Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 124

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126→Archive 130

Q re 1932

Dr, Q for you: do you have the auth to lift a 1932– sanction? (Background. I was "naughty" intentionally re political articles to make some contrarian points. I used to edit Donald Trump; however, since he won in 2016, I have zero interest to edit or add or subtract content in not only that article, but any article re politics or politicians. Ever! With the single exception of making MoS-type punctuation like MOS:LQ or MOS:NDASH corrections [as a "thank you" when I read such articles for self-education/curiosity/etc.].) Thx for consideration and/or guidance, whatever the Dr orders. Sincere, --IHTS (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  • IHTS, not by myself, no--can you link to the discussion/topic ban notice/etc? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Thx for reply. [1]
      (I remember thinking when it was applied, it was permanent. Now for first time am noticing this: "is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics [...] until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier." (Does mean it expired & am under no restriction!? Am so confused! [If I've overlooked something, don't know what it is.]) --IHTS (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I *am* geninely confused. Apparently I have an outstanding topic ban!? I rec'd this warning, but it's May 2017 well after the expiration described. (What am I missing or not understanding?) --IHTS (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • MrX, I assume this was a minor brain fart. Yes, IHTS, your topic ban should be vacated (I mean, "be in a state of vacatedness"--there's nothing that needs to be done to vacate it)--Lankiveil, I think you made that close?--and this should not restrict you in any way. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks Dr.
          Without looking or checking, & from my own memory & MrX's warning too, it seemed a fair assumption the expiration had been added later, not only to my acct but assumedly a swath of 1932- sanctions as some sort of modification. But apparently not! More than two have been fooled by this (e.g. also Bishonen [2]; also GoldenRing [3]; also TParis [4]; also Anythingyouwant [5]; also EvergreenFir [6]; and more!), so it is a small perplexing [psychological!?] phenomenon.) --IHTS (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Hmm, yes. OK, strange. But they're all from 2017, so that's the good part, I suppose. Lankiveil, is there's something I'm missing? Drmies (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Um, at first I thought you're right (i.e. isolated to 2017), then I looked & discovered I was blocked in 2018 twice for 1932- violations: on Jan 22 by admin MastCell [7], and on Jan 30 by admin GoldenRing [8].
              Wouldn't it be standard protocol for an admin to check first that a sanction is outstanding, before blocking for it?! And, if the blocks are truly out-of-bounds, can they be scratched from my blocklog? (Some users, e.g. most recently users Softlavender and Iridescent, love to ridicule or attack me based on "length of his block log". I care not so much about that [Eric has a long block log and in my dreams could I be as good a WP editor & outstanding decent/ethical person as he], but it seems like all items in any user's block log s/b at least technically legit. Are they?) --IHTS (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
              in my dreams could I be as good a WP editor & outstanding decent/ethical person as he – Pardon me while I vomit. In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. A line from the conclusion of Wells’s story seems strangely apt, actually: “[He] lay quite still there, smiling as if he were content now merely to have escaped from the valley of the Blind, in which he had thought to be King.” EEng 12:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
              Hmm the fine points probably escape me, but I love Eric as a human being. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
              Since you and Arid Desiccant aren’t fools, I can only conclude that we should add Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde to the canon of Eric Corbett literary allusions. EEng 23:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
              • @Ihardlythinkso: A cursory examination of WP:DSLOG shows that you have an outstanding, indefinite ban from all post-1932 American politics, which was imposed (by me) on 10 May, 2017. See this AE discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                • That explains it, thank u. (How can I request that it be lifted? I have no interest to edit content or Talks on any political bio.) --IHTS (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • @Ihardlythinkso: You can appeal to me, to AE, to AN or to the committee at ARCA. The standard in any of these venues is going to be that you can convince those to whom you are appealing that the sanction is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. I'm not particularly opposed to lifting it, but "I'm not interested in the topic any more" is not enough. Appeals saying that the ban is unnecessary because you'll abide by it anyway aren't usually successful and I wouldn't support one. GoldenRing (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • "Abide by it anyway"?! (I don't know what that means. It certainly doesn't apply to me.) Not sure what your standard is or what you are looking for. (Can you specify?) This is irritating, because it seems you want or are looking for public self-humiliation, which I'm not going to "give", and even if I did, I have no idea specifically about what. (Please specify if you think that's helpful.) All I can tell you is that I purposely created disruption at Donald Trump to make a WP:POINT, and that I have no interest to edit any political biography including that one, except for punctuation fixes (MOS:DASH; MOS:HYPHEN; MOS:LQ; etc.) I find when reading for my own education, as "thank u" to the article contributors. Regarding an article that is not a political bio like Shooting of Kate Steinle, I possibly created some disruption-type dispute there; however, that won't be possible going forward. (Why? Because, to be honest, I've given up on the Wikipedia re politcal left-leaning bias. The whole world knows that WP is a biased source of info re political articles. If I would ever make a change to such an article [for example, changing "undocumented immigrant" to "illegal alien", which I have done in the past], I'd only state my basis for it with WP:RS justification, but I have no appetite to fight the tide of reversion that would ensue due to said indisputable WP liberal bias. It simply is a lost cause. Wikipedia will have to find someway, somehow, to repair it's image over time, over years, however I am not interested to participate or subject myself to such endeavor, since it is fraught with stress, an ocean of editor push-back, which if contended, leads to ANI or AN or ARfAR, and I have no interest to be involved in such deck-stacked skirmishes & disputes, not now or ever going forward. Life is too short, and I accept WP's limitations re articles falling under 1932- politics, it is simply not my interest, and the skirmishes to evolve WP to more neutrality re them is further no longer my interest beyond the couple protests I did levy back then which resulted in the 1932- restrictions. I'd like to be able to read articles & improve punctuation etc as mentioned as thank you as mentioned, w/o being under sanction.) Sincerely submitted, --IHTS (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • GoldenRing, if the above isn't sufficient, w/ like to know what specifically you're looking for. (Because I may not be able to give it beyond what I've already messaged above.) Sincere, --IHTS (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • Should also point out, that it won't be possible that I any longer make insulting messages to editors (like MrX) whom I perceive as aggressive liberal editors responsible for biasing articles to left-leaning, as I know I have done in the past (which may or may not have contributed to my ban, am not sure). (For the same reasons as already stated: It's pointless & futile, creates only disruption, and is not my responsibility, "job", or interest beyond the already-levied remarks made in the 2016/17 timeframe.) Sincere, --IHTS (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • GoldenRing, curious to know ... If my 1932- ban expired in 2016, on what basis did you re-apply it (indefinite) in May 2017?! (The conversation I had with Doc on my Talk? On what basis? Did I violate WP:BLP? Which bio, and how? Did I participate in disallowed political chit-chat? Before you anwswer, please familiarize w/ EEng's user page, searching on 'Trump' for what numerous political & personal disparaging things are recorded there.) --IHTS (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • Re my reference above re self-humilation, your edit here to Eric Corbett was the type of thing I had in mind. (That kind of "parenting" is deameaning to anybody, especially the likes of someone the likes of EC. And especially in context of his rich writing & editing background & contributions to WP over many years to recently & well before my time on WP. He did not respond to your unnecessary and out-of-line "parenting" post, but perhaps you can figure his position re it from this post from 2012:

                      The blocking policy, or more precisely what has become the practice for blocking, treats non-admin editors like naughty children. Which is quite simply insulting, and in itself a violation of the civility policy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

                      Frankly, this is the type of imbalance that drives a divide between admins & reg editors, as well as part of the toxic environment that drives longstanding content contributors away permanent. You scolded him for "not learning", which was simultaneously unnecessary & insulting, I am sure, forcing me to question whether it was you not him needing to learn a different approach.) Thanks for consider. --IHTS (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, do you actually have any diffs for Some users, e.g. most recently users Softlavender and Iridescent, love to ridicule or attack me based on "length of his block log" or are you just making shit up? There isn't some special exemption from WP:NPA that means you can make up whatever crap you like about someone else, provided you post it on a page where you don't think they'll see it. As far as I can tell, other than your 2018 block—for which I drew the short straw precisely because I'd never had any previous interaction with you—the only comment I've ever made to you in any context other than three comments at the time of your block (the block notice, a clarification that there were no time limits and that you could appeal immediately, and an explanation that I didn't feel it was appropriate to review your appeal myself and that it was better that a neutral party judge it) was this single comment in relation to your bizarre assertion that police officers never swear at the public (I've spent the better part of 20 years working closely with police officers in a wide range of locations and branches; I can assure you that they do), which made no mention of your—or anyone else's—block log. ‑ Iridescent 16:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Don't know what you're talking about. I'm no enemy of yours in any way. You did however attempt to humiliate me at the public RfA, didn't you, with ref to my block log after I criticized Softlavender for doing the same thing? (And why is it you admins always reach for the blocking bat as threat-leverage for discussion re comments you disliked?) p.s. I made no "bizarre assertion", apparently you like to use Drmies Talk page to attack me here on off-topic issue, it's not appropriate here. Iridescent, please get a life! --IHTS (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
      • IHTS, for the second time, if you think I "humiliated you at the public RfA with ref to your block log" you can damn well point out what I said and where I said it. I've just provided you above with what—as far as I know—is every comment I have ever made to or about you, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. If you can find me making any comment that could even be remotely considered "ridiculing and attacking me based on the length of his block log", feel free to point it out and I'll duly apologise. If you can't—which you won't—you can knock off this martyr routine and apologise for making shit up. ‑ Iridescent 17:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Iridescent, your attack here didn't deserve reply, I don't ever "make shit up", ever. (Ever!) That's insulting, calling me dishonest. p.s. I have not read you in full here after that, w/ exception I noticed you try to attack my "police" post again, which just tells me you're itching for a catfight here. Not appropriate. Please calm down. (BTW you're making me hate this place, i.e. WP. Attitudes re you & Goldenring. Enjoy!) --IHTS (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I think we are already well past the point where I or my talk page can be useful here. IHTS, any further requests in regards to your topic ban should be made at AE (right?); good luck with them. As for Iridescent: I do not see where Iridescent is attacking you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Rajgangpur

hi Drmies btw any reason to revert my rajgangpur edit, terming them essentailly spam, why. Joydeep ghosh (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Ernst Dammann

On 14 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ernst Dammann, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ernst Dammann, an early member of the Nazi Party, was a founding figure of African studies in East Germany – together with Walter Markov, a communist who spent much of the Nazi era in prison? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ernst Dammann. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ernst Dammann), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User talk:24.60.1.17

Drmies, would you be willing to take a look at some nonsense with an IP editor that's disrupting Chernobyl (TV series)? There's an edit war-let going on over a phrase, but that's the secondary issue. The primary issue is that User: 24.60.1.17 has adopted the posture that they (pronoun deliberate) have the right to make unilateral decisions about the article, having been more or less pushed to the talk page after the article was locked for a couple days last week. But here's the weird part: the IP claims to be a group editing as one; see the discussion Chernobyl (TV series) - FYI on Captainllama's talk page. (Apologies; I need to learn how to link discussions!)

What we've got is this putative group editing tendentiously over and over, and an article being disputed by an IP that refuses to abide by any WP policies. You're good at dealing with problem editors, so thought I'd draw you attention to this rather than raising it on a forum where it will be talked to death. Let's not give the IP that attention. Any help is appreciated! Thanks. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 05:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey, what you do is just add the section title, with a "#" sign: User_talk:Captainllama#Chernobyl_(miniseries)_-_FYI. Of course, that won't work the moment the talk page is archived, so a "final" diff is often helpful. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm Captainllama's clinic on "for dramatic purposes" fails to convince me--sure, the intent of straying from factual reality matters, but what matters more is how there was any straying, and to which extent. The IP is pretty condescending and Captainllama tries to respond in kind; that's not a happy mix. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If they're a group, they sound remarkably similar. Now, this edit war, I'm sorry, but I don't see the point in it. Y'all's phrase, "for dramatic purposes", is indeed well-worn and I wouldn't argue against it unless the alternative is an improvement. The IP linking "dramatic license" is useless, in my opinion, since it leads to an article about artistic creativity etc., which is beside the point. Plus, they're more wordy. On the other hand, their "for example" is something you should take from them--it's good.

