User talk:Drmies

That's right y'all.

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas, Drmies!

"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Your Opinion Please

Hello there

Hope you're doing well?!

I would like to know your opinion on this edit, where User:Esszet insists to delete the whole content of a section due to non-neutral. But I've read NPOV a few times and can't see a reason for an act like that. Can you help and guide me please, as you did before? Thanks a lot! MetalS-W (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I thought I was doing OK but then I read this and now I'm asking myself all kinds of questions. Rainbow! Sure, I'll have a look, unless that's too masculine and patronizing. I've always had a problem with "Starstruck", by the way. I'm certainly not ordering coffee for Ritchie Blackmore. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Hmm OK--the sourcing is pretty poor, and the opening sentence is not neutral enough... The last bit, about that Iranian band, that's not well-sourced enough to prove any kind of relevance; if a more notable/reliable magazine had published on it maybe, but a Deep Purple fan site, no. This Schmier guy is (encyclopedically speaking) nobody, but Rob Halford is somebody and we appreciate his opinion. So, Byff and Halford's comments are relevant, if the whole thing is phrased much more neutrally. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• And now I got "Man on a Silver Mountain" stuck in my head--thanks a lot! Drmies (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Thanks, I've learned something new today. I am sorry if you don't have a good taste in music but that's alright, we are all different ;)

Thanks again anyway, may I suggest you this or this and hopefully you will feel better?! Peace! MetalS-W (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wait--you like Starstruck but not Man on a Silver Mountain? Come on! :) Drmies (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oh! I adore them both, I thought you were sarcastic! I take my word back, Sir. You have a very good taste in music! :)
  • BTW I've Googled and I found an article about that Iranian band on Bravewords but I can see it is already there, maybe I added it previously but I can't remember atm.I think Bravewords can be considered as a reliable source. MetalS-W (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:MOS-ALBUM. It doesn't say anything about including other musicians' opinions on the album at all. The entire section just seems like an attempt to make the album look good; what does it add to the article? Esszet (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It is about the 40th anniversary, which came with that SHOCKING tour. I think we should find a way bring that back into the article. Just check out the poster and you can see what I mean. MetalS-W (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Esszet, if the people commenting on the album are notable, and the comments are relevant and reliably sourced, then I see no reason to exclude them--it becomes a matter of editorial judgment. An Iranian band, maybe not, but that depends on the quality of Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles and the depth of coverage--not to mention the importance of that one band. The singers of Saxon and Judas Priest, yeah, their opinions are likely to be notable, but there also it depends on the source and the depth. No one cares for a passing comment, of course, but if it's more than that, perhaps. I'm not going to draw many conclusions from the poster, and some coverage from Blabbermouth is also not enough (too much NOT a WP:RS), but if the Byff and Halford references are valid, then why not? Or we could ask Blackmetalbaz (who knows metal and Wikipedia like few other people), or more generally Dan56 (who is likely, I think, to take a more conservative approach, and has wrote up more FAs than Blackmore had keyboard players). Drmies (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Quite simply because you don't need a 40th anniversary reflection section, even if the people commenting are notable. Look at articles for other famous albums from the 60's and 70's: Revolver, The Doors, Led Zeppelin IV, and why not even [[Machine Head (album}|Machine Head]]. You might find some retrospective commentary, but a) it's generally from professional critics b) it's not for a specific event like the album's 40th anniversary. And MetalS-W, I looked at the poster, and I don't see what you mean. Even if you personally found the tour "shocking", you'd have to find a lot of other people saying the same thing if you want it to be included here. Esszet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Esszet, I find it very refreshing to see an obvious fan who is not eager to put such information in. However, if notable people find it relevant to comment on the occasion of the 40th anniversary (if that's what's going on), then, simply put, that 40th anniversary has become notable. BTW I do not base anything I said here on a poster. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really, simply because they're not critics and it's critical opinion that matters here. Reducing it to a single sentence in the "Reception" section would be fine, but you certainly don't need an entire section for it. Esszet (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, I don't know much about Rainbow at all. I was led to the page from Sad Wings of Destiny, and I haven't heard much of their music at all (if any). Esszet (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, those early albums are really good, and the live album, On Stage, is excellent--a bit noodly for some, maybe. Anyway, we are not limited by policy to "critics only"; that would also beg the question of what a critic is. Musicians can be critics as well. I've said already, I think, that I would suggest limited space. But if some terrifically notable person says such glowing things, yeah that's important enough. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that these people are notable, but not for their opinions on other people's music. Their opinions thus generally aren't notable. Esszet (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Esszet, you're repeating yourself, and so I shall too: this makes no sense. To some extent they are experts in their fields, and it is prima facie ludicrous to not have a musician talk about which other musicians have been important to their music. Have a little common sense. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What? You certainly wouldn't put "Rob Halford" in the ratings box, and if they're talking about influence, then fine, but reduce it to a sentence like "Musicians such as [blank and blank] have cited it as an influence" and move it to the "Release and reception" section. You don't need a "40th Anniversary" section just for other musicians' appraisals of it; it would fit in just fine in the "Release and reception" section. Esszet (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes my judgment is a bit clouded. What I was getting at is that such comments are notable, but not notable enough to warrant an entire section dedicated exclusively to them. I reduced it to a single sentence and kept Snowy Shaw's comments in; that should get the point across without sounding too biased in favor of it. Esszet (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, ß--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what can come of this

Hoping you or some talk page stalkers can help with some advice on this. The discussion at Talk:Deflategate has become a massive assertion of point back and forth, and is taking over the talk page. I'm not sure any kind of consensus will come out of it or if it should continue on the talk or move to AfC? Any suggestions appreciated. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Eh...eh... Drmies (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• OK. That's exciting. I suggest you let this go nowhere. There is editorial consensus against their "scientific" evidence, by I think four editors. If need be, if that person starts inserting it in the article again, I suggest you run a quick RfC just on the general question "should we include this kind of evidence", just to get it ironclad. If the editor does not stop clogging up that talk page, you can always ask for a topic ban, a very narrow one. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Assuming we are talking about Rob Young in New Hampshire (that's not a ping), the guy is literally a monomaniac -- that article is literally all he has edited on on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both for the comments - I'll keep an eye on it and hopefully it wraps up soon - at this point Rob Young is outlining points to himself, as no one else is really engaged in this conversation...hopefully he moves on to other articles soon. Garchy (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Adriatica McKinney, Texas

Regarding this diff... Are you sure??? They sure look like the same thing to me... :-\ --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yep. This may still not be notable but it's better. But...how do you know? I have admin glasses... Drmies (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Not trying to argue with you. I just don't don't see anything different... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I know, but how can you see anything at all? Drmies (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Would it be possible to show a comparison of the two pages, to show the content and reference changes? Request here from Zackmann08. Btw Zack, I'm also a non-admin. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, alrighty then...

