. Where did I call you fat? AlbinoFerret must have been the one who said that. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Burning mail

The 2011 Temple

Hi, Drmies. As you may recall, last year about this time I tried sending you an email, which got bounced. After multiple unsuccessful attempts, I gave up. I don't think I ever even told you what it was, but it was my account of Burning Man 2010. Well, The Temple burns tonight, so it seems an appropriate time to try again. If it bounces again, well, there's always next year. (BTW, the 2010 Temple was The Worst One Ever.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'll check in a moment, but let me say first, real quick, that I've been reading about it, and I always think of you. I suppose you are not there now. Shame, cause I read there wuz lots of naked people and sex and stuff, which is good for all of us. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• Mail arrived. Will read later. Hoping for good accounts of art things. America is a great country. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not there. Yes, there's are always lots of nudity. Sex and drugs and ... uh ... definitely not rock 'n' roll. It would have to be sex and drugs and EDM. My 2009 tale, which I sent to you two years ago, had much more about art. I found that 2010 was inferior in both quantity and quality of art, and my account is more of a little journal of survival and life on the Playa. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• The article says "The FBI has been spying on Burning Man since 2010". Since they're all naked, shouldn't this read "The FBI have been peeping on Burning Man"? How would Sarah Palin write it in American? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• You went through a lot of trouble to get some popcorn. This morning the paper reported on the trek out of there, which can take a long time. By then the nudity has worn off, no doubt. I trust you and your fellow traveler are still on speaking terms. BTW, I was wearing my brand-new Front 242 t-shirt last night. Coincidence? Drmies (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• I never really had a terrible time getting out. The Man burns on Saturday, and lots of people leave right after that, or on Sunday; that's when you get the worst outgoing traffic. If you stay for Sunday night's Temple burn and beyond, the situation improves greatly. Now, getting in tends to really be the problem, since everybody's trying to arrive at the same time. I had one amazingly easy time (2009), some average waits, and one time that I considered to be very bad, but nothing like people endured one year (last year, I think), when their wait to enter was sometimes 24 hours. Yes, of course we're on speaking terms. I'm not familiar with Front 242. The music at Burning Man is truly horrible. It all sounds the same, and it's blaring at high volume everywhere all day and all night, from camps and from mutant vehicles. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• What struck me about your getting in, that last time, with the midnight limit that was moved back six hours, is that it's always lack of communication that's so irritating to most people. Being told that something has changed is one thing, finding out that something has changed and no one told you is quite another. Front 242 is really not bad, but if you don't like EBM, well, yeah. But on the off-chance that you like some hipster music, some weird but still musical stuff, can I recommend some of this? Drmies (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, that was annoying and frustrating. The three hour wait that year is one that I consider on the good side of "average". Although it was irritating to find out afterwards that they'd opened the gates early, that probably contributed to it being an average wait, since six hours' worth of people had already been processed when we arrived at the proper time. As you may recall from my 2009 report (I bet you didn't realize there'd be a quiz), in that year, people who arrived before the official midnight opening were put into a holding queue until 4 am. I have no idea why that apparently wasn't a deterrent for all of those 6 pm arrivers in 2010. I don't theoretically hate all of that kind of music, but you try listening to it at ear-splitting volume 24 hours a day for a full week, and then tell me what you think. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Another Zimmermanh1997 Sock

‎2601:14e:c000:2ef3:f096:e4a8:c8e:99ce (talk · contribs) made an DUCK edit to the WICL page (one of Zimmermanh1997's haunts). I reverted it instantly. @Diannaa: semi-protected the page back on January 19, it expired on July 20. Obviously six months didn't do the trick. Should we go a year on his usual haunts or nine months instead? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• I thought they'd have gotten a job by now. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Me and you both. Thanks for the semi-protection. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you give me an opinion on this close?