    Anyway, the IP isn't being very helpful, that much is clear. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it all. It's the group thing that was my concern; I think it's far more likely some smart arse who thinks they're terribly clever doing this. The actual language isn't the hill I want to die on for much the same reason you cite. I just want the IP to find a new place to play. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it's one of the jarheads from one of those Wikipedia critique sites playing games, or some such thing. I see you gave them a couple weeks' enforced vacation. Hopefully they'll get bored and move on. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Just had a look at the article talk page. The IP now claims they're using non-standard non-binary pronouns and never claimed to be a group. Somebody's really got issues. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I may borrow that blue giraffe, if it has a cup holder of course. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Happy to share. Thanks for shutting down the digression. It was going nowhere good. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing populism

You might want to keep an eye on this article, because I just added a quote from an historian saying that right-wing populism is "a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism." and it was immediately removed by Springee, on the grounds that the historian said it in a media source, and not in an academic one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK, you might mention that, one, you were edit warring rather than going to the talk page to discuss it. Two, that you have been casting aspersions and questioning my motives on the talk page which is a violation of CIVIL. Three, that you have ignored ONUS and CONSENSUS. When new material is challenged it is on you, the editor trying to add it to get consensus. If its just the two of us and your logic is better than mine then a third editor will side with you and consensus will be decided. If your reasoning isn't that strong then we will have no CONSENSUS and policy says restore the last stable version of the text. Also, your summary of my reasoning is not correct or at least is misleading. The entire section is sourced to scholarly articles except the redundant material you added which is sourced to a media article (written by a scholar) summarizing the rather shocking claims of another scholar. Springee (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Springee, but that is a really poor reason. The man is obviously notable (you could write his article--wouldn't take too long), and Politico is a reliable and notable source. That BMK questions your motives if you are trying to keep that one quote out isn't so strange--and that quote is not "rather shocking"--it is not shocking at all, and I don't know why you would think that. Has right-wing populism been so normalized that it is now the center? If you read the work of Hans-Georg Betz, esp. Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe (cited twice in the article), you will see that it is not a shocking quote at all. BTW there is much work to do here; you could start by writing a section on digital media (Schroeder, Ralph (2018). "Digital Media and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism". Social Theory after the Internet: Media, Technology, and Globalization. London: UCL Press. pp. 60–81.).

Indeed, if you were to read more scholarly material you might be really shocked, to learn that opinions such as this one, "Black Lives Matter (BLM) has effectively educated the nation about the cavalier use of racist deadly force (on and off the campus) and the real nature of undemocratic governance", are found in academic publications (Reitz, Charles (2018). "Opposing Authoritarian Populism: The Challenge and Necessity of a New World System". In Morelock, Jeremiah (ed.). Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism. University of Westminster Press.). But that's neither here nor there. In the end, I just wonder why you are shocked by the quote--xenophobia ("Mexicans are rapists"), racism ("shithole countries") and authoritarianism are simply part and parcel of right-wing populism. That this is deadly--you might could take objection to that, but for a lot of people this is clear. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, first, would you please let BMK know that Wiki policies DO apply to them? Even if they don't agree with me, ONUS and NOCON are applicable policies. As I said on the talk page, if my logic is poor then another editor, yourself included, can say as much and we would have a 2:1 consensus. Between BMK's accusations against anyone who doesn't agree with them, and in particular myself I think their behavior is becoming problematic. I would hope you will remind them to follow policy (and CIVIL as well).
OK, as for the specifics of your reason why you disagree with my objections. The "shocking" part isn't that an writer would say that but instead that we are talking a single quote and inserting it without the why context. I talk about this more on the talk page. BMK's edits are the sort of thing Masem was warning about here [[9]] (somewhat different context but similar idea). We should be saying why, not just quoting the juiciest bits any comment that sounds inflammatory. There is also the question of who is making the claim in the quoted article. Anyway, if you don't agree, please weigh in on the talk page then consensus will shift. As is BMK has once again shown that they consider themselves above policy. Springee (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll look at the talk page, but I don't know what you mean with "why context". You mean, why would a scholar say that? (Because it's true, or they believed/verified it to be true? Or because it's relevant?) And again--you can say it's "inflammatory", but I don't see that at all: seems like an observation of fact. We can make a lot of those observations. Nazism is evil. Pol Pot's regime relished in mass murder. Beria was a state-sanctioned butcher. Right-wing populism appeals to xenophobia and racism. The sky is blue.

Hey, if BMK breaks 3R or whatever, report him at ANEW. If he violates ArbCom's guidelines, report him at AE. But here, you are not pointing at any violation of policy, no matter how much you want one version to be the "stable version" that you can revert to. Admins will not look at that unless there is certified edit warring (which takes at least two editors), lest all article progress be stifled. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Springee jumped straight from commenting on a topic ban for Jweiss11, to accusing me of being a sockpuppet on my own talk page, then on another user's (Slatersteven), and now to doing so at WP:ANI, when I know someone already "investigated" me. [10] I'm now convinced by Springee's similar conduct towards Beyond My Ken on Right-wing populism, and towards multiple users at Andy Ngo including trying to retaliate against me when Jweiss11 was topic-banned by Bishonen there, that the problem is conduct and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on Springee's end, expressed as a combination of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT along with a form of Sealioning. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, this is over the line by Springee. [11] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

YGM

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

Toddst1 (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you.

I have recently reverted user:Vincedumond on the Battle of Roosebeke(concerning the usage of Wikipedia as a source), this is not the first time I, or someone else, have had to revert their edit(s).

  • 17 Sept. 2019, I reverted and warned Vincedumond of using Wikipedia as a reference.
  • 9 Sept. 2019, Epinoia reverts and warns Vincedumond of using Wikipedia as a reference.
  • 9 Sept. 2019, Vincedumond edit wars with Epinoia on the Inquisition article.
  • 8 Sept. 2019, Epinoia reverts and warns Vincedumond of using Wikipedia as a reference.
  • 23 Feb. 2018, Diannaa warns Vincedumond of copyright issues.
  • 16 Oct. 2014, I warned Vincedumond of copying and pasting from sources
  • 20 Aug. 2013, I warned Vincedumond of copying and pasting from sources

Not sure what should be done. But Vincedumond is clearly not listening to warnings.--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

arrggh

I was climbing around the roof of Melrose Abbey sometime back, should have taken more photos than I did - interesting to see you edit the article... JarrahTree 14:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Email about alleged abuse of sysop permissions

Did you get one too? Seems to me to be a basic complaint of someone getting stuck in a range block and thinking it's directed at them, however this person sent me multiple emails (with a "go fuck yourself" in there as well as threats of legal action) and later came into multiple channels on IRC to complain, even after I explained the issue. I'm still not sure what range they're referring to. Best, Vermont (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • No, I did not, but there have been a few pings about people complaining about range blocks; I wonder if I saw one of those emails on the CU/functionaries list. Beeblebrox, are you a more conscientious reader than I? Do you remember? Drmies (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you should ignore that person. Absolutely do not respond to their emails. You can however forward them to Trust and Safety. Despite all the uproar lately they do serve a purpose, and this is it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Beeblebrox. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Vermont (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for The 1619 Project

On 18 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The 1619 Project, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The New York Times's The 1619 Project, which aims to re-examine slavery in the United States, was developed in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center for use in schools? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The 1619 Project. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The 1619 Project), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI closure

Your closure could be fine. But could you clarify which posts you actually considered? I saw half a dozen of nonsenses, but that could be me. More to the point: how did you conclude that my OP compliant did not constitute agression, especially after EEng's own ignorant talkpage reply? -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and also read Figure of speech. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, I am a certified expert in reading through ANI comments and distilling a consensus from it. That you call half a dozen of the comments "nonsenses" is telling. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
LOL you posted in that ANI so you are involved and thus not allowed to close at al. Still my question stands: which posts did you weigh-in/discard-being-irrelevant? -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Posts

What a waste of time and electrons
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, Drmies, Here are some posts from that ANI to consider. IMO, they are nonsense and should be discarded. How did you weigh them?

  • Maybe it's an overly American figure of speech, what with the level of violence :) , but it's clearly a figure of speech. (Note also that there's a disclaimer in the edit summary.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
*Because they didn't want to? Because they already made a note that they weren't at all serious? Because this isn't actually a big deal? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW, it occurs that you were involved, so not free to close the ANI. What do you think? -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I think that my suggesting to you that this wasn't going to go well hardly makes me INVOLVED. (Open another ANI and see how that goes.) And now I really think you should stop. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's the way to "talk": "you must stop". Brilliant. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
"I think" now means "you must" does it? If you don't want to be boomerang sanctioned for disruption, time-wasting, or vendetta-pursuing, then stop. If you do, by all means, keep going. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes I know. When Drmies says "I think", that means ... ("shut up") etc. Because as Drmies says: "I am a certified expert in reading through ANI comments". Drmies can read! and we are not allowed to. -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey, DePiep, here's a heads up. You're in a clear minority here. Your opinion is a valid one, but the rest of us (for the most part) disagree - and as Wikipedia is based on consensus, this may be a good time to accept defeat and drop the stick. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
If I could pose some dissent. Some of us gave PeterTheFourth a pretty hard time recently for the violent imagery of "Go pick a fight in traffic" (a figure of speech that, admittedly, I was unfamiliar with). The point is that words hold power and, I for one, think that violent imagery directed at other editors should generally be avoided — yes, even when accompanied by T&S-type qualification whimsy. That said, I think tone (and levels of aggression) —rather more softly, in this case— count for a lot, so I am also taking that into account. The point is that different people are desentized to violence (including violent imagery) differently. Doesn't hurt to be understated, just as a basic rule of thumb. El_C 00:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, actually, you were one of two who thought (among many who didn't) that the "traffic" comment was significantly problematic. (For myself I'll say it was poorly chosen, for subtle reasons I won't go into.) EEng 00:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
See who's popping up, @ 3rd grade presence but never 1st all day. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're trying to say as I am not familiar with that saying. But it sounds like innuendo, which I advise against. Anyway, maybe work on communicating more clearly. El_C 01:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It's easy and predictable: EEng did not take responsibility when in the ANI, and now comes doing bladi-bla all around (strange you did not get that first time). -DePiep (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
How is it strange? In what way am I supposed to parse that 3rd grade presence but never 1st all day to indicate any of that? Anyway, I don't think you are helping to advance your argument with all the "bladi-bla" and so on. Why not just be matter-of-fact with regards to your assertions? El_C 01:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
One of three, actually. Bishonen and Haukur both thought it was problematic. El_C 00:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
And this did not include users outside of the results section: Mr. Ernie, as well as the filer of the AE, Pudeo. That makes five. And if I thought it was "significantly" problematic, I would have called for sanctions outright. El_C 00:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No you don't. -DePiep (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure. First, let's ask people stop throwing around smears here that could not even stand an ANI post? Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • DePiep is now carrying this ridiculous campaign across so many pages and threads, and at such exhaustive length, that I really think it's time to launch a CIR investigation as to whether he has the competence to continue to edit Wikipedia without severely disrupting the community. Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Well, that's kind of why I gave the link I did a few posts up, which I'll repeat here: [13]. But – and I'm serious now, no joking – my impression is he does do a lot of useful work when he's not running amok like this. We gave Eric Corbett plenty of chances, and though that didn't work out so well I think we can afford to invest some further effort in salvaging DePiep. (OK, at this point I'll go back to joking...) EEng 03:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Just... ugh.

This is so far over the line. [14] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Hmm, sure, maybe--but weren't you suggesting that they were a sock of Springee? I think this is the kind of thing you should take to ANI if you think this should be blockable--I don't know the context, and it may also be a case for discretionary sanctions, via AE. I've looked a bit at the Ngo article, BTW; that's a ton of content for someone whose resume is terrifically brief for such a big article. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
One of their friends went to ANI, vastly misrepresenting the edits of myself and Simonm223, already. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I saw that. Some of this is going to end up at AE. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Springee did this [15] and didn't notify me. Isn't that a requirement? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Not for an SPI it's not. It's a courtesy, not a requirement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok. It's still rude. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not rude. Ivanvector's description is not quite right: "Notification isn't mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement." ([16]).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Well, thank you for your response, such as it was. Maybe this is just a sign to take another break. I've a niece to help with her college applications, and a sister-in-law to reassure that daddy's little princess isn't just trying to go to a party school, while my kid brother is deployed. Wikipedia's just raising my blood pressure at this point with certain vexatious individuals out for my blood. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiConference North America 2019

In case you haven't seen the wiki banners... You are warmly invited to WikiConference North America 2019 on November 8-11 in Boston. Deadline for Program Submissions and Scholarship Applications is September 20. Hope to see you there! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandal block

Hello. I notice that you recently quickly blocked IP user 101.178.163.201 for repeated vandalism of Amanda Howard. Might I also suggest similar or severer action to a more active serial vandal of the page (and probably the same person based on IP geolocation), user 203.122.222.109 Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't know what to do with this

I love 1970s bikes too. A 750 cc, four in-line--yes please.