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Patriotsontop#Leave_the_adminning_to_the_admins_please

Jeez, just trying to help. I'll try to respect your authority next time. Patriotsontop (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Patriotsontop

• How were you trying to help? By falsely presenting the article as protected? Not a question of authority--it makes no sense to put a "protected" template on an unprotected page, or to pretend in an edit summary that you protected an article. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hsiung Feng III

An IP hopper who has been adamantly pushing the use of blogs and tabloids for an exceptional claim despite being repeatedly refuted has been laying siege to Talk:Hsiung Feng III for a few months now. But lo, it appears we've made progress; after realizing he stands no chance he has resorted to (incorrectly) pointing out spelling errors, as can be seen in the RfC section that's now in shambles. Just came to tattle because it's become annoying and disruptive. Lizard (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• You mean this one? That talk page is not fun to read. If all those letters and words and paragraphs led to a better article with better sourcing, fine--but if editors have to waste their time arguing that certain papers are tabloids and that that tabloids shouldn't be used, that's disruption. I appreciate editors' patience in dealing with that RfC, but it strikes me as needless, and if this continues, this time wasting, we should maybe consider other measures. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• I mean this one, who I suspect is the same editor as most of the other IPs on the page. I should have specified that what's causing the RfC to be needless is the editor's inability to understand the concept of reliable sources. But I'd have no objections if you went and closed it right now. Lizard (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm well, it only just started. I think what you can consider is just pressing participants for a straight up or down vote because that discussion is going nowhere; there's not even real conversation about the second and third issues. And you can, if you like, hat the discussions about the tabloids, which is clearly off-topic. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

re: Nerds on Site

I'm not finding much on the internet regarding this company, other than their website, and the Wikipedia article. Maybe we should delete it? Boomer Vial^Holla 05:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know. It's been here a while, and typically admins don't speedily delete stuff that has some history. But the article history is mostly full of trash. I removed one or two of the tags (there's some claim of importance), but chose to edit it some rather than delete it. If you can't find anything, just leave the tag on and the next admin will judge it. If they decline, then you can choose to take it to AfD (the IP editor can't do that). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Would that be ...?

... an Auto-SPI when you list yourself? It's inre to vote stacking in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Dallas Dance (2nd nomination). — Sam Sailor 19:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sampaolesi line

Hi Drmies, just so I know, could you please tell me why the "Image of Sampaolesi line during Gonioscopy: " is invalid? (Article: Sampaolesi_line). Cheers Jkokavec (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Jkokavec, hi--for two reasons: a. "See also" is for links to other Wikipedia articles; and b. even as an external link, we typically don't link to such external images--I see nothing in WP:EL that suggests we should include links to images (see the second paragraph of that guideline). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Can you then suggest how I might alert readers to this important image, without infringing upon Copyright? How else to I indicate that this is an important image for this topic? Thank you, Jkokavec (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, that's the thing--you really can't, because doing so (you, that is Wikipedia saying something is important) is original research. Things are important if secondary sources say they're important. That applies to images, theories, political statements, records, etc... Now, I didn't look at the link, but I assume there's some context there, that someone published it, someone who knows stuff, someone who provided context for it. That document can be a secondary source (if, of course, it's reliable, published, etc.), and then you have both an image and an explanation--an image by itself is nothing, just ask Cam Ward. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Project

Hello. Can you please take a look around Wikipedia:WikiProject Validate credentials and help out if you want. I don't really mind but if you like the idea it would be good to have you endorsing it. Thank you. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 00:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• After what you had to say to me yesterday? Drmies (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies It was an opinion about how you engaged with one editor. I saw it by accident and just thought I would mention it because I felt that attitude could drive away people from Wikipedia, but I am prepared to accept that issue is resolved and move on. I would prefer to move on and it would be good if you would evaluate the merit of the project on the principles and concepts. If you felt that what I said to you yesterday was unmerited, I apologize, but I don’t usually notice something then keep down if I feel it is rude. Sometimes it’s good to get an uninvolved and outside perspective on things? If you don't want to engage with me that's fine but personally I have gone right past that. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 03:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies Additionally, I want you to understand that I am seeing things from your prospective. Probably along the lines of “who is this new guy who hardly has any edits coming along and speaking to me who has put so much hard work into this project… in fact it’s my life! Who does he think he is talking with!” The fact is however, that I can speak from the prospective of an outsider who is not as involved emotionally or otherwise with Wikipedia as you are. This is not a bad thing, as editors like you seem to me to be essential to how Wikipedia functions, however it can sometimes cloud vision. You do deserve respect – and some users like the one yesterday might not exemplify something worth showing much respect back for but I think you are one for being able to always take the higher ground. I love the whole idea of Wikipedia and what it does for people, and respect the work people like you do to keep it going. With that said however, edit counts and time spent on Wikipedia does reflect that you spend a huge portion of your life on here which means you might be very attached to it. When an outsider like me comes along and appears to be dictating or lecturing you – I understand how this could piss anyone off… but if you try to understand my vision. I am a Lawyer off Wikipedia and have a history of standing up with minority groups that are oppressed. It’s with this and my own personal background that I find it incredibly difficult not to openly object to something which appears to be wrong – no matter who I am standing up to. I hope that you appreciate that it could be you or anyone else and it does not mean that I disrespect you as a person. It just means that I hope you could do better, just like I hope I can do better and that if I was ever wrong just as I pointed out to you that you would address me all the same. Thank you for your understanding. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 04:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that is how I felt, and I thought I said so. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies: You seem to be very intelligent and I respect that. I would love it if you could read my new essay and give me some feedback. Its here: WP:LOWEDITFEAR Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm sure he apppreciates that 'seem,' there... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, just wait until he actually reads the essay... Primefac (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

• User:Wiki-Coffee, you have created a WikiProject and two essays (Wikipedia:Wikipedia's bureaucracy and Wikipedia:Fear of low edit counts), all in a few days. I have just had to revert your edits to Wikipedia:No legal threats, which were not in fact a grammatical improvement. You may claim that Wikipedia has a "crushing bureaucracy", but I have very little faith in your being qualified to make that statement. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Is MiT not qualified to make that statement either? Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 18:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Drmies And of course if you did not find that an improvement in the WP:No legal threats I understand. Definately do not agree but understand. MiT referred to Wikipedia as having a "crushing bureaucracy." What is the problem? Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 18:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    • You don't have to ping me on my own talk page. That (interesting) article is one opinion by one person ("crushing bureaucracy" is hardly a factual statement since it cannot be quantified)--from 2013. Plus, Tom Simonite didn't write your essay--you did, and those comments on admins and whatnot are yours. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    • "If users are involved in a legal dispute with each other, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, it is not a reason to block": "it" has no clearly discernible antecedent. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Drmies https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UAtYBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT167&lpg=PT167&dq=Wikipedia%27s+crushing+bureaucracy&source=bl&ots=cKNhcOwEbh&sig=qOwY_xt8-k4mnjSXicmHnCfnrcE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiurNzv1f7RAhWCvhQKHcRfBPgQ6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=Wikipedia's%20crushing%20bureaucracy&f=false, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TcNHDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT87&lpg=PT87&dq=Wikipedia%27s+crushing+bureaucracy&source=bl&ots=Pj3ubSL9y9&sig=VW8uWI0P4u0RJ1U0rnogANekOTw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiurNzv1f7RAhWCvhQKHcRfBPgQ6AEIMDAE#v=onepage&q=Wikipedia's%20crushing%20bureaucracy&f=false . With regard to your issue with my grammar I have forgotten about it. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Drmies Additionally, if you read my essay WP:Wikipedia's bureaucracy I would be surprised if you disagreed with it. There are explanations as to my view on the issues and it might be useful who knows? But maybe when you read it you could then judge it on its merit. If there are specific elements which you would like to challenge I would be more than happy to hear them for debate is the essence of discovery. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 19:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Dongargaon ek jannat