Sorry to bother you with this. I closed a small RFC over a month ago [18]. I want to make sure its good, before I put my foot into my mouth more than it may be already. AlbinoFerret 02:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• I see what you're getting at. You did well; no worries. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I would rather make sure. I still think of myself as new to closing, and probably will for a long time. I already made one comment, and thanks for making a comment there. I was told of it on my talk page, and tried to stop it on the article talk page, but I didnt do to good a job. At least I gave the good advice to the other editor not to get into an edit war over it. The things some people argue about. AlbinoFerret 03:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you did fine. You can't be held responsible for someone not listening. Next time, you can tell them I said this: "RfC establishes consensus. Editing against consensus is disruptive. You don't like the consensus, try to change it. Don't edit war or you'll be blocked." Or maybe say that in a nicer way, but that's what it boils down to, and there isn't an admin who, in the end, wouldn't block in a case like that. If you want to see what people will argue over--or rather, how they'll do it, sometimes--I'll point you to Talk:Denali, kindly brought to you by Wikipedia's Nestor, Cullen328. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I was planning to sell my solid gold shield to supplement my Social Security checks, but since Obama has been messing with the economy, gold prices have plummeted $700 an ounce. That sucks! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid blocks and drama boards with this one. Though I am drawn to read them, like someone in a car slowing down to look at a crash. While WP is a collective effort, I'm beginning to appreciate niche topics where only a stray edit by someone else is made. AlbinoFerret 04:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Those niches are harder and harder to find. Look at the section above this one--poor old Neutralhomer, you'd figure that he was the last radio ham alive, but no. Even there, socking and silly disputes. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies is right. As long as there is an internet (and a Wikipedia) there will always be socking and silly disputes. Always. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow two different articles I have closed on have had disruption in, thanks for the post on AN/I Drmies. AlbinoFerret 17:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If Neutralhomer goes to the Newark Hamfest end of this month, I'll do 'em a special deal on some old electronic junk, from the collection of a gentleman of title (the title's 'Mister'). Please quote discount code JIMBOXXL when making your purchase. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Xanthomelanoussprog: I actually have never used a ham radio, wanted to, but just never had the chance. To be honest, I thought you were meaning an actual hamfest, with bacon and such. :) I'm just an AM/FM radio geek. I do mostly radio station histories, updated information and the like. :) Now, to find me some bacon. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've never used one myself; it's a favour for a friend who accumulates things like oscilloscopes. Mind you, it's on the edge of pig country, and someone there sells bags of Bramley apples, the ideal accompaniment to roast pork. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Newark, I was thinking New Jersey until I seen your Lincolnshire link. :) That would be a trek for some bacon. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Rtkat3

Auuggh! Sorry to bother you again, but I'm still not convinced that Rtkat3 understands what we're doing here. I strongly suspect competence issues and a failure to get the point. Here he has undertaken to list every playable character in this game. Here he has undertaken to add indiscriminate cast/character lists for really important characters like Ferry Rider, Driver, and Large Man, instead of focusing on Main and recurring characters per MOS:TV instructions. There's also the addition of a random Crew section, which also contravenes the MOS. Here there is more logorrhea in the form of plot summaries for Baby-Face Finster. I'm sure there is much, much more but I'm not sure how much more time I wish to invest trying to perfect him as a species. Thoughts? ANI? Thanx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Haven't heard the term "logorrhea" in a while. I suggest the hardline approach. What's disruptive? a. refusal to communicate (evidence on the talk page); b. repeated insertion of unverified material; c. repeated insertion of unencyclopedic/trivial material. Revert and warn--at some point (maybe that point is still visible in the rearview mirror) this kind of thing becomes blockable: you're dealing with someone who treats Wikipedia as if it were a fan site. Glad I don't have your job. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for the sympathy! Do you think there would be any WP:INVOLVED issues here? That's one thing I'm trying to be conscientious to avoid as a newbie admin. We haven't edited in contentious areas (Pakistan articles, anyone?), and most of my disputes with him have to do with enforcing community guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern; it's up to you. I reverted one of their edits and left them a warning, to make it clear that the standards you are concerned with are not personal standards but community standards. I haven't looked into y'all's interaction, obviously, but their edits are prima facie unacceptable; it doesn't take much content knowledge or a personal history to see the problem. So I wouldn't worry about it much. BTW, I just made a minor edit to one of the articles they'd been working on. Thanks, and good luck with it. Also, see below. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Looney Tunes-related

I just got your message. I was only readding some of the characters that made later appearances and/or cameos in the other Looney Tunes projects even though it lacked the trivia like you said. Some of them even appeared in Tiny Toon Adventures and The Looney Tunes Show while the Looney Tunes version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde made an appearance in Animaniacs.--Rtkat3 (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• In list articles, you (and everyone else) has a choice. Either you list things that have their own articles on Wikipedia--this is unproblematic and functions like a disambiguation page. That is the path I have just chosen. Or you keep adding unverified, trivial, etc. material to it until there's 100k of fancruft and a half a dozen tags on top of the article. That's not improving the project.