Roly Drower appears to be a vanity article on a deceased loved one, who was notable only locally on the Isle of Man. All of this user's article creations are seriously problematic: [17]. Need someone to pull the trigger on some or all of them. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As regards Roly Drower, "Elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society" gives me pause for thought. Perhaps User:DGG can tell us whether this is relevant for criterion 3 of WP:ACADEMIC (is there a list somewhere of which are "highly selective" and the great many, with very similar names, that are not?) It's unsourced though. MPS1992 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Also seems to have some purportedly unique legal squabbles reported -- possibly in depth -- by The Guardian, who describe him as a "poet" not just a miscellaneous internet pundit. MPS1992 (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I haven't gotten to the poet part, but the "fellow" part is seriously inflated--see this edit and this one. Thanks for pointing that out! (I took out the subject's bike--an MV Augusta is a prize possession, but it was inappropriate here.) Drmies (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for knowing the answer! I have seen that FRAS postnomial a few times, I shall chuckle at it from now on. MPS1992 (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Right, not notable as a scientist. It's difficult to deal with bios that might have passed muster if they were not over-personal. If really notable I have sometime re-written, but this is borderline at best. Any notability would come from the events in the Activism section. I checked our article on his nemesis Albert Gubay, and read the articles in The Guardian linked there, such as this and it seems that the laudatory Gubayarticle needs some additions, which might justify a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • oh dear. This is so sad. I think possibly afd is the best route, rather than speedy. KillerChihuahua 18:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that AfD is probably the best route. I would prefer that someone else do that on the bio article, if someone feels to ... thanks .... Softlavender (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
according to our article on her, a number of her recordings have won major awards, and would therefore qualify. I haven't checked whether any of these are among the ones on which these articles are written. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Not per WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings, unless the album in question won at least three major awards. The bar is much much higher for classical music albums. Softlavender (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Hallo everyone! Thank you for taking an interest in the article that I created about Roly Drower. I see that my noting that Drower was elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society has sparked some controversy - Drmies has labelled it "a serious misrepresentation". "Election" was, and still is, the Royal Astronomical Society's term for the process of the admission of a new Fellow. Anyone who cares to verify this can visit https://ras.ac.uk/about-the-ras/bye-laws, where they will find Section VII: "The Election and Obligations of Fellows".Niggle1892 (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Niggle1892, while that's true it's extremely misleading, as you're giving the impression that the RAS is some kind of elective body. In reality, "fellow" in this context is just an archaic term for "member", and the admission criteria is just to be any one of (1) Students enrolled on a full or part-time undergraduate or post-graduate course related to astronomy or geophysics, which leads to a formal qualification. (2) People with a professional interest in astronomy, geophysics or a related science, holding a relevant professional qualification (e.g. degree) and/or currently or formerly engaged in work (whether paid or not) related to astronomy or geophysics (e.g. research, industry, teaching, media), which requires a professional qualification or experience. (3) Amateurs who have demonstrated a strong commitment to astronomy or geophysics, for example through membership of another major society and/or practical achievements and/or formal study. (4) Other professionals and supporters who may not meet any other criterion but who serve (or have served) the wider interests of the Society, and/or astronomy and geophysics in general, and are committed to furthering the aims of the Society. (direct quote from their own admissions policy), which in practice means that anyone who's interested enough in astronomy to pay the £125/year subscription fee will by definition already qualify. ‑ Iridescent 11:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the criteria for being elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society aren't strict, but they do exist, and it isn't the case that any Tom, Dick or Harry can become an FRAS by simply sending off their £125. People who want to join the RAS but don't make the grade as Fellows are invited to become Members instead. If your characterization of the RAS were correct, its lower-tier Membership scheme wouldn't exist. To be elected an FRAS doesn't mean that you're another Fred Hoyle, but it does mean just a little bit more than that you've got £125 burning a hole in your pocket.Niggle1892 (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Niggle, the bottom line is simply that "election" here doesn't mean what it usually means for select societies. And in this case it is entirely unclear why this person, who hadn't verifiably done anything yet, would be singled out for the kind of honor implied in "election". As for the other articles, I see there's plenty of discussion elsewhere--my only comment was that there was a lot of content for little sourcing in the one I looked at, that's all. And that applies, really, to the Drower article as well. Plus, you really need to source that properly--not just with URLs when possible, but also with better, more complete bibliographical information. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd never have imagined that the dear old RAS could inspire so much controversy! I apologize in advance if explaining this is inappropriate, but I should perhaps confess that I myself became involved in astronomy in 1968. It took me eleven years to work my way up through the ranks of the amateur British Astronomical Association and a three-year degree course in astronomy before I was finally elected a Fellow of the RAS myself. (I was nominated by the Society's then President, the quantum theorist M. J. Seaton, who joked that with his signature on my proposal form, it was unlikely to be rejected.) I can still remember opening my acceptance letter with a feeling of great happiness. No, it didn't mean that I'd done anything wonderful, but it did mean that I'd got my foot on at least the first rung of the astronomical ladder, that the British astronomical community had acknowledged that I was at long last one of them. In writing about Drower's election, I could, I supposed, have added a parenthesis explaining that admission to the RAS was a mark of involvement in astronomy rather than of great achievement in the field, but an article that tried to obviate every conceivable misinterpretation of its content would be too long even for me to write! It never occurred to me that the word "Fellow" was archaic or that "elect" meant anything other than "choose". I take your point about my not being sufficiently detailed with bibliography, and I certainly didn't need to cite sources as well as references. (At the time I was very inexperienced and imitating the format of some other article that I'd read.) I may return to everything that I've written and try to improve it in line with what has been suggested, although I suspect that I probably won't. I wrote most of my articles as the only form of voluntary work that I could undertake during several months of recuperation after surgery, and now, thankfully, I'm well enough to return to the kind of real-world voluntary service that I'm maybe better suited to. And where, to be frank, the people seem to be a bit friendlier. Best wishes.Niggle1892 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Niggle1892: people are always nicer in real life. Here on Wikipedia, we all think we are terribly important and that we are upholding standards of critical significance. Thank you for writing the biography of Roly Drower, I found it very interesting. MPS1992 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm so glad that you found at least something in that article to enjoy. (I think it was better with the motorbike, the Hell's Angels and the biscuit factory, but then I'm irredeemably vulgar.) If you've the time, I've added a brief postscript to the article's talk page that adds another dimension to the story - though it won't be there for long, as Softlavender has got her way, and everything that I've ever initiated on Wikipedia will shortly be deleted. I take your point about the difference between how people treat one another in the real world and the way behave in cyberspace. It seems to me that all of us who've spent hours here tapping away at our keyboards suffer from the same tragicomic malady: we're all vanity publishers so absurdly big-headed as to believe that what we write is worth reading, despite the absence of the pay checks that we'd be getting if it truly was. We should all, I think, be as kind to one another as whiskery old gentlemen sympathizing with one other over their bunions.Niggle1892 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The motorcycle wasn't vulgar, but it was unverified and unencyclopedic. I doubt all of your articles will be deleted; I haven't checked on the astronomy Fellow, but at least some of those articles on recordings are very, very likely to be kept. It seems obvious to me that at least some of them (I looked at two, which were fine though verbose) are notable by our standards. That's valuable. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Drmies. It's entirely true that my mention of the motorbike was not very Wikipedian - my evidence for it was an item of motorcycling memorabilia that I discarded decades ago, and it was certainly a frivolity. My trouble is that most of the writing that I've done has been journalism, and I find it very hard to resist those little touches of colour that journalists use to try to make a piece more lively. I'm forever yearning to smuggle in details that will convey someone's quiddity as well as their CV. I'd bet that almost anyone who read the Frederica von Stade article as it was before you made it more serious would remember The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood or the bicycle spattered with paint long after they'd forgotten where von Stade sang her first Charlotte! The nub of it is that what makes a person Wikipedia-worthy is what sets them apart from us, and what makes them relatable as a human being is what they share with us. I apologize that the album articles were so lengthy. Ironically, they've been entirely shaped by what a succession of editors have recommended, each one telling me to do something different from what was demanded by the one before. I'm now in the process of changing all the Critical Reception sections into simple lists of reviews to try to eliminate copyvio. Lastly, I do apologize for never using one word where ten will do instead. I think of Wikipedia as a kind of garden. Some of us are planting: others are weeding. If we were all just planters, the garden would become a jungle. If we were all just weeders, the garden would become a desert. The garden needs both types of us. I just hope - though it's very selfish - that you and Softlavender will decide that maybe some of what looked like my weeds are really just wonky little shrubs that need a bit of TLC! Best wishes.Niggle1892 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Niggle1892, we do what we do. When I first came to Wikipedia I was writing like I was writing argumentative papers on works of literature--including what we call OR and SYNTH. It took me a while to unlearn that. The fun starts only after you get so acquainted with the dry, boring encyclopedic format that it becomes second nature--and then you can take those (verified) nuggets and make something out of it. That's the fun part of Did You Know writing. Maybe the most fun I had was with Key Largo woodrat, which I wrote together with a biologist--and we had a pretty funny hook and got it on the front page (see Talk:Key Largo woodrat). But that factoid, that assessment, had to come from a reliable secondary source. Sometimes things just drop in your lap: Go the Fuck to Sleep.

So I totally understand where you were coming from, and the subject's friends and family will thank you for it. It's just not encyclopedic enough, and in the end, if you write it properly, it will stay, and that's already a big thing. So, what I suggest is you keep doing what you do but you dig even deeper into the sources, and with some luck you find those things that liven the joint up. And between you and me, I have written things that one might argue violate NOTMEMORIAL--a mentor or two, a family member, colleagues--but when I do I have to make double sure that a. they're indeed notable and b. I keep it neutral. Take it easy, and thanks for the note. And let me know if I can help. I don't have much of a brain, but I have some experience here. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

ARBCOM

Hey Doc, how y'all doin? I did glimpse at the ToC of your talk first, and apologies if I missed it, but .... Would you consider another go 'round as Arb? I know it's a tough gig, but good arbs are hard to find these days. So I thought I'd take a shot at asking those few folk I trust - would you? — Ched (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Ched, I appreciate the thought, but I'm going to decline. I don't think I have enough time to devote to it, plus, I didn't get voted in the last time, so I don't know if I'd have a better chance this time around. We make more enemies every year... Plus, Fram helped tank me the last time and I don't want to go through that again, also because of privacy issues. Take care, and thanks for asking--maybe you should run? Or what about Writ Keeper? It's about time he got busy again. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Me? I'll take that as a rhetorical kindness, but Heavens No. I don't have the patience or temperament to deal with protracted disputes. Since I couldn't support myself in such a position, there's no way I could ask anyone else to support me. Besides, I wouldn't enjoy it, and I much rather work on some content these days. But thank you for the kind reply. Writ Keeper - yes, I could support that - no problem. — Ched (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for The Black Cloth

On 25 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Black Cloth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the folk tales in Bernard Binlin Dadié's The Black Cloth express the "African sense of community" and the "wisdom of an ordered society" in the face of French claims of moral superiority? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Black Cloth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Black Cloth), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Gleeanon409 again

Back in June, you helped out with this user, who was engaging in personal attacks whenever people stopped him from his, well, particular sort of POV pushing and DARVO attacks on other editors, by giving him a do this again and you're out of here warning. Well, he's been pretty tendentious about this stuff, and I just came across him still engaging in the same tactics. I'd appreciate your input. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Eden Township Article created

I saw you were interested in the Alameda County articles before, so I wanted to tell you I created a page for Eden Township. @Uncle G

Eden Canyon for example, and Eden Canyon Road. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The ranchos articles are interesting, and I didn't know we would have those because I hadn't seen a way to find them. I would like to see all ranchos articles, and possibly the geography articles (Amador Valley, etc.) accessible from the corresponding township page. Remaining articles to be written are Brooklyn and Oakland townships (Alameda township is essentially the same as the city of Alameda). I did see an article about a town of Brooklyn, which was absorbed into Oakland, but I'm not sure if that's the same as the township.--
-Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Washington Township