After the users last revert, I've started a thread at ANI, thought you may be interested. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm thanks. Yeah, that was going nowhere. I hope they spend some time on the article we already had. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hilton Hotels & Resorts

Hello, Drmies - I just happened to see this edit to Hilton Hotels & Resorts, and wondering in what way the previous edit had been "bad", I looked at the previous edits and saw what looked like edit warring, adding, removing, adding, and removing what appears to be sourced content. I don't know who is right, but I thought it was possible, since the article is about a hotel chain, that someone does not want anything unfavorable about it to be there, and I thought an IP editor may not recognize edit warring or know what to do about it. I also thought "bad edit" was not a very informative edit summary. What do you think? I leave it up to you.  – Corinne (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I can't speak for YSSYguy, though I gladly acknowledge participating in the annual march of the fuck-knuckles (see their user page). I also saw this and I wonder if this is someone we/I know--then again, everyone seems to hate on Sro23 these days--except for me, Sro! and you have a friend in Jesus! And the IP has some history with YSSYguy. Anyway, I think the edit you pointed at is pretty bad--poorly written, bare URLs, incorrect code, poor references, and the content is trivial, as far as I'm concerned; it's the typical "hey this happened at this place"; yesterday I deleted a fight in a schoolyard or something like that. And typically that sort of trivia is negative, or it doesn't make the paper--I just saw this in the same article. BTW, let's hear it from Herman Brood, the godfather of Dutch rock and roll, who we always thought was more likely to jump off the Okura hotel (wonder if they still have a sushi restaurant at the top level). Sorry--got distracted. Yeah, I don't think YSSY is whitewashing the joint, and I don't think this IP editor is much of an asset. Thanks for the note--and now let's play some rock and roll. This is the Brood song, with Danny Lademacher on guitar--so cool, on the P90-equipped Les Paul, with some cool analog chorus, vintage 1978. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I couldn't give a hoot about the Hilton company. Secondly, in addition to the above, the event had nothing to do with the hotel company, which is the subject of the article, it was allegedly about a particular hotel; also the sources do not actually mention a Hilton hotel. One of the sources says, "Police will allege the man yelled profanities at passers-by and then claimed he was going to blow up a building. It’s unclear which building the man was referring to." One of the buildings at that location is a Hilton hotel, a fact which the IP has used to put two and two together to arrive at five. Yeah, I have been following the guy around WP for a couple of weeks, that's because his edits have been shit; plenty of others have undone his edits as well at various articles, but when I see a bad edit to an article on my watchlist by someone, I also check that person's other contributions as well. YSSYguy (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies, for your reply and the links. I had never heard of Herman Brood, but I like rock 'n roll, so I enjoyed listening to the song. I made a few copy-edits to Herman Brood. I notice there are a few "citation needed" tags there. YSSYguy, thank you for your comment, also. It sounds like you are perfectly correct in your assessments of both editor and edits. Even if you're fairly sure your edit summaries will be ignored by that editor, an edit summary that is slightly more specific than "bad edit" might help other editors figure out what's going on. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne--it's been a while since I looked at the article and stuff has changed some. I worked on it many years ago trying to clean it up, but as so often I just half-assed it, even though I'm a heart and soul rock and roll junkie, just like Herman. Any help is appreciated. Glad we got this worked out, by the way. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit revert

Hi Drmies,

The edit you're talking about is not mine. The person who originally reverted the edit, reverted multiple edits, including mine, which didn't include anything about numbers (I didn't write anything about "30 000 ou 40 000"). My edit reorganized the "notable people" section and added details about various people. Whoever made the first revert, reverted my edit as well as someone else's. My edit was completely sourced. It linked to Wikipedia pages of the people concerned and is completely accurate. As far as I know, my edit was reverted for no valid reason, which is why I was perplexed by the revert, and the mention of a lack of sourcing, which definitely doesn't apply to my edit. Thanks. Gelkatn (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I am talking about this edit. I don't know what all happened before, and it is possible that stuff happened that became part of "your" edit--but you made this edit, and thus you own it. And the "30 or 40,000" edits, that's in the source. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not very hard to see which user made which edit. If you look at the history, you can see that my original edit (not the "re-reversion") did not contain any correction of any figures. It was strictly a textual addition to the people section. The edit you apparently have a problem with is not mine, and whoever (first Haybs and then you) made the first reversion did not do it properly, since my edit was reverted along with the "problematic" edit. The edit he, and subsequently you, wanted to revert was made before, long before, mine, and not by me. Again, it doesn't much effort to look at the history. The "re-reversion" you're linking to came after he reverted my edit along with the "numeral edit", hence my use of blanket reversion to describe it. It was improperly made. He could have re-edited the page, manually, without making use of a blanket reversion that completely reverts everything before it, including accurate contributions, albeit involuntarily. Again, it doesn't take much effort or time to look at the history before making brash editing mistakes. It's very lazy editing, if it can be called such, in my opinion. Gelkatn (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker)The issue appears to be on your end - the revert you reverted (of a revert) did not simply add back in your information - it added in unsubstantiated information that was removed during the first revert. You mention that "he could have re-edited the page, manually, without making use of a blanket reversion that completely reverts everything before it" - but I wonder why you didn't do the same thing - you could have simply added back in the information you had added that was subsequently removed. Garchy (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Gelkatn, it's simple. If you insert obviously unverified or incorrect information, you should be reverted. I really don't care how you came to put that information in there--YOU put it in there. I don't care about your original edit; I care about the edit that inserted obviously unverified and incorrect information. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Gelkatn, how does it feel to assume an identity and pretend to engage in good-faith discussion? Is honesty just something you lay down next to your desk? Garchy, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glozker, which will soon be merged into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HailesG. They've been doing this since at least 2013. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