  There is a middle road, which you could choose to choose: it consists of, really, listing what you think should be listed but with rigorous secondary sourcing, in an economical way. Some content that I just cut could be salvaged--but it requires editorial discipline. And I just looked at Secret Wars (2015 comic book). The article is over 200k. It's a fucking comic book--it's not Moby-Dick, for crying out loud. The best reference it has are two articles from the Hollywood Reporter--the rest is all primary stuff, and links to fan sites etc. In other words, it's awful, and it's tagged for its in-universe style, lack of citations, utterly failing our quality standards, an excessive amount of intricate detail, and a ridiculously long plot summary. Now look at what you added to the article. Did it make it better, or did it make it worse? Drmies (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Or, what I think you need to realize is that there's now two admins who think you are not a net positive to the project. See the section above. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• When it came to your comment about the Secret Wars storyline, I had readded some because other people before me had readded some. If you want to separate the "Last Days," "Secret Wars: Battleworld," and "Secret Wars: Warzones," go right ahead. I can transfer some of the info to the pages of the Multiverse area that the Battleworld domains are based off them if you want. Outside of that, I apologize for the Looney Tunes thing. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Rtkat3, I think you need to read the above section, started by Cyphoidbomb. It's not about separating or forking or moving--it's about adding unverified/unencyclopedic/trivial information. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Controversial move

Could you please what is the proper procedural action for me and this other editor on this discussion Talk:Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii#Move to coup d'état. Is the burden on me to move the page back? Or is the burden on the opposing editor to file a RM> Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• DMacks has taken care of it (thanks). And Softlavender, earlier on, made some very appropriate remarks (their comment from 04:23, 9 September 2015). [BTW, there really isn't much difference between the two terms, that's just semantics; the sources decide, so that list has lots of rhetorical power.] Drmies (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle (little star)

Just wanted to let you know that I readded TWINKLE. It's been awhile (almost two years) and I'm gonna see how it goes. I don't plan on going outside of my current relm of editing (like to recent changes or some other page), so I don't think there will be a problem (at least I hope not). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sure thing Homer. Yes, it's been a while: keep the good work going. Ping me if you need me. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Will do...and thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I've recently removed Twinkle. I never used it that much but I kept hitting the "revert as vandalism" button in place of "thank" on my iPhone which caused some unfortunate side effects. It means I have to think a bit more before logging an AfD, but I don't see that as a bad thing per se. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you're suffering from the same with rollback, User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/ConfirmRollback might tickle your fancy. Alakzi (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That's actually why I readded it, was to help with logging an AfD. It had been so long since I had logged one manually, I actually forgot how. :) So I went the easy route. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox locomotive

Hi,

I've undone your close at Template talk:Infobox locomotive because, well, you failed to close the discussion in any meaningful way. In doing so, I removed the comment you left in the hatnote. I'm not sure whether you'd like that restored at the foot of the conversation or not; please paste it there if so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's not a valid reason. Take it to ANI if you like. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You have reverted me and in doing so have again royally fucked up the discussion. *applause*. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • No. It was your discussion to fuck up. Should have listened to Mkdw the first time. Drmies (talk)
    • Also, I'm not sure how my accidental/incidental revert of your addition "fucked" anything up--and if this is all it took, then it wasn't so fucked up, was it. Applaud that. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Title

  Above

  Title that looks like above

  I don't understand why there needs to be wider discussion. |title= (outside the frame) and |above= (inside the frame) are both options offered by the basic {{Infobox}}; and it's left to editors at each individual infobox to decide which one to use. What was being suggested here was to keep |title=, which has got the added benefit of being more accessible, but to style it to replicate the look of |above=. A lone voice thought this was a "hack", and that all infoboxes should be styled like |title=. The onus would be on said lone voice to seek wider consensus. Alakzi (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Alakzi, I am guided in this by Mkdw who offered what I think is sound advice. If it's really that uncontroversial it should be a quick and easy discussion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I must've missed a few episodes - I thought all Mkdw was suggesting was to post at WP:AN/RFC to get someone to close the discussion, rather than use {{Admin help}}, since there's not that many admins who habitually close discussions, and even fewer who check the admin help backlog. Were you thinking of WP:RFC? Alakzi (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Hold on. In the meantime, did you got your TE right back? Drmies (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Ya, thanks for your support. Alakzi (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
          • You got a point. Give me a moment, maybe a few moments (class in a little bit). Drmies (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
            • I'm reading over it again, and I wonder if I should be the one closing it. I'll read it again later today and will figure it out. Thanks Alakzi: your comments are clear. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad admin behaviour