Washington Township, Alameda County, California is now here as well. All three of these articles are incomplete. There is a lot more that can be written on them from the sources available. Naddruf (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I grew up in Michigan where townships are still commonplace. It seems that townships were also commonplace in California in the second half of the 19th century, but as far as I know, there are no more active townships in California. That leads me to believe that this form of government has been abolished in California, but I have not been able to find any reliable sources to that effect. I do know that the powers and authorities of incorporated cities and towns are identical in California law, and each municipality can choose which of those two terms to describe itself. Many smaller incorporated communities choose "town" to help them maintain a small town atmosphere, perhaps. So, I am wondering if anyone with better research skills, such as Uncle G or anyone else, can find out if townships are no longer part of the government structure of California. If so, when and why did that happen? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The US Census has the answer. See "Census of governments". This links to a separate PDF which announces on page 32 that California has no township governments. Though the name 'Washington Township' may no longer have any official status, the name of the township lives on for some purposes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

  • Wikimania
  • We're building something great, but..
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • A Wikibrarian's story
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Penbat (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Generation Rx

Huh? I was expanding the lead. Yeepsi (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, and I think that was excessive content (even if some it may be verified later)--stuff like "As the group typically followed their feelings, they soon became inspired to make a new album" and "Following the realisation that pain was a running theme" (both phrases are chatty and make "interior" statements in Wikipedia's voice), and all that detail about announcements and teasers... Expanding the lead is great, but your edit conveys the chattiness of the article (which needs some editing) and moves it into the lead as well. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeepsi, about this--you don't have to worry about that when you're editing (or pruning, like me): there is a bot that repairs those things very quickly. It's very useful. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Merging Morning Musume

Hello! Sorry to bother you again. I was thinking of merging Morning Musume auditions to Morning Musume, but Talk:Morning Musume suggested rationale that it was better to have the article deleted. Would you recommend I submit it to AfD? lullabying (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Reza Hasmath

FYI, also:

- MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

For your oppose comments, at the RFA. It's always a little unnerving when there seems to be behaviour that no-one else can see. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC).

  • Ugh. Drmies, I'd forgotten all about that ArbCom election questions fiasco. I'll still support the RFA for other principles that I consider really important, but I kind of feel like I owe you an apology for doing so. To be clear, although I'm supporting, you were 100% in the right and Fram was 100% in the wrong there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Floquenbeam, I understand that completely. How the WMF handled this, regardless of who it was, was unacceptable. It would have been easy for me at that time to pile on and go "but yeah he was abusive", but I didn't. This RfA, I just saw it go by in Recent changes and thought WTF? already? And I had actually forgotten about the "banned editor" comments, but when I saw those again I felt like I had to comment. BTW I am not sure I knew already that so much of his commentary had been oversighted; I have tried not to dwell on that episode. You don't owe me an apology or anything: you do you, and that's fine. Haha, one funny thing--there may be some people still, or again, wondering what I meant with the good thing I did while on ArbCom: I'M STILL NOT GOING TO TELL YOU, haha, but breaking a lance for Guido den fucking Broeder wasn't it. Take care Floq, Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
sigh - I was determined to stay completely out of this - but Floq you strike a nerve there. So many people are supporting this as a referendum against WMF/T&S intervention in en-wp affairs. IMO, an RfA is simply that - a request to determine if an individual is suitable for Adminship. Nothing less, but also, Nothing more. It wasn't designed to support "other principles" (although I agree those are worthy principles to support) I honestly believe that anyone thinking a mass of support votes at an RfA is going to have any influence on how the WMF do business going forward, I think they are sadly mistaken. Saying "A" is wrong, so I'm going to support "B" (regardless of the suitability) is simply misguided devotion to anti-A.
An RfA is not a referendum against WMF or T&S behavior. It never was. It never will be. And - it isn't now. I totally agree that the WMF and T&S should mind their own business of doing business for the foundation, and that their partial ban and desysop was completely crossing the line. But that is all fodder for an RfC, not RfA. You know it's seldom I'll buck against you Floq - but I simply don't agree with you here. — Ched (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Floquenbeam - Fram had used the same tactic on my Arb candidacy, a few years previously. Whether it was successful (i.e changed the result) is hard to say (and I can't remember much detail) but a number of editors said "not supporting someone involved in a stupid feud like this". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: I'm not defending Fram's behavior, especially not from years ago. I'm saying that from my perspective, there is a bigger issue for me, and while I'm not really apologizing for it (it wouldn't make sense to apologize if I don't change my vote), I'm at least expressing regret to Drmies (and to you too) that it looks like I don't value the pain of your experiences, and acknowledging that that pain was legitimate. If this RFA had come after a fair and open ArbCom case that had removed his admin bit, I likely wouldn't support. @Ched:, when you say "An RfA is not a referendum against WMF or T&S behavior", what you mean is "I don't think an RFA should be a referendum against WMF or T&S behavior". I understand that point of view, but disagree that it's such an open and shut fact. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Thanks for that, I don't think this is simple, I never had a fully working hypotheses of what Fram was trying to do, certainly not a charitable one. I didn't follow the Arb case once there seemed no possibility of submitting open evidence, but from what I know the result was pretty gentle. I objected to WMF's actions on procedural grounds, though I am grateful for the intentions and work of the T&S staff, so to be consistent I have to reserve judgement on ArbCom.
However we shouldn't hastily follow two fiascos with a third. Sysopping someone who is unsuitable would be just such a fiasco. One of the support voters says that there will be no problems with so many people watching Fram's edits. If we need this as an answer to Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? it would be better for those many people to be doing the work themselves.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC).

Dr, what I came here to say Floq already said better, as often happens. Your oppose is probably the most damaging to Fram's candidacy, but it's also the most earnest and understandable. If the RfA fails, as looks likely at this point, I would rather it be due to your (accurate) description of the episode you describe and how it affected you, rather than due to some of the petty grudge-bearing and gleeful knife-twisting resurfacing elsewhere in the oppose section. Same result, I guess, but perhaps a more fair way to arrive at it. 28bytes (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • 28bytes, thank you for coming by: this is a rare honor. The RfA has a long way to go but you may well be right. I'm wondering if Iridescent, who has more common sense than most, didn't see this coming. Anyway, I don't know what the WMF knows, what that original complaint was all about. If my experience with them was so bad--and in such plain sight: a lot of editors must have seen the comments before they were oversighted--but didn't lead anyone to take any kind of action, what was it that was reported to the WMF? And by the same token, such "elections", RfAs and ArbCom and whatnot, are frequently less strictly policed for civility etc., which is fine sometimes, but this time it really was not. Which reminds me, 28bytes: there's some people looking to vote for some good candidates for the next round at ArbCom. You: you are a good candidate. And I see now you wrote up "IGY"--DYK that I got to see Donald Fagen perform a few years ago, and it was fantastic? Drmies (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I have not yet seen Mr. Fagen, but I can imagine he would put on a great show. I did get to see the final Cars tour, although I didn't know that's what it was at the time. :( 28bytes (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't know if he's still touring--I think I saw him three years ago, here in Montgomery. It was a small band; he played a couple of keyboards, and one of the guitarists also played saxophone. They were young, but they were solid, and it was just supertight. Played all the great oldies, including all the great ones from The Nightfly. If you ever get the chance, you got to go. I wasn't a big Cars fan, but I feel your loss. I still can't listen to Blackstar like it was just any other old album. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, myself - I'm working hard to completely ignore that RFA, but the fact that you quoted suppressed edits in your oppose is really a problem for me as an oversighter. You can make exactly the same point by referring to the same matter at links that are publicly available. To deliberately select diffs whose content you can verify only because you're an oversighter calls into question your fundamental understanding of the purpose of suppression. I ask you to refactor your comments to remove the links to suppressed material - which only 32 people on this entire project can genuinely view - and replace them with diffs or links that are visible to a broader range of participants in the RFA. I could even accept links to deleted content (which 1151 members of the project can view and assess, and which could potentially be undeleted temporarily for others to assess). Using suppressed content in this way gives the impression of using suppressed edits as a form of political control, which is not okay. Risker (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • What? An oppose at an RfA does not have to meet real-world interpretations of legal process. Drmies gave an accurate outline of the situation in his RfA comment—he obviously felt under attack at the time and there should be no requirement for him to find public text to amplify the attack. Are you suggesting the oversight was in error? I saw the original and was disgusted by Fram's monumentally dumb, hostile and totally misguided attempt to pour shit on Drmies. Fram misused the Arbcom questions page to attack Drmies and someone oversighted it. If you have reason to doubt that, make a case somewhere. However, there is no requirement for all background to an RfA oppose to be made public. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Johnuniq, nobody's talking about legal process. The phrase "political control" comes from the Checkuser policy, which applies to the other major privacy-related tool; generally speaking, most checkusers and oversighters routinely apply the most stringent aspects of each policy to every relevant action they consider. It's an RFA - our project's method of granting heightened levels of authority to individuals, which is widely seen as (at least to some extent, and certainly in this case) a political decision. I'm not saying that Drmies is wrong to raise the issue, but he can and should do so without using diffs involving suppression. I suppose the real irony is that Drmies, an oversighter himself, didn't recognize that a key part of the content should have been suppressed forthwith, and in fact repeated the BLP violation himself, suggesting it should be 'revdeleted'. Hypothetically, oversighters could perform suppressions even when "involved", although most of us wouldn't do so; however, we all know how to request suppressions or even reach out for a fast revdelete. I repeat - I don't think it is wrong for Drmies to raise his issues. I do think it was wrong for him to use diffs that have been suppressed when he could easily have raised the same issue with fully publicly available information. Risker (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Risker, I fully believe you are smarter than me, and if you want, take action as you see fit. I thought I was pushing but not stepping over a line. The asterisks were meant to indicate something that shouldn't be said without saying it--if that's too far, in your opinion, I will not argue against you. As for "revdeleted"--I may have used that term too loosely, but I assure you that I am extra careful when I have a choice to check that box or not. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I talked about legal process as an analogy with the idea that comments at an RfA should follow certain rules. The main point is what I wrote above: Drmies gave an accurate outline of the situation in his RfA comment—he obviously felt under attack at the time and there should be no requirement for him to find public text to amplify the attack. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      • As far as I can tell and unless I have missed other comments, the only suppressed diff Drmies summarized was a comment directed at him that was about him. The comment was made with the full understanding and intent that it would be public. Drmies most likely would have been aware of the accusation and knowledgeable about what it said before it was oversighted. If Drmies did not have the ability to subsequently view the suppressed material, it would still not remove the fact that Drmies would still be familiar with incident, nor would it prevent an editor without the OS permission to link the diff. Drmies chose to summarize the incident against him waiving any protections or benefits from having the accusation redacted. I would compare it to media blackouts where occasionally victims have waived their rights to privacy. In society, we do not go after victims who voluntarily forfeit a protection offered to them. We should not do so here as well. Mkdw talk 23:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Floq and 28bytes, specifically I'll still support the RFA for other principles that I consider really important, but I kind of feel like I owe you an apology for doing so. and Your oppose is probably the most damaging to Fram's candidacy, but it's also the most earnest and understandable. If the RfA fails, as looks likely at this point, I would rather it be due to your (accurate) description of the episode you describe and how it affected you, rather than due to some of the petty grudge-bearing and gleeful knife-twisting resurfacing elsewhere in the oppose section. (minus the "(accurate)" which I don't know enough about to take over). Drmies, upon rereading my !vote subsequent to your reply, I'm no longer confident that it's immediately clear to everyone that my "serious cause for concern" was about Fram's conduct and not yours. I will happily clarify it if it's not obviously clear. Thanks! Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 10:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Briefly, as I am still wondering why ArbCom failed completely to pick up on this or whether they considered it and didn't act on it, would it be at all worthwhile asking ArbCom for clarification on whether this matter was ever raised or considered at all? What I want to know is whether ArbCom dropped the ball here, or never had the ball passed to them. Partial justification for asking ArbCom would be that only oversighters can see the material. Secondary justification might be asking for clarification on whether Drmies was justified in quoting what he did (from what I can see [not having the oversight tools myself], he inserted '*****' to replace what was actually said). It would actually be an important point to establish, whether any suppression rules got broken here. Though I fear trying to ask that question would just be seen as adding fuel to the fire. Is there a place to ask that question (about the oversight) without stoking drama? (The aim would be to avoid people using oversighted material like this in future, without clear rules on how it can be used.) Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Going back to I'm wondering if Iridescent ... didn't see this coming, in this particular case no I didn't. Working on memory so this may be slightly off (although I'm apparently theoretically entitled to be given the OS permission on request, I've never seen any reason), from my point of view I don't recall Fram's conduct at WP:ACE2018 being as problematic as you describe. (Stating the obvious maybe but I'm more aware than most that user conduct at the time of that election was under the microscope—and we now know that Fram was also being secretly monitored at the time by people looking for dirt—and AFAIK nobody filed any kind of complaint.) Fram's commentary about GdB was correctly oversighted because he made a specific allegation, but it was clearly an attempt to raise a legitimate concern based on what he felt was legitimate circumstantial evidence, rather than blowing smoke. Regarding your alternative account, Fram was acting like a dick here, but theoretically this was a breach of "Use of the account should be limited to articles and other pages directly related to students and classwork", and it's not abusive by any possible definition for someone to point out that one of Wikipedia's few formal written policies (as opposed to "guidelines") wasn't being followed; your problem is with the fact that Wikipedia has a policy that isn't fit for purpose, not with Fram for upholding it. ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Iridescent, no, my problem wasn't really with Fram upholding it, but with him choosing to make an issue out of it at that time, in that forum, and with some shitty comments. That I would abuse my position as a teacher and a Wikipedia editor to get "reviewing credits" or something like that, that is just real hurtful. I have done a lot of shitty things in my life, but I have not abused either of these two position for my own gain. (One wonders how much gain there is in getting a review or whatever.) That review, BTW, counted for Template:Did you know nominations/Mamie Garvin Fields. Look at that article: it's not my article. This is the kind of stuff it is that I teach in composition classes at a university in the South, with a large African-American population. It wasn't "my" article--one of the students wrote it, with the help of a couple of Wikipedia regulars (including Gerda); I think the suggestion came from a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. I have a list of my DYKs--but those of my other accounts aren't listed in there (and if one of them is, it's by accident).