AJPH landmark articles

Hi there! I'm 146.243.110.117, logged in. :) Just curious about your revision of edits to the American Journal of Public Health. I understand Wikipedia is not a repository for links; however other academic journal articles do list some noteworthy articles in their pages. The articles I added I believed were noteworthy for historic and current event reasons (e.g., the Kawachi article is well-known in Public Health grad programs as majorly contributing to the understanding of social capital as it relates to community health) and far from being a PR campaign was intended to demonstrate the contributions the journal has made to public health. In your revision comment, you said it was not verified. If I am able to cite a reliable source stating the journal considers the listed articles noteworthy, would that be sufficient citation to include the links again? Thanks for your help! ViolinGirl^♪ 17:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• If you have a secondary source, an independent one, that says that this or that article as published in that journal is noteworthy, sure--but if some article is important, that doesn't necessarily make the journal it was published in important, or the fact that it was published in that journal and not another. I've looked at many articles for journals, but I don't think I've ever seen a list like that. Here's the other thing: if a journal has made contributions to (in this case) public health, then one would expect that to be verifiable directly. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It does, thank you very much for your explanation. I will be sure to cite independent sources to verify the noteworthiness of the articles before I implement them into the page for the journal. I appreciate your help! ViolinGirl^♪ 19:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, and good luck with it. BTW, my go-to experts for journals etc. are Randykitty and DGG. While neither are as young or as goodlooking as I am, they both know tremendous amounts and don't mind helping out. Randykitty even knows a thing or two about health. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Myself, I consider a list of famous articles quite appropriate. But they must either be selected as Drmies has described. or be selected on some specified objective manner, such as the number of citations. The actual importance of a journal is the expectation that it will contain importance articles. I'll take a look at the specific situation tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's all been said well, except that I'd like to add that I'm softer and fluffier than Drmies! --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Teun van de Keuken

I left you a question there that I don't think you saw. LadyofShalott 03:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• :) Drmies (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Windsor Law

Hello! In a previous message to me regarding the Windsor Law page, you suggested that we should send you the revised content to review prior to posting. How should we go about doing that - do we put it on here or....? Also, once it is approved, would you suggest reverting the page and then editing out the offending language? We are loathe to completely redo the page when we have already done that and it now just needs clean up. Thank you Moonlore20002001 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Annette

• Moonlore20002001, I don't think I said that--that's not really how it works here. Wait--you're pointing to the standard notification, "you might like to draft your revised article before submission". Yes, that can be done, and the best way to do that is to propose changes on the article talk page and ping an editor or two for advice, and/or leave a note for the relevant WikiProjects (hereWikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, and here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities). For relatively small edits that's the best way to go. What I take issue with is the "you" in your "we should send you"--I'm not a gatekeeper, no one is; these things are done by consensus, so "you plural" would work, but I don't want it to sound like it's us versus you (singular, Annette). And I really think/agree that to make cooperation relatively easy, it's best to propose smaller changes, not a major overhaul. Now, if y'all now have 600 faculty instead of 500 or whatever, and you have a decent source for it, go ahead and make that change; such changes should be uncontroversial. So perhaps focus on those kinds of changes first and get your feet wet, and then we can take it from there. I'm pinging DGG and ... who else ... Kelapstick; the first is a university expert, and the second is a Canadian, so he can translate for us if need be. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Moonlore20002001, I remind you that the subject of an article does not control the Wikipedia page for it. You should, in fact, not be entering content except for straightforward facts with clear sources--updating the number of students, and the like. the current article as it stands is unacceptably promotional, with content that is more appropriate to its own web site -- even from the first paragraph -- "The Faculty of Law embraces the principles of Access to Justice in all aspects of its operation, including its admissions policy, faculty hiring, faculty research and scholarship and its curriculum" This sort of self-praise (or possibly the Canadian equivalent of a US non-discrimination statement) is not encyclopedic content. "to provide upper year law students with a unique clinical legal education experience, and in turn support entrepreneurship and innovation in the Windsor-Essex region" is PR jargon -- I don't personally think this sort of writing belongs anywhere, but certainly it does not in an encyclopedia. The remainder is written in similar fashion. It contains material of no interest to anyone except a current or prospective student, such as the details of admission requirement. I have not yet checked,but it seems possible that some of this may in fact be copied from your web site. It's possible to give copyright permission--a free license that lets anybody reuse and modify the material for any purpose, even commercial, but the material is almost always unsuitable, so it much better to rewrite. And there must be third party references, not just to your web site.

I need to think whether this is so promotional it must be removed to draft space for rewriting, or whether I can quickly do the necessary cutting to let it stay as an article--that will be better than reverting, and, it may be easier for me to do it than to explain to you just what needs to be done.
. And the journal really needs a separate article--but the material there also will need to be rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In general, without having looked at the article in question, I agree with DGG's comments above. Pulled pork tomorrow Drmies, which is always tricky in rural Indonesia. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 10:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Showstudio.com and Nick Knight (photographer)

Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, assistance would be greatly appreciated on these articles. The issues are self-evident...my requests for speedy deletion and page protection have been denied, but the former is especially awful in its current form. Even in its previous incarnation it's a press release. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we have a speedy criteria for UPE, I wonder? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been proposed, most recently here. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer TJW, I see. That's one of those discussins that gets lost once it gets bogged down in discuusing detail: if the original proposal had been focussed on paid editing, rather than the ToU (which admittedly could be a catch-all, almost), it would have been at least a sharper discussion, and possibly a different result. What makes PE different is that the accounts are generally use-once / disposable / throw-away accounts so blocks don't affect them: the only thing that wil stop them- 'follow the money'- is destruction of what they have been paid for. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, anchoring it to the TOU was kindof a way to try to avoid the pitfalls of past proposals. And anyway, it's CSD, which has a new suggestion rate of about one a week and a success rate of near zero. So a body has to overcome that predisposition even if their proposal is a damned good one. TimothyJosephWood 16:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Tone on Talk Pages