re [19] You have suffocated a wiki discussion (one you opened yourself). You have not allowed responses to your own opinions or conclusions. You have closed it after you put in your own word as the last one. For example: you closed it after you asked: "I don't know what you mean". How prefixed is that. I suggest you reopen it and from there leave it to someone else. (To be clear: I find this a disgusting admin behaviour, and bordering abuse of privilege). -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• DePiep, in that discussion you're already acting in a pretty rude and uncollegial manner; I'm not surprised to see you continue in the same vein here. I don't have any opinions, and my conclusion is the conclusion of the discussion. As for the "I don't know what you mean"--well, I asked you what the question was, you told me you had an answer was, I asked you again what the question was, and you said "ask me nicely". I don't understand, since I asked you nicely. Was I supposed to say "pretty please"? Also, the discussion wasn't opened by me: it was opened by you, months ago. Have a nice day. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You did not read the original thread, did you? And from there: no I did not, no I did not, your "surprise" note proves prejucice, yes you do have opinions, your conclusion was written before someone could respond, your 'as for the ...' reply here admits that you did not allow response before closing. Your "I don't understand, since I asked you nicely" is up to me to reply to -- you did not allow -- (I already denied the self-serving 'nicely' part btw). And no, had you read the OP (i.e., original post): if so you would have known I did not open any discussion. etc. etc. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you posted on the talk page to...well, start a discussion. I did read the original post: it was fascinating. As I said before, have a nice day. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"I thought you .." - Speak for yourself. Now, please reply to my post. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies has replied to your post. Whether you found it satisfactory or not is another issue. General incivility have been a systemic characteristic I've observed between discussions here and at Template talk:Infobox locomotive. When the result has been in contrast to your personal opinions, rather than discussing the merits or arguments, there has been an emphasis to attack the character of the editor involved. The overall irony of the discussions at the infobox talk page is that I see bullying, but it's coming from the ones thinking they're being bullied. Mkdw^talk 03:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)|This was a good close; I have no idea how anyone would think {{Admin help}} is justified for a content RFC, and if it had been listed at WP:AN/RFC it's highly likely it would have been closed with the same conclusion. Also, I'm totally baffled by the above exchange, and trying to figure out why I logged in again -- summer was going so well ... NE Ent 23:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Ent. I know you have your detractors, but I'm trying to change their minds, one at a time. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, NE Ent, please clarify why & how you ended up right here after such a nice season? -DePiep (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

User_talk:NE_Ent#Reply_to_query NE Ent 01:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of this question. DePiep, perhaps you can clarify how or why this is important to this discussion? Mkdw^talk 03:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I just wish we poured oil all over this project and lit a match. Alakzi (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Because??? -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Because some people just whine incessantly, maybe. But I don't wish to presume to speak for Alakzi. You know what, Alakzi, you were the one that got brought up on charges the other day, but I'll take your honest gruffness over DePiep and Pigsonthewing any day. Maybe you should get out of the template business: it's probably much better for your health. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know. I stepped out into the brave world of content writing yesterday, only to be summarily accused of WP:OR for daring to suggest that British Airways Flight 2276 is a notable occurrence. Alakzi (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like ANI ... NE Ent 01:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Putin's birthday and indefinite block

Judging by the turn discussions are taking on the ANI that followed Lute88's unfounded and absurd claim that I am paid by the Kremlin, I will likely be blocked indefinitely from editing. My first edits were on the article RT, which I find less than neutral. Trying to modify it, I soon discovered that, unless you are suicidal, this is something you had better not contemplate. I made things worse at the article Yulia Tymoshenko by trying to remove the false claim that the European Court of Human Rights had recognized she had been tortured. My explanations were ignored and my edits called edit warring, until Future Perfect at Sunrise intervened, deleted the allegations of torture, corrected the poor English in which the article was written and asked Dennis Brown to protect the page. By then, I had attracted the animosity of a certain group of editors who accused me of pro-Russian POV pushing. The last straw was the Putin's birthday affair, where you witnessed the kind of language used against me. Now, My very best wishes, who acts as Lute88s spokesperson, is doing whatever he can to put me in a bad light on the ANI. I stand accused of not understanding "the difference between a snippy remark and a full on personal attack", of having a pro-Russian agenda, of being a disruption only account, of wanting to right great wrongs, and what not. After I quoted a comment by My very best wishes on Lute88's talk page showing that he might not be completely impartial, he did not hesitate to erase it from the talk page in order to conceal his hostility towards me (see: Revision as of 05:18, 9 September 2015). So, now on the ANI, there is almost a consensus that my complaining about Lute88's slander deserves an indefinite block, even though I just asked him to take back his words. I hope you are able and willing to do something. Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You may find First Law of Holes informative. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Againstdisinformation, I posted another short comment, but I agree with SBHB: you are your own worst enemy. (It's not Lute who's going to get you blocked, if that were to happen.) Why go complain on the talk pages of Hasteur and Reaganomics? What possibly purpose can that serve? Now, if you are in fact getting paid by the Kremlin, then you're smarter than me, clearly, but Putin should cut your check some, since, yeah, you're not helping your cause. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Should this just be deleted as a recreation or sent to AfD