      Iridescent, surely you understand why, as a professor, it is useful for me to write an article alongside my students and show them what can be done: if I can show them that you can get almost 25,000 people to read your article, I can indicate that writing matters. It is a great pity that this one didn't get on the main page until well after the term ended.

      As for that Loschbour man, who essentially sort of proved that Europeans weren't all that white (a useful observation), that also was directly related to the class: I write these articles with the students, to show them how to do it. In this case it came about because one of my students wrote up an article on a cave. He is from a French-speaking African country, and so he can do this multi-lingual stuff, which is great. I sort of prompted him with another cave, to say, hey, you can translate things, which is also how Loschbour started.

      So, to get back to the original point about that DYK review, if I (the other I, of course) review a DYK nomination in order to have a QPQ for a student's DYK nomination, how is that bad? How is that not "directly related to students and classwork"? (And I am sure that there's someone going through all my edits, and the other guy's edits, to see if they can catch me slipping up: they are very likely to have found me slipping up once, or twice, or more.) Drmies (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Oh, Iridescent, I see now that you are pointing at the AfD for that church, not at the DYK nomination. Yeah, I suppose you could say that's theoretically a violation of some sort, though that was hardly, I think, what the problem was according to my critic. Well. Does a QPQ review still count as a review if the article is deleted? Drmies (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't see it as a problem at all—I think Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy is ridiculously strict and that as long as there's no disruption or intention to deceive we should be turning a blind eye to alternative accounts—but by a strict reading of the letter of the law it would probably be a violation. Dropping it in the questions at Arbcom rather than raising a concern privately (or asking someone else familiar with SPI if they thought there was an issue) was inappropriate, but if we desysopped people for making stupid comments at Arbcom elections we'd end up each year with zero arbs. Taking 7 March 2018 (Fram's promise to dial it down) as the cutoff, if the most problematic things anyone can find since are 'asked an inappropriate question at the Arbcom elections' and 'said "fuck arbcom"' then for someone as active as Fram that's an astonishingly low miss rate—I'm sure if anyone went through your or my contributions over the same period they'd find worse. By talking about oversighted material at the RFA, you effectively gave the green light for people to make "no smoke without fire" and "if it was oversighted it must have been really bad" insinuations. (It's not as if we didn't already know that this was a case in which people were prepared to intentionally misrepresent and fabricate evidence.) ‑ Iridescent 19:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, I never wanted him desysopped at all; it's hard for me to just take the WMF's word for much in this case, with its strange circumstances (even as I am emailing harassing emails from some longtime abuser to them--just got another one). I just have no opinion on what led to his desysop and block, because I don't know. Nor do I care about "fuck ArbCom", really. How I feel about him as an admin, that's another matter, certainly after what he said to me, even without taking into account what had to be removed. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Iridescent, it's not a breach if the first account is stated on the second account's page, as it was in this case from (as I recall) 2015, so the diffs you pointed to are fine. SarahSV (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
          • @SarahSV, that's how we usually treat things, but that's not what the policy says (then or now), hence my comment about "by a strict reading of the letter of the law". The policy as written is explicit that to be a legitimate alt account for teaching purposes it needs to be identified on its userpage and "use of the account should be limited to articles and other pages directly related to students and classwork". It's a badly worded policy that doesn't reflect practice—and an Arbcom election isn't the place to raise concerns—but as I said above, I'm not going to blame someone for correctly pointing out that an action is technically violating policy. ‑ Iridescent 17:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, not another pesky FRAS!

Hallo again - please forgive my trespassing on your Talk page, but I've a query that I hoped you might spare a minute for. I've just read Patrick Moore, an article about an English amateur astronomer who was famous on this side of the pond for his many space-related books and TV shows. Apart from covering his career, the article goes into many of his various likes, dislikes and bees in the bonnet, including chess, Star Trek, homosexuality, cricket, Iceland, cats, feminism, the xylophone, political correctness, Liechtenstein, the Iraq War, race relations, AIDS, golf, homemade Christmas cards, the Monster Raving Loony Party, fox hunting, Dr Who, Ronald Reagan, sex discrimination, capital punishment, Pink Floyd, Norway and others which, perhaps fortunately, have escaped my memory. Three things about this article struck me. First, it's almost exactly the same size as Frederica von Stade. Second, the amount of the personal life, human interest, non-career stuff in the article is considerably more than there ever was in the von Stade biography. Third, Patrick Moore has that enviable little green icon pinned to its top right hand corner - yes, it really is a Good Article. In the light of this, might there be a case for allowing readers of the von Stade article to learn about her hobbies and interests again the way they used to? Best wishes.Niggle1892 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, what can I say. I just cut a whole chunk out of it. The article looks fine and not necessarily overly detailed, at a glance, but the references are really below par: it looks like 2/3 of the content is sourced to his autobiography. The reviewer who passed it for GA (see the review, Talk:Patrick Moore/GA1), this is the second time in a week or so that I run into an all too cursory review of theirs. You can consider a review; for the process, which is a bit cumbersome, see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey back

Still here trying my best, still not having fun anymore. The person that stalked ("monitored", "he said, she said", whatever) me seems to have vanished into thin air, as soon as they return i'll split.

Cheers, keep it up --Quite A Character (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Not the original stalker no sir, but another "friend", at Lass Bangoura: would you consider saying a region where a team/club comes from "flowerly language"? This other user (not all the time like the stalker, but on several occasions already, i edit and they perform their "cleanup") does! --Quite A Character (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Well it's kind of clear who he scored for, isn't it, and linking to that region is overlinking. So I don't disagree with that edit, yes. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again...

Hi. Re [18], you might be interested in [19]... Cheers. -- Begoon 03:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Not to worry, Doug Weller took care of it. Thanks. -- Begoon 08:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Saltwater crocodile

Excuse me, Drmies. I have three sources here: https://projectorangutan.com/salt-water-crocodile/, https://marinebio.org/species/saltwater-crocodiles/crocodylus-porosus/, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/7806139/Crocodiles-surf-ocean-currents.html, https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-heaviest-living-reptiles-in-the-world.html. See if they are reliable or not. --Manwë986 (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. --Manwë986 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me --Manwë986 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The Telegraph is a reliable source, but why would you want to cite a newspaper for this kind of stuff? Marinebio, that website looks...well, great, maybe for kids. I wouldn't cite any of these. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Because these are all the sources I can get my hands on. I should have said that which one of them is reliable. So the 'Telegraph' is a reliable source to prove that the saltwater crocodile is the largest living reptile, right? --Manwë986 (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Manwë986, I hope Drmies didn't mind but here is a (hopefully) WP:RS ~ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/s/saltwater-crocodile/ ~ by the way Hi! Drmies ~ nice to see you again ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Manwë986, if those are all the sources you can get your hands on then maybe you should take that as a sign. Also, why is this here? Discussing reliable sources happens on WP:RSN, and all this is more suitable for the article talk page, where the experts hang out. Thanks Mitchell for the link: it says "crocodilian", though, not "reptile". I don't know if that matters--I like mammals myself and don't know much about cold-blooded animals, including humans. Manwe, you need to look for books and peer-reviewed articles. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand College of Education

Looks fake to me. Hesitant to AfD or G3 in case I'm wrong.-- Deepfriedokra 15:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Stupid vandalism

I don't know what you did to brass off 77.82.254.108, but a good friend of mine who has only recently come out got attacked last week so if I spot any homophobic abuse on Wikipedia I am currently in the mood to kick the perpetrators up the arse and tell them to not let the door hit them on the way out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I keep forgetting who it is. Jared is a possibility, or My Royal Young, or that Hotline. They're pretty much all the same, as far as I'm concerned. I think they borrowed some things from Grawp, maybe--that stupid Nazi stuff, but in a more infantile way. Thanks for cleaning up. BTW Drmies is gay? OK, big deal. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
It was DatGoodDude342 that did most of the work, I just wandered in with my banhammer and smacked it down with the power and might of Mjölnir. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Yep, always happy to be of assistance! DatGoodDude342 15:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hey Drmies, would it be possible to get you to take a look at a pair of single-purpose accounts? They're both brand new, and they've both sort of edit warred over the same content at Sam Harris. There's clearly other issues here, but I figured it might be worth asking if they're engaging in sockpuppetry before I spend more time trying to explain the other problems to them.

Thanks! And if I need to file a WP:SPI instead just let me know, I figured this was minor enough that I could just ask directly. Nblund talk 21:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Nblund: Most admins would be willing to block these, per WP:DUCK, but it's still useful to file an SPI, to see if a) there's a more prolific master, b) if there's sleeper accounts, and c) to document this, so if they show up again, we have the history in a logical place. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Vanamonde, that's a good point. I've opened that investigation here. Nblund talk 21:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nblund: Thanks. FYI, I repeated another editor's question on the supposed sock's talk page, not expecting an answer; however, they did answer, and said straight out that the other account was theirs. It still wouldn't hurt to ask for a CU, because the editor wasn't upfront about the alt account initially, but this reduces the urgency somewhat. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree. The first should be a milkshake. Should I tweet Katherine? I ran the check and blocked without realizing that the second account claimed they had lost their password. So, now the question is do I unblock the second account? I'm mightily suspicious of their editing, their usernames, and their style. I suspect there's an earlier account out there, but I can't find one (or think of one). The user hasn't made a formal unblock request, and I don't think I'll do anything until then, but I'd welcome input from you and Vanamonde93 on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies is waiting for either NO or Dallas to score a touchdown, and chances are they will be in bed before that happens. In bed, yes, with Among the Lost. I don't know why I was saddened that Estela was doing lines of coke--it's not like she had any redeeming qualities to begin with. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no opinions: haven't looked at the matter. I will if you'd like me too, but I haven't had dessert yet. Yes, do tweet Katherine (whoever that is--a power player, no doubt). Drmies (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: It's partially my fault, I suppose, I should have left a notice at the SPI. I find their editing mighty suspicious, too. That said, my personal inclination would be to give them rope; if they're agenda is what it seems to be, they'll be indeffed soon enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: For the moment, I've responded to the user's somewhat aggressive unblock request. I'm going off-wiki for the day soon, so this will have to wait for tomorrow. In the meantime, if he has time, Drmies can study the situation and give us his opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Given that this editor doesn't seem to know their way around Wikipedia I'm inclined to think they are a new editor. However it caught my eye that they pointed out this previously blocked editor [[20]] in relation to the Sam Harris page here [[21]]. Springee (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you meant to use this diff, Springee. I don't know if this editor is connected, but I've definitely never seen a new editor talk about "wikilawyering" and talk page archives after this few edits. There have been a number of other SPAs that crop up to dispute his status as a philosopher over the years: (Jeremyviele2, Lordmuppet, Bbfoxy) On the other hand, I get the sense this editor isn't going to last long anyway. Nblund talk 20:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

South Florida Council

Many thanks for the Barnstar! And yes, that's really me flying. When I was going thru my RfA, I got some teasing about Wikipedia editing while flying. I've further expanded the history section of this article with some cites found in LOC archives.  JGHowes  talk 04:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this promotional?