Hi Drmies, I was a bit disappointed that on the 2016 United States election interference by Russia talk page, you admonished one user to show collegiality (regarding this comment), but seemed to turn a blind eye to the equally (much worse, in my opinion, actually) behavior of the other editor involved. I would just hope for a bit more even-handedness from an administrator. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm glad you agree that the accusation that placing a DS notice is a DS violation is not collegial (and untrue, of course); I don't see how "for french fry's sake" is worse than that. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you consider the post by VM to be uncollegial? Since you're telling users to watch their tone, I'd just like to see you do so equally. It's not good to tell only one user to watch their tone, while the other involved user is going around leaving sarcastic comments. Just to be frank, it looks very partisan. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I used any "sarcastic comments". What I said I meant literally, funny words aside.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I enjoyed VM's post. He sure has a fancy-brand bent for his word turning. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No. I don't. There's a big difference between making a false accusation and using an unusual phrase that indicates exasperation. I don't know, Thucydides, what is not clear to you here. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious what's not clear to me here. I'm interested to know whether it's acceptable to deal with fellow editors in the way that VM does in the comment linked above. If I were to leave sarcastic remarks and accuse other editors of bad faith (as VM did in the comment linked above), or if I were to make blatantly false accusations against other editors (as VM did in this comment, in the thread you were involved in), would that be viewed as acceptable, or would I eventually land in hot water with the admins? I think the latter is the case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Where was I being "sarcastic"? What I said is that if X is true then find a source that says it. That's it. Nothing sarcastic there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411, Drmies has explained to you twice that spreading falsehoods is much worse behavior than using colorful language to express frustration, yet you continue to conflate those very different forms of behavior. Why are you choosing to behave that way? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thucydides411, this is not a high school playground, or some Twitter forum, where you get points for snarkiness, loaded question, or patronizing tone. This is, besides a schtick, a stick, and you should drop it. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I asked you a simple question, and I was very direct about my reason for asking it. The way you chose to respond was very unbecoming of an admin, let alone a constructive editor. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: "this is not a high school playground, or some Twitter forum": that is called snark and patronization. Thucydides411's question was direct. If you are going to intervene at a talk page and accuse editors of incivility, I'd like to see the even-handedness of an admin. The accusations that are and have been flying around on that talk page are extraordinary. -Darouet (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who you are or why you are busting in here, but you are wrong. This was not a direct question: it was a series of repetitive loaded questions, and I would like to not see those. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I was quite active on the Talk Page of the article in question before you showed up (sorry, busted in) to threaten BlueSalix over DS sanctions there. I was amazed that, given all the shit that had gone down at that talk page already, including numerous false and/or deeply hypocritical allegations of DS violations, you appeared on the talk page to focus on that one particular incident. Why that one, out of everything else? I disagreed with BlueSalix, but they were hardly alone, and acted in an environment that has been established at many of the Russia-US articles. For that reason your very particular intervention did appear partisan, and I appreciated that Thucydides411 asked you to explain yourself there (you didn't). If you are willing to threaten and impose sanctions on one side of an editorial dispute, but not another, there is no possibility that a collegial editing environment will be maintained. And confronting that, not with sarcasm but directly, is important.

P.S. I made my first post on your talk page a week before you made an appearance at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia. You did not reply. My comment more or less addressed a very similar issue. -Darouet (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry I missed that post. But let me list, again, what all it is that I object to. a. The suggestion that the two comments from the two different editors were somehow equivalent. They were not. b. The continued harping on the idea that they were, esp. if couched in passive-aggressive terms such as "Just to be frank..." c. The not at all passive word choice from you and Thucydides. If Thucydides cannot handle one simple non-templated note from an admin--sure, call it a "threat", why not? let's make this more uncollegial--then they should stay out of contentious areas. VM has not, as far as I know, crossed any line in a long time--not since I blocked him last time, I think. Now, if there is something you wish to accomplish, you can do it at ARE, and I wish you the best. Finally, the explanation you said I didn't give, it's in my very first response in this thread. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Labdoo

Hi Drmies, you flagged the Labdoo article for several reasons. I removed my last added section, about Labdoo's zero funding approach, although it is not at all an advertisment, but a description of how Labdoo works. Nevertheless, I removed it. I reduced the history section to a minimum. Is that enough to remove your flags or how does this works?

--AoifeJB (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Q: Montreal in August? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Man that sounds lovely but I don't think I can, Ed. I don't have a budget, and I probably don't have much time. Is there a link for the thing you can send me? Drmies (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about an old reversion of yours

Hey there, Drmies. I'm here to talk about these two edits which you made to the page The Underland Chronicles some time ago. I've been working on getting pages from that book series to GA status, and I'd really like to put some of the material you removed back in. I've been wrestling with how to approach this conundrum for a while, and I could use your advice.

I agree with your removal of the "symbolism" section that used to be there; it was completely unreferenced OR, and it should stay gone. It's the "locations" section that I'd like to restore. The series takes place in a completely original setting, and relies very heavily on the reader's understanding of it; the plot of the series is essentially a war over this fictional territory. I believe that you removed the section at least in part because of its poor referencing, although you simply labeled it as plot cruft, and I've been working on finding secondary and tertiary sources to resolve this issue. I'm confused by examples I've seen of this kind of section/page elsewhere on the wiki, however, like Fictional locations in The Railway Series and Fictional universe of The Hunger Games. Not to cast aspersions on other editors' work, I'm just getting mixed messages about how to justify material that might be seen as cruft-like.

Since it is your reversion I'd be undoing, what would you like to see in a restored "locations" section here? What makes The Underland Chronicles all that different from other book series, except maybe a smaller sales figure? I really appreciate your time spent reading this small essay, and any help you can provide. Happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• 2ReinreB2, as far as I'm concerned all articles are equal; I just haven't gotten to all of them yet. The short answer here is threefold: a. for an encyclopedic article these locations are just not relevant esp. since they're fictional; b. yes, unverified, that's problematic; c. way too much detail. By way of comparison, A Brief History of Seven Killings is set in Jamaica (for the most part)--that's essential to the entire book; that's what it's about. For a fictional universe, the same rules don't apply, since the book makes up the universe. This kind of content is best reserved for Wikia or places like that.

  Fictional locations in The Railway Series is a terrible article and rightfully tagged; Fictional universe of The Hunger Games is equally terrible BUT! one can easily imagine that some of these locations have been written up in secondary sources in regards to their meaning. Articles are all equal, but not all books/topics are: some should be written up in more detail than others because they're more important, according to reliable sources. That ought to make the difference--and that's why you'll see a ton on Tolkien and maybe a bit less on Ursula LeGuin (I'm guessing here). Drmies (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your speedy reply. I do understand your points, but I'd still really like to add in a very brief "locations" section to The Underland Chronicles. If there's a section in which I can consolidate info on locations - just a few sentences on why they are strategically important - I'll be able to shrink the actual plot sections on individual book pages. In the end, a little consolidated detail (with references, of course) will lead to less material on the plot overall on Wikipedia. I brought up those unrelated articles hoping for an example page to use as a guide, but your comments have made clear that each situation is unique. So to restate my original question, then: In this particular case, would you accept an abbreviated, referenced "locations" section? Thank you again for your time, 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC).