Siege of Kapisa - no such siege, the inscription mentioned calls it a battle. Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kapisa some time ago. What do you think? AfD seems a waste of time. I asked the editor to tag it for speedy deletion but no response, no surprise. Doug Weller (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:G4. NE Ent 09:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would not choose G4: it looks sufficiently different from the last now-deleted edit. I mean, they look the same cause they're on the same topic and they're really short, but the infobox seems to have significant differences (look at the belligerents). I'm sure, Doug, you're interested in possible block evasion; I can't see from these two articles that it's the same person. So, AfD, maybe--yet it would be fair to include the previously used sources: [20], [21], [22]. (I know, it's not good.) Mind you, some of the content is also in Ancient Kapisa. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oh. User:Ariobarza/Siege of Kapisa still exists. Shouldn't we just nuke their old sandboxes? Drmies (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Doug Weller, look at the last source in User:Ariobarza/Siege of Kapisa (before you blanked it) and then look at Talk:Gur-e Dokhtar with your special admin glasses. There was no SPI for Ariobarza, though in 2009 Nishkid64 tagged their user page for socking. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Haven't heard from Nishkid64 for 5 years! But the Livius source doesn't mention a siege. That's the issue - there was a Kapisa, probably a battle, but a battle is not a siege. Neither Kapisa Province nor Ancient Kapisa mention a siege or a battle there. I don't think this editor is a sock of Ariobarza, although I do see some problems. I'll take it to AfD, mention those sources. Not tonight though. Should I have nuked the sandboxes rather than delete. I got tired and didn't deal with all of them. Doug Weller (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, my point is rather that the current editor and the old, blocked editor both mentioned the same website--not a very well-known one, I think. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Borodino

I am now in the position where you have marked a discussion as closed while adding a note criticising me for something I didn't quite do, and then added another section at the end of the article criticising me, weighing in on the article content while also wearing your admin hat, and with a threat intended to discourage future participation.

I do not regard this as appropriate.

Furthermore, everything I've written on that blasted talk page is in an attempt to resolve the situation, to find a wording most of us could live with, to explain what I thought of other proposed wordings. I've dug up sources to address the central point of contention, over "pyrrhic". I've responded to other proposals courteously and sensibly. Someone else eventually came in with a fait accompli edit and I left it be because it's good enough. Sure, I wrote more than most; that's partly because I kept trying to find generally acceptable proposals.

So, thanks. No good deed goes unthreatened by admins, I guess. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your sarcasm misses the point, Pinkbeast; also, it's not a valid educational method, I hear. There is no doubt that your opponent behaved much worse than you did, but you fell short of expected standards as well. The canvassing charge was ridiculous and you should have known better; in other words, to the untrained eye it looked an awful lot like you were trying to sway the discussion by charging your opponent with misbehavior. I get that you brought sources to the table, and Zinadine's constant jammering about cherrypicking grates on the ear, but you seemed to have let go of your usual high standard, and that is what I remarked upon. That's all. Best, Drmies (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What I actually said was that ZZ was "inviting specific editors to participate" and that "The potential to cherry-pick ones who they feel are likely to agree is obvious. This is sharp practice"; careful not to say that they had picked editors based on their likely support, but that they might have done - not to imply by omission, but simply because there is no way of telling.

I would not, after an RFC, ask individual editors to participate; with no malicious intent, I could still hardly be relied upon to make a selection with no unconscious bias. After all, I'm sure I tend to subconsciously think of editors as more reasonable and intelligent when they agree with me, even though that is not rational. I don't think anyone else should do it either, I think it was inappropriate in this case, and I think I was right to complain about it. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)