Hi Drmies, Could you perhaps have a quick look at this edit? I'm tempted to revert wholesale (at a minimum, I think that all the "references" have to go), but would like a second opinion before I do that. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I think I have 7, 33, and my old high school teacher was a big fan of 40 (well, in Dutch of course)... This is an incredibly important series for Critical Theory--Minnesota was the one everyone looked at in the 80s and 90s. It is entirely possible that there are secondary sources, scholarly articles, that explain and verify this, but I don't see any of that in the article. The "references", as you indicated, aren't references: they're just bibliography entries. I grabbed one at random, "Toward an Aesthetic of Reception", and JSTOR gave me three reviews for that publication--so of course the individual books might actually be article-worthy. To me it's just another directory-style list, a catalog, and should be removed immediately--but what's so shitty is that we have tons of articles that are just like that, expect their anime books or records released by this or that company. Shoot, there was an article that listed all the publications in this book series, one of these series of embossed hardbacks of famous books that you find in your grandfather's study (well, mine didn't read), and I culled that. But yes, we do have articles that have such lists. I don't think they should stand. Promotional...well, yeah, sure, but the series is over, so that's sort of minimal. What I think the article should have is a paragraph on that series, with good secondary sources, and as far as I am concerned you are welcome to delete that list.

    And yet...finally someone on Wikipedia gives a fuck about some real stuff... Update: I can confirm The Resistance to Theory is here in my office. So this series put Minnesota on a par with publishers like Chicago, Princeton, Routledge, at least for this series, this field. Maybe DGG has an opinion. Thanks Randykitty... Drmies (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Randykitty, I looked at that edit again and undid it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Yeah, I agree with all you said above, that's why I hesitated with deleting that list. Not my field, but it looked notable. That editor is new, when I have time tomorrow, I'll write a note on their talk page, perhaps they can come up with some secondary sources and write a paragraph such as you suggested. Of course things would be different if these were really important works, such as an anime series... --Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, *lesigh*. It's a sad and beautiful world. In other news, almost every Lego kit is still documented on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at some articles on JSTOR while outside the world is burning. I learned a new word: "unrebarbative": "which are far from easy to read. The works by Nikolai Trubetzkoy brought together in Volume 72 are, in conceptual terms at least, comparatively unrebarbative". Yes ma'am. This is pretty funny, and pretty accurate. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it is reasonable to mention the series, though, to be honest, the sort of literary criticism it is devoted to is the sort I mostly avoid. I however share the doubts on the utility of listing individual titles within the article.Such lists are done for genre fiction, but the fact that we have not been able to prevent the pop culture people doing it does not mean we should imitate them. In any case, it would be much better to do it as a separate list, for all important academic series.--and at the least, the basic necessary context is the date of the original & the name of the translator.--the dtae is in the footnotes here, but not the translator. Such lists for series of original works could be defended, because every title on it is likely to be notable; it's harder for reprint series like this, because in general the individual reprint editions will not be themselves notable . Anyway, its unreasonable to list some series only especially when thery are not the most important ones in the world, so if we do it, we should do it comprehensively.I could very easily add about 100 of major publishers series--some will have hundreds of items, and for most I could show the series as a series is notable . But there is a better way now, or at least a potentially better way, which is Wikidata, which is principle able of including all published books and their relationships. Able in theory, that is--I suspect it may not yet have the capacity.. But it might be a shame to do it on an individual basis now when our efforts might be about to be superseded by somethign more systematic. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion: this discussion might be better continued on the article talk page. Also, Randykitty said "That editor is new, when I have time tomorrow, I'll write a note on their talk page, perhaps they can come up with some secondary sources and write a paragraph such as you suggested." As far as I can see, that never happened (though the editor started editing on 13 May 2016, which doesn't make them 'new'). At the moment, the article only has this: "The University of Minnesota Press also publishes a significant number of translations of major works of European and Latin American thought and scholarship, as well as a diverse list of works on the cultural and natural heritage of the state and the upper Midwest region." That is not sourced. I've added an external link for now and started a discussion on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If you and others are interested in what people are trying to do at Wikidata, have a look at the contribs of QuickStatementsBot, which currently seems to be entering the data for medical journal articles. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!!!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Alexbesher (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I hear Drmies likes paragraphs and punctuation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Dries, Only reason I write you is that we had an exchange a while ago . . . [redacted] You don't want to be responsible for this, do you?  How could such a breach of procedure even take place at Wikipedia? That could be an interesting point of discussion on social media.  Thanks for your help.

Viewing the above made me so angry that I tried to collapse it within some sort of collapse mechanism but that didn't work so then I became even more angry and then. Anyway, what? MPS1992 (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You mean like what I just did, MPS1992? Hope you don't mind Drmies. Praxidicae (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that. The television just told me that it either was, or was not, oppositional defiant disorder. I might have a large amount of that myself. MPS1992 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies loves punctuation and paragraphs. Thank you all. I tried to read the email, and I'm having a hard time--what I can see are names and phone numbers and accusations and all that, so I am going to take the safe way out. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

NRPanikker

Instant reverts! I should be flattered to be stalked in the middle of the night by such a prolific WikiPrefect. Those of us with insufficient on-board Crimestop rely on your ilk to prevent Crimethink. NRPanikker (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Interested in this one?

[22] Doug Weller talk 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Of [23]. I don't have time now to look carefully. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
A well that never runs dry. Maybe Acroterion would act more decisively than me? Drmies (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I indeffed the second one as a sockmaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Bbb! Drmies (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Concise

Hi, Drmies. I have a question: Do articles in Wikipedia need to be concise? --Manwë986 (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you revisit an AfD?

Drmies, could you revisit [24] please? I get the sense you !voted without doing a search first. There are literally 100s of independent reliable sources. Some "poor" pop culture "list of 10 best XXX" sources to be certain. But those are published in RSes and meet WP:N. But also plenty of books, both popular and of academic origin. The best book, IMO, is conflicted out do to publisher. But it is a great source and great book. And past it, there are still dozens of relevant books including some ones quite highly cited (50+ cites) by academics. Thanks for looking again. Hobit (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Absolutely--thanks. That visual history, where you spot the COI, yeah I suppose you can say that the COI discredits it, but maybe a more neutral way of looking at it (because COI sounds so damning) is to say it's not independent--as in "of course it's going to list all the stuff". I see this frequently not just in games articles but also in Star Strek/Wars/etc. stuff. In other words, if an article that cites it is kept there should be no good reason to exclude such a book, but the book itself, IMO, does not add to the notability of a topic. Does that make sense? Take care, Drmies (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Yep, I think I was just avoiding the word independent as I'm a poor speller and avoid words I can't spell in favor of ones I can by instinct (no spell checker in the classroom...). Just due to the topic (art), copyright law made it impossible for anyone else to publish it. And it really is a wonderful book. The only one I mentioned that I've actually read. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi @Drmies:. Thanks for acknowledging the issues with the ID2020 page. Could you please take a look at it since I cleaned it up, addressing some of the issues which you mentioned (neutrality, less promotion, more independent sources)? I read the news about their using blockchain, so I stopped by to add some updated info. Hope saving and improving is always better than deleting :) What do you say? Thanks a lot --GWes8Rain (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism in Russian weaponry articles

For the last couple of months there has been a wave of disrupting edits coming from typically an Indonesian IP address. The articles being vandalized most frequently are the following: "RS-28 Sarmat", "3M22 Zircon", "Avangard (hypersonic glide vehicle)", "T-14 Armata" and now the "S-500 missile system" seems to be targeted as well. If anything can be done about it from the administrator's side, it would be nice. Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Nicholas Velasquez, two things. First of all, thanks--I dropped a few blocks. Yes, this is very disruptive, and thanks for noticing it. And on this note, your talk page reminds me that Andy Dingley and I criticized you a month or two ago for, well, you know: edit warring and etc. It looks like you have taken our criticism to heart, and given what you are doing, you might well benefit from WP:ROLLBACK, which I am willing to grant you (but I pinged Andy because I want to hear his opinion as well).

    Second, I am trying to remember what I kept running into a few weeks ago--similar articles, maybe about some North Korean missile or something like that, where an editor kept changing ranges. It looks very familiar. So let's keep an eye out, and maybe we'll need to consider semi-protecting some articles and/or blocking some ranges. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with granting rollback. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't quite remember the circumstances of that "criticism" part (though, it was probably the "Burevestnik"-related article), but I would surely appreciate the ability to revert dozens of these disruptive edits without having to do it manually. As to the identity of the vandal, to me it seems more like a bot than a human: too monotonous (the same manipulations with the numbers over and over), the same reasoning of the edits ("Fixed typo", "Additional info", etc.) and too persistent. So, the articles are probably going to need some form of protection, if this continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's a bot--I think it's someone with a one-track mind and a limited capacity for (English) language. You now have rollback: please read the requirements, and put it to its proper use. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind my revert here

Nevermind this [25]. I agree there was too much unneccessary countries, not fully sure on what is vandalism and not. A4516416 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion?

Hi Drmies, I wonder if you'd be willing to offer a second opinion on something. There's an on-going discussion about changing an image at Talk:Blond#Main_Photo_Change_Proposal, in which a user, who is a professional glamor photographer, is saying that he has been adding his own work to thousands of articles without even looking at the images he is replacing (diff). Looking quickly at his talk page and contribs, he's been around a while and has obviously donated a lot of images which have been of benefit to the project, which is not something I want to discourage; on the other hand, indiscriminately replacing images with your own without even looking at them sounds a lot like self-promotional spam to me. What would you do in this situation? Thanks for any guidance. GirthSummit (blether) 11:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Troll(s)

It can become quite annoying when random troll(s) mentions us in edit summaries with inappropriate editing. Usually that is spotted very quickly. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • You get used to it. Nothing much you can do. You can insult them, but they are beyond morality, and particularly this one just wants to be noticed. It's pretty desperate, and I sympathize with their family and friends. Thanks for spotting it. When you see it, don't bother warning--just report as soon as you can. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Flags

I suggest we keep the flags in until we reach a consensus on the talk page.Vhstef (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Vmavanti

The editor does not seem to invite a response, but I think it only fair to let you know he is directly discussing your input at my talk page. Happy days. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Mis-click?

Did you mean to nominate "Queen's University" for deletion, or did Twinkle accidentally follow the redir when you tried to nominate The Tea Room? DMacks (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
  • DMacks, thank you. I undid the damage. God, someone on Reddit is gonna call me out as a Canadahater. Hey, ahem, would you mind putting it up for deletion? I'm terrified I'll make the same dumb mistake again. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a can of Canada's finest.
 Done. You can put your Canuckaphobic tendencies back in hiding. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Damn that's gotta hurt. Reminds me of the time Kelapstick made fun of me for Alabama often needing four downs to get ten yards. Hey, thanks for helping me out; I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome! Maple syrup is good in tea though. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine what maple syrup is not good in (or on). Geoff | Who, me? 19:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I, and the rest of the mining community, can't blame you for nominating Queen's for deletion. As they say, you can tell a Queen's grad, but you can't tell them much. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Apparently Drmies thinks it's not so good on Drmies if it's still in the can. DMacks (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gara Medouar

Drmies, you submitted the OTRS for the image for this nomination over a month ago. Any way to ping them to find out what the holdup is, and how soon the permission might be processed? Or perhaps you know one of the people who works there and might be amenable to assist in processing this one. The nomination itself is over three months old and was approved a while ago, but is being held for the image permission; it would be great to see it finally hit the main page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • BlueMoonset, I got a strange email from someone via OTRS a few days ago, and I don't know what to make of it. So I don't really know what to say--except for "run it". I have an email from the scholar/photographer giving permission, so really it's nothing but paperwork... Drmies (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies, if we run it, absent that OTRS confirmation at Commons, it would have to be without the image, which I thought was important. Can you reply to that person asking when it will be approved, or try for another OTRS contact, as is suggested in the OTRS box on the image's page? The permission needs to be there—crossed "I" and dotted "t" and everything—for promoters to be willing to go forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#NRA Employees Editing Wikipedia?