• I don't want to fight over anything, and if you write up something that's concise and doesn't list every single place, you stand a better chance of it being kept. Best is of course to start looking for secondary sources, which is where every single encyclopedic edit should start. Thanks, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hey I wanted to ask how to deal with not released albums on discography pages? Is it ok to add it when it has been reeased on iTunes? I always remove it because it is too soon and because there is no chating/sales but others add them back and right now I'm having some problems here. The album has been released digitally in January as far as I know but there is no charting or even sales. I don't want to get into trouble with other users so I was thinking you might help me out? Is it ok to add it because it has been released digitally or wait till it is officially released and we have sales and charting positions? Or does it matter at all? --Thebestwinter (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe an expert like Dan56 has a good answer. Unreleased recordings are typically removed unless they're announced in a notable way. If it's already released digitally (and I think you are setting up a false contrast in digital vs. official: a digital release is official if done by the artist/record company), you can list it, but one would hope you could find a reliable secondary source rather than having to link to iTunes or Amazon, which is a terrible thing to have to do. BTW you won't easily get into trouble over something like this. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thebestwinter:, an album doesn't have to chart or sell anything to be a part of someone's discography. If it's been released already on some kind of format, then it's in the discography. I don't know anything as far as whether citing a retailer is appropriate or not, and an initial Google search for the album seems to turn up retailers and blogs. Dan56 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you both. I'll try to find a better source and add it back then.--Thebestwinter (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixing?

Drmies, do you plan to fix the material you removed from the Violet Wand article? You removed the other major method of use "Reverse" and its description, and you removed all the other text on Branding and Body Modification in your rush to remove citations you felt suspicious of. You've left the only citation a book that contains two paragraphs about violet wands and is NOT the source for the information that is in the wiki. The major source for the information contained in the wiki article is at www.violetwands.org, The International Violet Wand Guild, a member-user and education only non-profit association that standardized the terms and definitions, and set safety and specification benchmarks about 20 years ago. They do product reviews but sell NOTHING. The organization is the only real source for violet wand information, and they ARE the source. So when the wiki article talks about 'Direct' and Indirect and REVERSe' techniques, those terms were defined by the www.violetwands.org, the original source for the terminology. When the wiki article talks about the safety of using violet wands, the recognized safety benchmarks came from the same source. The entire article is now 'citation needed' without that. And there's only one place to get those citations: www.violetwands.org. Please reconsider, the article is now ambiguous without the main citations.Awolnetdiva (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Awolnetdiva, I do not plan to fix anything here and in fact I just sent it to AfD; I do not believe the thing is notable by our standards. If there is only one place to get citations, and that place is a website that looks, at best, like a community forum, that's a pretty clear indication that we're not dealing with something that passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

SPI?

On my talk page you requested that I add something to an SPI. I'd appreciate it if you explain this in the case! MereTechnicality ⚙ 03:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I left a note on the SPI page--thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

😉 --Wikipedian of Wikipedia (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments (re Abasiono1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)). GAB^gab 15:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

help me

i messed up on the trump cabnit wiki

You're fast, I've got to give you that. :) John Carter (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Haha, this is the new America. Help yourself. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• IP editor, there is so much coding in that stupid article, with designated colors and stuff inside a table, that I'm leaving it alone. Besides, that pending changes setting makes editing it even more tirritating. Just leave it be--someone will come along and fix it, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Is there any particular reason you removed this, but not the entire post? I don't see how that's neutral at all. Are you planning on closing the discussion? DarkKnight2149 01:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Eh? 1. I removed your entire post. 2. Why? Because everyone has had enough of your constant haranguing. It is neutral to remove ongoing disruptive comments. Yours are; others are not, or less so. 3. The rest of the conversation is hatted. 4. I'm thinking about closing that discussion; I'm reading over it. It's not looking good for you. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • How are my comments more disruptive than theirs? Did you not see the blatant evidence and thorough reasoning that I posted (which you reverted)? Help me see your point of view, because this looks ridiculous to me right now. DarkKnight2149 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
    • And if you were just going to collapse the section, can't you see how reverting my defense (and only my defense) could be just a little bit unnecessary? DarkKnight2149 01:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

And lastly, if I am THE problem, what would you have me do now? With all do respect, these aren't meant to be rhetorical arguments, but serious questions. DarkKnight2149 01:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Right now I am deciding whether to issue just a topic ban for you for COMICS, or also block you for ongoing disruption and being an enormous timesink. The more edits you make outside of article space, the more likely such a block is. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In that case, this will be the last edit I make outside an article space right now. Is there a way to issue an appeal to a topic ban? All of my arguments at that discussion were genuine and I don't think you're being fair. I'm not just trying to get out of jail free; I am being honest (and as an admin, I will take everything you say into serious consideration). I feel that a topic ban would simply be a gratuitous waste of time, as there is no purpose for it or a block. Six months seems especially excessive, given that I am a productive user with no prior history for disruptive editing that mainly edits comic-related articles and there is a content discussion that I am (or was) involved in that I strongely believed in. Did you consider both sides (again, with all due respect). DarkKnight2149 01:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• As you likely already know, the topic ban appeal process is outlined at WP:UNBAN. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• I can't argue with closing the trainwreck subthread, but I do think that if, somehow, there were to be some way for ArbCom to really encourage development of a good fiction MOS, that might resolve a lot of the problems, and there do seem to be at least a few problems outside of the immediate "problem area' of the Joker. John Carter (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• John, I'm going by what's talked about in the ANI thread. I cannot judge what precisely the underlying problem is, if there is such an underlying problem; there is a consensus that a topic ban from the COMICS area is a solution, and that's what I closed on. I know you know stuff and have insight into what can cause problems in some areas; I appreciate that, and I strongly encourage to do what you can in this respect. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, while I see where you are coming from with that logic, I believe that that might be the problem. You only looked at how things appear on the surface. I strongely disagree with the result of the discussion. DarkKnight2149 02:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of wrapping the whole trainwreck up after your closures of the various proposals. Blackmane (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Darkknight2149, you seem to suffer from a few serious misunderstandings. First, ANI and talk pages and all that are not where one has fights; it's where one resolves issues. Second, the role of administrators in such venues as ANI is manifold, but one of them is to establish community consensus. That's what I did, regardless of issues of depth. Third, when admins enforce community decisions, it actually means something. I suggested to you how close you came to a block for ongoing disruption; I will not hesitate to act on it. Continued harping on my talk page (14 edits already) on what is by now a fait accompli is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I won't waste anymore of your time. I'll just cap this off by saying that I hear what you are saying, I don't agree with it in the slightest, and that there will be an appeal to that ban. Have a good day, Drmies. Darkknight2149 out. DarkKnight2149 02:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• John Carter: The idea was to eventually open an RfC or something at some place like the Village Pump and get sitewide feedback on the issue of how to present ficitonal characters. I don't see anything in the WP:COMICS discussion (which is really just a pre-discussion) that would require intervention from ArbCom. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, I have a suggestion on how to present fictional characters: in one sentence or less, unless bursting with secondary sources from academic articles and books. :) Drmies (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be frickin' sweet, but the community will never go for it. Wikipedia has independent articles on Jeryn Hogarth and Aldrich Killian -- that proposal would never fly. I wish the only fictional characters on whom we had articles were Shylock, Sun Wukong, Hikaru Genji and their ilk, but this being the internet I think we can just be glad each individual lolcat doesn't get their own article. Why I intend not to touch any such MOS discussion without an ∞-foot pole like the one used by one of the characters above-mentioned.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Meh--those two are nothing! See Category:EastEnders characters and bloated monstrosities like Mick Carter (not even the worst I've seen). On the other hand, poor Wiglaf barely gets playing time; Ohthere gets a bit more, but as a whole the Beowulf characters could do with only a fraction of the attention given to Marvel or soap operas. User:Curly Turkey, if there is such a discussion, cast a vote of "minimal coverage" for me plz. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem sovled: we can rely on primary sources. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that if we tried that with articles on characters from fictional works from before, say, the nineteenth-century, we'd be (rightly) accused of OR. <facepalm> Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Masem, I thought you'd be all gung-ho about secondary sourcing. This reliance on primary sourcing isn't even a slippery slope--it's a chasm. Anything goes. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not the intent. You absolutely still need secondary sourcing to establish a character's notability, period. The thing is that secondary source typically gets you concept and reception information and may get some characterization. To fill in plot-specific details, one might have to end up going to primary sourcing. But that has to come after the article has shown its notability with secondary, otherwise it's a no-go. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources aren't just necessary for passing GNG. We need to have adequate secondary sources to be able write an encyclopedic article. I don't even like the current "plot summaries can be sourced to the film/book/TV show itself" standard, since summaries if written by Wikipedians based on primary sources present inherent WEIGHT/OR problems. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I find that troubling too, and I have written more than one plot summary using secondary sourcing. Hate to keep bringing up A Brief History of Seven Killings (it's a long book and I haven't finished yet), but that plot summary really shouldn't be written up in a Wikipedia article by someone without access to secondary sources--the novel is fragmented, with multiple perspectives and multiple narrators whose reliability and knowledge of events may be in question. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Makes me think of Poison River, which is extremely fragmentary. I hated writing that shitty summary, and would rather sum it up in general terms, but I'm pretty sure I'd never get it through GA. None of my secondary sources really sum it up in a Wikipedia-ish play-by-play manner, so relying on secondary sources is out. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I'm a fan of George R. R. Martin's works, but trying to read our articles on some of those topics would probably give me nightmares, so I try to avoid it. I brought it up on CT's page last night, but apparently a random new account has been going around creating articles on characters from Game of Thrones that as a rule conflate the TV adaptation with the original books and as a result contain some pretty gross misrepresentations of the books (characters' parentage being wrong, numbers of children being inaccurate, etc.). Attempts to tag the sourcing for improvement were met with this nonsense ("nonsense" has been called a personal attack, so I should clarify -- if a section is completely unsourced except for three words at the end then one shouldn't claim the sources are "fine"). And that's a GA! People criticize me for my GARs, but I can't really be blamed for frequently coming across GAs that really shouldn't have passed their initial GA review. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the reason I absolutely refuse to post that particular article for GAR is because I don't think the plot summary section couldn't be sourced as currently written, I just think it should have proper citations. I also am deathly afraid of the modern American pop culture cabal that monitors those articles; if you folks think WP:COMICS is a snake-pit, try questioning the sourcing or readability of articles on the film and TV adaptations of said COMICS. Actually, no. Don't do that. I'd never wish that on someone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been uncomfortable with that. I used to source all my plot summaries until someone told me one of my summaries was too short, and pointed me to that guideline. For a while I accepted that, but recently I've gone back to fully sourcing my summaries. I'm not sure we even need summaries as long as they tend to be—borderline play-by-plays. Some works warrant it, but many would do fine with a line or two giving the gist of the plot. Nothing something I'm going to put my chainmail on over, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

someone told me one of my summaries was too short I'd actually have the opposite problem. Really short, generic plot synopses like "This movie is about a group of Korean warriors in the desert and their attempt to save a Chinese princess from Mongols." can in theory be written well by anyone based on watching/reading the primary source (they are also, though, usually very easy to find secondary and tertiary sources for, so there is no need to use the primary source). Trying to expand beyond that leads to WEIGHT problems as the editors decide for themselves which elements of the plot they should include and/or give more weight to over others, which characters they should name, etc. This doesn't really apply to character articles, though, since with those anything cited to a primary source is by definition cherry-picked as something in the source that a Wikipedian thinks is relevant information about the character. Now, naming (and linking) the primary source inline is great, but actually getting the information primarily from such sources is not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Emmerdale characters is also a mess... --Izno (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ban parameters

What are the precise parameters of this ban? You weren't very specific other than "Comics". Obviously, all comic book articles are out of the question. But what about comic adaptations (television shows like Gotham (TV series) and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., character articles like Joker (The Dark Knight), Joker in other media, ETC)? What about linking comic-related articles to non-comic articles (such as List of mad scientists)? Am I allowed to casually talk about the subject matter on my Talk Page, if it has nothing to do with the articles or Wiki-content? Am I allowed to even mention them? Can I talk to WP:COMICS members if it has nothing to do with comics and isn't at the WikiProject? This is all new to me. DarkKnight2149 03:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, none of those things. (I am following the lead of the participants at ANI--all I added was "broadly construed", a formulaic phrase.) All of them involve comics--that is, anything that falls under the purview of the WikiProject. Sorry. Can't link them, discuss them, edit them; can't nominate them for deletion, participate in deletion discussions, move request, etc. You can talk to COMICS members, of course--but you can't talk about comics articles. I suppose you could in principle ask someone if they've seen the latest Batman or Antman or Dragonman or Bicyclerepairman movie or whatever, but you can't talk about the Wikipedia article on any of those things. Testing the boundaries of a topic ban is typically not held in high regard. I hope you see now that the stakes in that ANI thread were indeed high. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes (and gratuitously so, but I'm not getting into that here). Thank you for the clarification. Again, Darkknight2149 out. DarkKnight2149 03:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day

	Happy Valentine's Day!
	Dear Drmies, I wish you a happy valentine's day.-- Mona778 (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oh Mona how sweet! Thank you--kiss kiss--, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Need eyes at Grigori Rasputin

Need content-editor and admin eyes at Grigori Rasputin. This is a top-importance article, and it has a multitude of problems, including just for starters:

• Excess irrelevant historical detail that has nothing to do with Rasputin
• 285 (no lie) hidden comments
• Image captions which are unattributed quotations
• An editor who has coopted it and refuses to engage, but instead avoids questions, attacks others, and stonewalls. Moreover, he seems to be unable (or unwilling) to answer simple straightforward English questions. I am also quite concerned about his competence level, given the preceding.