Not a surprise and of course that doesn't count accounts. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Block on mini-edit-a-thon at Science History Institute in Philly

Dear Drmies,

I'm attending an editathon in Philly on women ecologists, and somebody said account creation has been blocked, apparently by you. Is there any way to lift this? I doubt that there will be more than 5 more accounts created here today.

Thanks for any help,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Smallbones, I don't know when you left this message--on the weekend I'm here only intermittently. But more importantly, what IP? I can't just run CU on you to find out where you are, and what might be going on there. Maybe you can drop a note on WP:AN? Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry, it's over now so nothing is needed now. I wasn't blocked - I got permission a few years ago because of a library I use that's always getting blocked. But the new users were blocked about 17:40 if I read their log correctly. Next time I'll remember to get the IP address. Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Sure thing Smallbones: I remember what that was like--it happened to me while teaching a Wikipedia class. But yes, without the IP address there's little to look at. Do let me know next time, and you can always post this on AN as well, for quicker response maybe from more knowledgeable editors. Thanks, and thanks for your work for the project, Drmies (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The List of Terrorist incidents issue

Dear Drmies,

I understand your concerns as to why I edited the piece. I was going to every "list of terrorist incidents" and deleting the non-notable pieces and leaving the events with their own separate page. Thanks. just wanted to get that out there,

11S117(talk) 19:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Sure--but that's why God gave us edit summaries. Leaving a good edit summary increases your chances of the edit sticking by a considerable factor. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Emiliano Monge

On 15 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emiliano Monge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Among the Lost, a 2018 novel by Mexican author Emiliano Monge, the victims of human trafficking are described in language borrowed from Dante's Inferno and the testimony of real-life people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emiliano Monge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Emiliano Monge), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Among the Lost

On 15 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Among the Lost, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Among the Lost, a 2018 novel by Mexican author Emiliano Monge, the victims of human trafficking are described in language borrowed from Dante's Inferno and the testimony of real-life people? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Among the Lost), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ugh

Hello D. You'll remember the problem we had on India related article from months ago. This IP 87.92.70.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest that they have edited from. They articles they are damaging are new but the racism isn't. If you or one of your talk page watchers can zap these it will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 00:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Update - El C has done the necessaries. Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 00:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The swine. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Notable American Gay Men

Hi, Drmies -- Realize this list of Notable American Gay Men is becoming somewhat ungainly, but seems a shame to lose it entirely. I find it impressive the number of men in the public eye who are openly gay, as this list attests (and is no doubt but a fraction of the genuine number). A very few years ago, this list would barely exist. I have found myself referring to it a few times a week, intrigued by the names appearing on a seemingly daily basis. Be nice to save it! Thanks, Collier09 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Like I said, a list can be created. It wouldn't be the first such list. In that article, I do not see what the point is: we advertise it as a "history"; we shouldn't be giving our customers a list--esp. not if that list is already problematic from a BLP point of vied, and needs to be monitored quite strictly. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • LGBT culture in New York City had the exact same problem (but with a million pictures). Adding names is just about the easiest thing to do, but it's also the least helpful. Writing content is what should happen. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Your JA nomination of Green children of Woolpit

The Green children of Woolpit article has been imported to v:WikiJournal Preprints/Green children of Woolpit (per WP:JAN). Whenever you're ready to proceed:

  1. Fill in the 'article info' template at the top (often easiest in VisualEditor)
  2. Fill in the authorship declaration form to submit as ready for external peer review to be organised.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


Tabakspanden

Hi Drmies, we discussed the Tabakspanden a while back because of Vrankrijk. Today I got around to starting off a page for Tabakspanden at User:Mujinga/draftTBK, so I thought I'd drop you a line to see if you wanted to add anything or had any suggestions.

It's early days yet, quite a lot more to write/translate but if for example you were also already working on it somewhere else, it would be good to combine forces :) The Dutch page doesn't have much. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Whoa, that's awesome. No, I haven't started anything yet, nor am I likely to do so in the next few days--I have visitors from the motherland, haha, and I am pretty sure they would not think highly of Vrankrijk and what it stood for. ;) But I will be happy to do what I can when I can, maybe next week. Thanks for the heads up, and good luck! De mazzel! Drmies (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess you removed this from some other article?

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers.--Moxy 🍁 16:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
? Drmies (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterman–Smith Building

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterman–Smith Building. BigDwiki (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

My Little Pony

I'm just concerned that other editors may not agree with this, so I reverted your edits. Hopefully you add the episode tables back to the main article, because I can't see them. RareButterflyDoors (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Manafest article

Hello,

Minutes ago you deleted a ton of the Manafest article but neglected to clean up the link citations and ref names. The reference list section now looks like a total mess. If you could please adjust this, it would be appreciated. RhettGedies(talk)

  • A bot takes care of that, and then we can look at those citations again: more improperly sourced material may have to be removed. That article is less of a mess than it was before. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • RhettGedies, I assume you're a fan; you need to have a look at WP:RS and WP:BLP. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Definitely a fan. Wouldn't upkeep the article if I didn't follow the artist. I'm still confused as to why a secondary source interview was deleted when it establishes a lot of history for the artist based on his report in the interview. Yes, it was published on YouTube, but it's not a primary source from the artist. RhettGedies(talk)
      • An interview with an artist is a primary source for that artist's article; that should seem obvious. I am looking at other articles, where the sourcing is iTunes, KickStarter, PledgeFund, and more YouTube. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Totally understand deleting iTunes and various YouTube links. However, again, an interview that was posted to YouTube from an official company that interviewed the artist isn't source-worthy? RhettGedies(talk)
          • Depends. Usually, no--we report what secondary or sometimes tertiary sources say. I'm not sure what you mean with "official company" (I don't know what an "unofficial" company is), but I have not, as far as I know, removed anything reported or printed in notable, mainstream secondary sources. So in that context it seems like padding--and we typically just do not include someone's own commentary unless, again, it has been reported on in reliable and relevant secondary publications. From the article on one of the albums I just removed a ton of video links as well: it's just too much. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

yxngxr1

The links that I provided are relevant and are all accurate, they are taken from the musician's personal profile on the social media that I provided. (Maybe exepte the Imgur link that was a screenshot of the storie/ the post that I provided. If you want I can give you the original link for that post.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der under Smurf (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I am not convinced you understand what Wikipedia is, either in terms of reliable sourcing, promotional editing, or achieving consensus. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, the links and sources are relevant to the article. They contain the correct/accurate information on the musician — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der under Smurf (talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
      • No they don't. They may be relevant to the subject, but they are of no value, no matter how many SoundCloud or iTunes links you stick in there. You can't even prove in any reliable way that he's distributed by Empire, setting aside the fact that NBAND requires "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". Even if your claim were true, it's one, and it's with a distributor, not a record label. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: reversion of my edit to Redskins name controversy

I added both the removed content and created the linked article on the Washington Redhawks. After almost two years with no further actions by the group calling themselves "Rising Hearts" I thought that this addition was my mistake, and the protest was not encyclopedia-worthy, thus my deletion today. The main article is too large to support all the small details that swirl around the controversy. Neither a random deletion nor ownership, this was cleanup to maintain the article's GA status.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey. I am not going to fight over it and I know what you've done for the article--but I do think the edit summary was a bit odd. If you put that main article up for deletion, won't it be kept? What I'm saying is that I don't think it's a great reason to remove it, though there may well be others. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised to see the word "fight" in response to my mild inquiry regarding being reverted. Yes, my edit summary should have been more descriptive, or pointed to a talk page section (which I have since added). I assumed that you did not know how much I have been responsible for the content of a GA, or my edit would not have simply been reverted.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Double checking

Hello D. Is this edit different enough to not be the copyvio that the previous edit was? Thanks for checking. MarnetteD|Talk 05:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Moomins

When did WP:CONSENSUS get repealed? 8-( Mass blanking of a number of character articles from a substantial series would never happen if these were DC or Marvel characters. Why is non-US fiction always treated so much more harshly? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well said, Andy. "Muumitalon asukkaat seuraksesi kohta saat...Pääset mukaan viidakkoon..." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know--ask those who make those distinctions. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
You've just single-handedly blanked a number of character articles - including the eponymous main character. On what possible basis? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Ahem, I think that should be obvious: on the basis of them not having enough sourcing to pass the GNG. A list is the best possible solution there, with short, referenced entries. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
You've been here too long to be confused between sourcing available to a topic and sourcing currently in an article, as written. You're claiming that the eponymous main character is "not notable", i.e. adequate sourcing does not exist. Such that even a redirect of their name shouldn't be categorised in a character list category. Seriously? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I have been here too long. Why can't you speak to a human being as if you're NOT on the Internet cussing someone out? Drmies (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Because you've done the digital equivalent of walking up to someone else's sandcastle and kicking it over, just because you can. This doesn't improve the encyclopedia or its coverage of Moomins. This doesn't save someone the embarrassment of a derogatory BLP. This is just your ego exercising itself, doing things that don't need doing, but they massage your inflated sense of importance as Keeper of the Sacred Knowledge. There are many edits like this, but it's a surprising realisation that they nearly all come from the same handful of editors. These are not positive edits. Did the article need work? Of course! Does this action improve the likelihood of that happening - no, quite the opposite. Particularly because I have every expectation that if anyone did restore it, or then proceed to work on it, then your response would simply be to repeat the blanking (I can't predict the future, but I can count the past).
We also have a vague set of principles based on a community and consensus within it, particularly for deletions. Did you follow that? Or did you just do what you decided on your own? And then when you were challenged here, did you stop and discuss it? Or did you just double down and carry on removing even more of it. So, yes. I am pissed off at your behaviour here. But also unsurprised. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused; this wasn't deletion, it was merging. Isn't this more like someone walking up to your sandcastle and carefully moving the whole thing into the area of the beach where the sandcastles are less likely to get kicked over? I guess I can understand someone disagreeing with that, but I don't understand the outrage. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like Andy sees it looking more like <redacted>? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
It rather looks like Andy came over to piss on my sandcastle just because he can. He didn't "challenge" me here, he just came by without manners but with an impressive amount of bad faith. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Merging phone surveillance articles

Hello, considering topic overlap I wanted to discuss potentially merging several pages regarding phone surveillance. I see you've recently done some edits on one of these pages, so wanted to bring it to your attention. Talk:Cellphone surveillance would love to hear your thoughts. Tecuixin (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked IPv6 ranges

Hi Drmies! I hope you're doing well! It's been awhile since we've said hello, and it's great to talk to you again (as always). :-) I was handling a report at AIV regarding an IPv6 address that was causing disruption onto the talk pages of its range, as well as other user accounts. After looking into things and checking out the scope, I applied a range block to 2601:600:A280:553C::/64 for one week. After going through and lifting the individual blocks so that the range block would take precedence, I noticed that you already have a range block applied to a narrower range of 2601:600:A280:553C:2000::/67 and for a month. I wanted to let you know about this so that we can take a look and determine which range and which duration is best to use, so that we could adjust these two blocks so that only one between them is applied (if applicable). This will lower the potential confusion for editors and other admins who may not understand ranges and why some of these IPs show your block, while others show mine. It looks to me like we should combine these blocks to use the /64 range and do so for one month, but I'd like to get your thoughts and input as well. Can you take a look and let me know what you think? (Just ping me in your reply here so that I receive a notification). Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, I always find WP:/64 to be good advice when it comes to ipv6. SQLQuery me! 03:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
SQL - Same here, but I wanted to check in and discuss it with Drmies in case there's important details that I don't know about that would have an impact with just going with a /64 range and 1 month duration merge of these blocks... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Oshwah, thanks for the note and for that block. Same set of a-holes, no doubt. Here's what I think: whatever you do is usually right; I went with the range that I found using the rangeblock tool with the vandal IPs that I plugged in (you will have seen that I used magic glasses to see how many accounts there were--there were very few). The only thing I would say is, well, a week might well be enough, but I picked a month because some of that shit went back to 6 or 8 October, if I remember correctly, and maybe earlier. You do what you think is right, and if SQL agrees with you, all the more reason to stick with it. Srsly, I do NOT mind y'all looking over my shoulder. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies! I've gone ahead and increased the /64 block to two weeks so that we meet in the middle there, and unblocked the /67 range, as it's serving no purpose and is only redundant at this point now. All set! Thanks for responding and for giving your thoughts and your very kind words. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocking an IP