Any help would be appreciated. I merely stumbled upon the article by accident a few days ago, from a notice on someone's usertalk page. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: OK now I have serious, serious questions about this editor's competence, to the point where I think it may be best to roll the article back to before he started editing it. I do not think he can be relied upon, and almost every edit I've seen him make since I started watching the article has been incorrect. Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strange how a search for the word "penis" delivers nothing, though he got an entire section in some book about rock star penises that I read many years ago. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• I sure hope that "Perception" section is not yours. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding his penis, see Talk:Rasputin's penis/Archive 2 - there used to be a whole separate article on it. I think that this article might benefit from someone contacting WP:RX for any recent reference work (encyclopedia, biographical dictionary) articles on Rasputin which could be used as a basis for comparison.

• Seconding Softlavender's request - yes please. This article's present bloat of non-biographical details coupled with an apparent WP:OWN/WP:GREATWRONGS editor who 1)is having issues understanding WP policies/guidelines & 2) has extreme difficulty communicating with other editors to gain consensus.
  

Re that Perception section - it was started by the editor in question in May 2014.

Also, nothing necessarily untoward in their usage of sandboxes but I have noticed they are saving various complete copies of the article in their sandbox2, sandbox/2, sandbox9, and sandbox10. Shearonink (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• And not wanting to further confuse the discussion at the article talk page, and yet needing to unburden myself, here's an incredible edit in which he uses a piece of fiction as a source for "facts" he inserts in an article [1]. Later, he defends doing that, saying "I am not interested in WP rules, they are too complicated, there are too many to remember... I add what seems interesting. We don't need an encyclopaedia based on written sources, that is past, 20th century stuff" [2]. It's impossible to trust anything this guy has done. Incredible he's been allowed to keep doing this stuff, on multiple articles, for all these years. EEng 09:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• User:EEng--oh dear. That's not good. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be enormously relieved if the editor received a CIR article-ban from Grigory Rasputin, because even babysitting his talk-page posts there is exhausting and overwhelmingly time-consuming. Now that EEng has raised the point that his CIR issues are not confined to Rasputin, perhaps it's time to consider a CIR ban or block, period. I hate to do that to an editor, but the encyclopedia, not to mention the community's time and energy, are at stake. I was thinking that perhaps after the Rasputin article got suitably cleaned up, perhaps the article-ban could be probationally lifted, but if he is a hopeless CIR case that cannot credibly edit on other articles, we may need a site-wide 6-month CIR block, or ban with S.O. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

About that penis of yours

Thanks Shearonink--it took me a while to find the merge discussion. It's here, Talk:Grigori_Rasputin/Archive2#Merge_from_Rasputin.27s_penis, and it's the lousiest merge discussion I've seen. User:OlEnglish waxed quite poetic the year before about this 12-inch organ, but apparently they didn't see that discussion. I wonder how such die-hard Rasputin editors like EEng and Softlavender feel like about all this. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of somewhat confused imagery, I must say that, compared to the larger issues we've got on the article, a faux–big-penis merge discussion is WP:BIKESHED. EEng 03:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What part of "I merely stumbled upon the [Grigori Rasputin] article by accident a few days ago, from a notice on someone's usertalk page" did you not understand? I have made only these few (and very recent) cleanup edits [3] to the article, have not added anything, and claim no expertise beyond having read Nicholas and Alexandra and seen Fall of Eagles. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So you're not a die-hard editor, but rather a soft sea cucumber? Drmies (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I was setting you up for something like that. Your opinion over there would be appreciated. EEng 03:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What is this, comedy night? Don't quit your day job; leave the comedy to SNL. Softlavender (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a recent traveler to Rasputin-land myself, fell down a WP rabbit-hole from somewhere around here and here I am - certainly think the article could do with some improvement. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

EEng, I am in agreement with all y'all's comments over there (well, all the ones I read--there's a lot), but please see the note I just left on Taksen's talk page. Softlavender, please be more respectful of my humor: laugh or get topic banned--it's that simple, really. I wish you'd run for admin just so I can block you; I don't have an admin block on my record, and I hear you get paid double for those. Seriously, I feel for Taksen, even while I agree with you all. I have seen many such articles, and Sitush and LadyofShalott are familiar with some of them as well, and it never gives me pleasure to do drastic cutting even when it's perfectly in agreement with guideline and policy and readability requirements. Thanks y'all, Drmies (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

and can i just say i'm sad cause the title of the subsection didn't show up as an edit summary in recent changes... Drmies (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Re:[4]

I am totally in the pro-seafood camp but shark fin soup seems counterintuitive. A dash of Tony's does wonders. Bon appétit. Tiderolls 12:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, that's just LA speaking. You think Avery will get to keep his job? Drmies (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Valgetova

Can you (or can you recommend somebody else to) take a good look at user:Valgetova? I get the nasty feeling that we are dealing with a PR-employee from Hilton and/or Astoria. See here: SUL Info. The Banner talk 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Good call, Banner. I left them a note. I didn't see any obvious promotional editing in my quick run-through, but if you see it, tag it or report it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I got across her (?) on NLWP where she was messing up, suddenly moving a restaurant in Zwolle to Amsterdam and more misery. When checking, I found that she had a remarkable interest in Hilton and Astoria hotels, not only on the Dutch Wikipedia but also on the Danish and Afrikaner Wikipedia and many others. The Banner talk 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Teun van de Keuken

On 15 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Teun van de Keuken, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dutch television maker and author Teun van de Keuken started Tony's Chocolonely, which sells what is called "slave-free chocolate"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Teun van de Keuken. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Teun van de Keuken), 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.

Mifter (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for chocolate and literature! - Once I'm here: I'd like to write Liza Ferschtman one of these days, because nl has mo more than de, - could you imagine to help? - To any admin watching: Wikipedia:Iliya Zhelev should not be in WP space, but in the user's who is the also subject and the mover, and the earlier version to which I reverted should be back in article space. See also talk on Mandarax with Bgwhite. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI...

This CfD discussion may interest you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. Surprisingly that discussion was started by an old-timer. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting your help

Hi, doctor. "Kim Jong-woon" is both the birth name of the singer Yesung and an alternate transliteration of Kim Jong-un. While the title redirects to the former, its talk page redirects to the latter. It doesn't seem like something to take up at RfD, since it's clearly an error one way or the other, but I can't move the talk page myself. Can you help with this, or should it just be left as is? Hope all is well with you and yours. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't move anything, just changed the redirect. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Archiving isn't quite working completely....

Yay, another Grigori Rasputin issue! Well, kind of...
The automatic-archiving is working for the talkpage but the linkage isn't showing up on the article's talk page. And then there's are the two different Archives for the Rasputin's penis talk and for the main article talk... By the way, both of the (manually archived) archives are malformed according to the Bots' naming conventions, they are named "Talk:[article name]/Archive#" instead of "Talk:[article name]/Archive[sp]#. The bot is doing its work correctly (there is a Talk{Grigori Rasputin/Archive 6) but the article talk page doesn't know that Archive 6 exists. (A discussion about this issue is on Talk:Grigori Rasputin at: Talk Archive Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank goodness you archived his penis. It might hold him up if the poison, shooting, and drowning don't work...