Hi Drmies. For the life of me I cannot find the page on which to request blocks! Even tried going through the ptwiki page and hopping to enwiki, but the pages do not match! User 88.157.219.35 is the blocked Nuno Coimbra. Can you assist? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rui Gabriel Correia, There's no general page for blocks. Useful ones might be WP:AIV for routine blocks of vandals, WP:ANI for general urgent stuff (and generally home for lots of drama—tread carefully there). For sock puppets it's WP:SPI, but I'm not sure on the policy around IPs there. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
What Gaelan said. But you were right, and I dropped a couple of blocks. I did replace that terrible photograph. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment of Bill Clinton revdel request

Hi Drmies, will you please revdel this edit [26]? S0091 (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Review / Revert

Hey- I assume (not certain of course) that you can't speak Mandarin or Hokkien but are at least passingly interested in Taiwan, China and Asia. In the coming month (Wikipedia Asia Month) I will be making a few new articles related to Taiwan, China etc. I have also been working on Asia-related articles consistently for about two years- and learned a lot! I would like to invite you to come by periodically and use your perspective as a long-time Wikipedian to check over edits I have made and make sure that the way I present things is comprehensible / understandable to an English-only audience. Also, I added more sources on that one recent incident near Qimei, Penghu that you had reverted- let me know if you think it's worth being there. Here's another article you may be interested in that I have worked on: 1948 United States Senate election in Texas. Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Dmitrev

Hello Drmies. I do not understand your edit. Could you explain it in more detail? Is there such a rule? In ruWiki this is not. For example, Статьи = Articles Is this the English Wikipedia rule?Wlbw68 (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, this is conventional. Books are worth listing, since one can assume they were reviewed and thus have some noteworthiness; ideally they should be referenced with such reviews. That does not work the same way for articles, unless the articles have been specifically noted in secondary sources. Imagine us listing all the articles scholars produce, esp. in the physical sciences with their many co-written articles. The net result of also listing articles is that it turns what should be a biographic article into a resume (or, worse, a link dump). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Need a page move urgently

I need over help a page move of highly visible page .Thanks.Can you please move Draft:Abdullah Qardash.Thanks.Made a wrong move.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt response.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Confused

Apparently you removed the thread you pinged me to? I gutted that article and haven't tried to communicate with our NOTFACEBOOK friend. We'll see what happens. BTW, I had 3 surgeries last week and am pretty much not here. Just be happy the tide is still undefeated. My guys (BSU) dropped out of that rare class last week. John from Idegon (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • No, it's still there. I hope the editor pays attention. Yes, still unbeaten, but half of Alabama is praying for someone's ankle, and I just heard that LSU, which had some trouble dealing with Auburn, is now #1. Oh, that was a close loss--sorry. I'm actually a minor BSU fan: if it weren't for Boise I wouldn't have been married to Mrs. Drmies. You live in Boise? Lovely town; I'd love to go back. Need me some more of that Basque food. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • In E. Oregon. Boise is the neighborhood big city. BSU's commitment to the overall success of their student athletes is impressive, as is their post collegiate success list. Was a fan even when I lived in Michigan. But then again, I was a staunch supporter of Bobby Knight too. John from Idegon (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not that it's any of my business but where I come from American Football (to distinguish it from real football), with the ridiculous amount of protective gear the players wear, is seen as a sissy sport for people who are too fragile (or cowardly) to play rugby (a sport for real men...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, what can I say: rugby is exciting but crazy. I used to watch some of that when I was back home--but watching this (esp. #2) makes me side firmly with those who like protective gear. Imagine their head hitting the ground time after time. And I don't know about all that manliness. As for American football, type in "prothro" in your Google search box. "catch" will be the first hit--it's amazing. The second, "injury", I can't watch that anymore. In other words, you can have injury even with protection. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Katfactz

This user just undid my edit again at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019, I think its safe to say asking for the issue to be brought to the article's talk-page regarding the source should have been enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

First off, you were the one that undid my edit. I updated definitions based on the content of their sources, which was not disputed but still undone. More to the point, you undid my edit of removing a source which no longer exists. Simple edit made into a political game so you could include a source which bragged about trying to take down the NRA ... even though the source doesn't even exist anymore.Katfactz (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I could care less about the source, its your edit warring that is of issue. What is stopping you from doing something like this again with another editor? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Happy Monday, Drmies! Katfactz has been given a 24-hour time out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
You too, Ivanvector! Drmies (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh that escalated quickly--holy moly. I don't get that aggression. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

NOT YOU

...Ivanvector. Take care. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Alabama football

LSU winning actually benefits BAMA. Knocks Auburn out

Not respecting BDR

Hi. In EOKA article, I have made an edit [27], Dr.K. reverted [28] and I opened a discussion on it (respecting BRD) at Talk Page.[29] While the discussion continues, Dr.K. keeps adding staff that are not important in my opinion [30], and when I reverted him,[31] he reverted back,[32] not following BRD guideline. The situation get worse as I feel that his comments are extremely rude.[33],[34] Can you pls have a look? Thanks. Cinadon36 19:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi Doc. Please do something about this harassment by this account. Thank you. Dr. K. 19:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Cinadon36, I do not understand this edit of yours and the associated edit summary. "Staff"? Honestly, I see pretty relevant and neutral content with strong sourcing. BTW I also don't see how you refer to this (a lawsuit over torture by the British forces?) as "pretty insignificant". That seems unnecessarily cruel, if not non-neutral to me. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the q. Drmies, I thought I have explained better in the Talk Page. The thing is that torture has been discussed elsewhere in the article. The specific section covers the lawsuit not the torture allegations per se. Torture is a heinous practice (it was employed by both UK and EOKA) but should we have to cover every act of torture or every lawsuit we will get off topic soon. Secondary sources have covered the torture as discribed at section "Detention Camps and claims of torture" which I was the major author. Now can you pls explain Dr.K. to move back to stable version before adding opinions as facts? Or comment on his continual harassment? Thank you. Cinadon36 06:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't answer loaded questions, Cinadon, unless I like the load. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
What is the unjustifiable assumption at my loaded Question? Pls note that now Dr.K. is trying to push an edit of his without gaining consensus. Not respecting BRD almost always ends up in edit wars. That's not a constructive attitude. Anyway, you don't have to dig into it, I get that EOKA is a boring issue for many. Cinadon36 18:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The load is the supposed continual harassment. EOKA isn't boring to me, but it's not my area of expertise. I have known Dr.K. for a long time and I do not know him as a harasser. I know him as tenacious, sometimes to a fault, but that's hardly the same... Drmies (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Cinadon36, I am reading over that talk page and I don't get your points. The sourcing is solid, and if that lawsuit isn't discussed in books, meh--that does not matter, what matters is that it happened, and it was reported on in reliable sources. So that should be set aside immediately. That mention of the lawsuit would somehow "shame" the UK, well, allegations of torture and a court settlement have a tendency to suggest shameful behavior. Leaving out well-verified facts because they would shame some country or government, that's the very definition of whitewashing. And that this would "glorify" the other side, I don't get that at all and it's just as irrelevant, IMO.

    I looked over the "Detention camps" section, but the existence of that section doesn't obviate the need to report on a legal case fifty or sixty years later. So no, I cannot agree with you. Plus, that section needs serious proofreading--for one thing, and it's important, "The situation of the inmates there was a matter of dispute" is quite unclear. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

About proofreading, I agree with you. "The situation of the inmates there was a matter of dispute". Some authors say that conditions were roughly ok (ie Richter) Maybe I will address the issue later. I also agree that the existence of the section doesn't obviate the need of mentioning the lawsuit 60 years later, I only say that the lawsuit should be trimmed. But the reason I came here was to tell you about a user who is repeatedly not respecting BRD policy/guideline. Anywayz, it is obvious that you had a look at the article, thanks for that. Cheers. Cinadon36 10:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Screaming for help from WP:RGW-ville (for some reason)

Aaugh, Dr. M. and friends, I don't have enough bandwidth to deal with an issue at Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts) that keeps reasserting itself. I brought this up at the BLP noticeboard and that was helpful for a while but then this dropped off that community radar. Apparently there was a sexual-abuse issue and User:Optimistaverdad is solely invested in telling their version of events to the encyclopedia-reading world. As it happens, I sometimes like an author who went to that prep school, but that's not at a "dog in this fight"-level of investment. I DO have an investment in soapboxers not soapboxing in the encyclopedia.

Long story short, y'all: I can drop in here for five minutes at most at a time. I can occasionally carry on a protracted argument if the other side is a fellow 8-to-7 professional who understands that WP volunteers get to jump in here from time to time but if the world goes to Gehenna (as it is now, and I'm courting disaster even by throwing this message-in-a-bottle into the sea) I'm going to have to ask for fellow SEC football fans, and their own personal fans at whatever level, to reorient the real optimists of the world. Thanks, pholx. Much obliged. ("Go, Nats!" says, with fading hope, the HSV native who lived just off the DCA runways for way too many sleepless years...)- Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this one keeps coming back, or rather, it has never gone away. I acted on the BLP complaints -- several times -- because they were valid. Like Juliet, I don't have the time to argue the NPOV and UNDUE thing to death. I slapped a trio of templates on it because I thought it might help. I've tried trimming things a few times. I've tried giving out some warning templates, I think. But Drmies, do you have a heavy-trimming type tool of the large-garden variety, ready for action?
I am probably not arguing for the "coverup" material to be removed entirely, but I think some outside input would be great. MPS1992 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
<literally LOLing at the thought of my late Nashville-native/Redstone Arsenal-civilian-"veteran" dad with a "heavy-trimming type tool of the large-garden variety, ready for action" and my mom's presumptive shuddering direction of "oh, Lordy, Juliet-Delta, put some old towels down in the car so Dad doesn't bleed all over my Corvette when we take him to the emergency room..."> - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: in future I would prefer that you would avoid discouraging Drmies from dealing with issues, by not suggesting or implying that you have some family relation to him. I have no idea what a civilian veteran dad is, but if Drmies is not one of those with regard to you, then the above may have puzzled him. MPS1992 (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies; we had talked in the past about the fact that I'm from Alabama. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The apology is all mine, I had no idea of that, and I have no understanding of the Alamaba mentality either. Something crimson? MPS1992 (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Haha, this made my day. I actually haven't lived there since I was out of university but the culture one grew up in does end up seared into one's read-only memory; "The Bear", for example, means something altogether different than "a bear", for starters! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I used to live one block off of Dead Coach Drive... Drmies (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  Boo!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Drmies:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – DBigXrayᗙ 15:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

There's something I think I should bring to your attention

Nights at Nyte re-instated content that had been added by Simmerdon3448 that was reverted, at Summer Camp Island and Infinity Train. I'm not filing an SPI because I'm not even sure if it's him - Nights at Nyte has been editing much longer than Simmerdon.

Pinging other editors involved with Simmerdon as well to see their thoughts on this matter - Alex 21, NinjaRobotPirate. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 18:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Original research, reliable sources, we're not a forum, and competence is required

Thank you for advising me of your intention to block me. My response below:

1. I believe you are abusing your editorial privilege by threatening to block me when I am complying with Wikipedia guidelines for neutrality and reliable sources, and am letting you know of my intention to raise a dispute against you.

2. The Wikipedia guidelines for neutrality state:

‘All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.’

I have numerous reliable sources to cite which fall well within the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources.

3. I also believe my competence is likely to be greater than editors who have alleged I am using false science, and I can easily prove it in a few lines using nothing more than high school physics. Alternatively I can cite numerous references to peer-reviewed journals and other sources which fall within the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources

4. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, the first step towards raising a dispute is to notify the editor on their talk page of the intention to do so, and to try and the dispute resolve through amicable discussion.

I can participate in a proper and respectful discussion if you are willing. Alternatively I can proceed with raising the dispute. If you block me I will be left with no option but to create another user ID and proceed with the dispute against you.

Dr Realidad (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I responded at the user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- ferret (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Aye

October
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for having suggested the right candidate for arbitration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - I restored the thread above - without pic - to his talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_124&oldid=1045696122"