Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 136

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130←Archive 134Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138→Archive 140

Deleted portion of the Colleges of the University of Santo Tomas

Hey, why did you delete a significant portion of the table? I patterned the table after the Colleges of the University of Oxford. US States also have hundreds of articles regarding symbolism. I don't get it. Why wouldn't you allow a display of symbolism of a Philippine university, when there are hundreds of similar articles exist. The gargantuan table of College and permanent private hall arms and colours of the Colleges of the University of Oxford has only a single source, so I guess, it should also be deleted? Two similar timelines exist in the Colleges of the University of Cambridge and Colleges of the University of Oxford. Your disregard to someone's work is frustrating. Pampi1010 (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  • You know, the whole "why are you deleting this when you're not deleting other stuff" is a bit tedious. Please go and fix those articles. I've never seen such a timeline before; the Oxford one has the advantage of not being wider than a screen. Both, it seems to me, are in blatant violation of all kinds of accessibility standards, and the Oxford one may actually be worse: so "violates MOS:COLOR" would be a legitimate edit summary for deletion. And you may have patterned the layout from the table from that article, but not the content, and it's not difficult to argue that the table in the Oxford article actually provides valuable information, and that the reader can learn something from the comparison between the elements in that table--age, enrollment, endowment, etc. In your table, we had patron saints and symbols: what's the point of that? Oh, I see now that they have a table for that sort of trivia too, at College and permanent private hall arms and colours--and that that table was created in 2012 by someone with apparently the same kind of conflict of interest that you have. You have my blessing if you want to remove it! Now, please see WP:COIDECLARE and please act accordingly. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Filetime again

Sorry to be such a nudge about this, but Filetime's made changes to Madison Square and Madison Square Park‎‎ and Stuyvesant Square, and when I disputed them, reverted, and immediately started a discussion on the talk page, all he does is revert to his own version, even telling me to "start the discussion, BMK:, when I had already done so.

Any chance you could warn him against edit warring instead of discussing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, never mind, I guess. He's talking on one and I assume he'll get around to talking on the other. I am concerned, though, that he seems to be focused on removing my images from articles I've heavily edited. There's not enough to cry HARASSMENT, yet, but... Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Ha, it's a New York matter--surely you know we now have a dedicated New York admin? BusterD, how about it? ;-) Drmies (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I spoke too soon:

Plus images in the two article I noted above. This is just today. It seems to me that he is not randomly fixing articles, he's specifically targeting my images. In some cases the images he chooses are better, but in others they are not. Still, I object to being targeted in this manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

And today (so far):
Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Epicgenius, what do you think? BusterD? Drmies (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
OKay t5his is getting fucking ridiculous: Filetime's edits to Audrain Building, Little Compton Commons Historic District, and Bourne Mill all removed images of mine. , I am being HARASSMENT, and this is a formal request that am admin issue a warning to Filetime to stop seeking out and replacing my images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
While I don't really have a stake in the dispute (nor have I looked into it), I did notice a few of these changes because images were changed in some of the Good Articles I helped improve. I can understand BMK's frustration with his images being swapped out.
In the Corbin Building page, for instance, Filetime removed BMK's image of a triple-height arched window whose design was described in that paragraph, replacing it with a zoomed-in image that did not show the entire window. In that case, BMK's image was objectively more demonstrative of the window in question, although one may also argue that another image (by New York City's MTA) could serve the same purpose. I didn't really mind the other images being swapped, though, but only because the MTA actually did hire a professional photographer to catalog the entire building.
In the Bryant Park example, I'm a little concerned that Filetime may have accidentally led to three images in a row being stacked due to the proximity of the images. In their revision (for me at least), the carousel image now appears in the section about restrooms, because the Nikola Tesla Corner image was moved from the left to the right. But that's something a multiple-image template could easily fix as well. I quite like File:Bryant Park fountain.jpg, but if I'm being honest, that picture is a little blurry now that I look at it. Maybe I can ask around and see if any NYC photographers are willing to take alternate shots of this and some of the other examples BMK raised. Epicgenius (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of/block evasion by User:SteveBenassi

Hello, an IP user (this IP: [[1]] has just posted on the Talk page of Genetic studies on Jews whom I suspect of being a sock of the recently blocked user SteveBenassi. Like SteveBenassi, this user shows an interest in promoting certain genetic studies by Eran Elhaik and Yardumian and Shurr (and the post is not dissimilar to Benassi's), and this is the IP's only post (as far as I can tell). When I used the geolocate tool on the IP, I found that it was located the state of Minnesota (see here [[2]], the same state SteveBenasi claimed to live in on his user page (here: [[3]]. If it is not a sock, perhaps it is a meat puppet (some one he knows living in the same area perhaps?). Any attention is appreciated Skllagyook (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Since it's an IP6, it rotates frequently; to see edits almost certainly by the same person, add "/64" at the end of the URL for contributions: [4]. If you want to see edits that are likely by the same person, add /60 instead (in this case, it gives the same result). Adding smaller numbers increases the breadth, and eventually (sometimes very quickly) you pick up unrelated people who happen to be on the same network. --JBL (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@JayBeeEll: Thank you. Viewing your link (here: [[5]], I see that the IP has also posted in the Talk pages of Jewish Bolshevism and Surfside condominium collapse. Those are also pages User:SteveBenassi showed a significant interest in , and made similar posts to the Talk pages of (and was blocked in part for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracies there). It seems even more likely now that this is a sock of his. Skllagyook (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
JayBeeEll, good thing this guy hasn't discovered the Bosnian pyramid yet... Drmies (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Bosnian pyramid claims is new to me -- and oh my word. --JBL (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. Drmies (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Rifles again

Service rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has got someone adding back that big old list now the semi-protection has expired. FDW777 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "I copied back the old list but I really hope who delete this list rot in hell" is an interesting edit summary and, coincidentally, an example of an actual personal attack (see section above). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Blocked and semi-protected. Hell? Ah well. Wikipedia becoming Facebook. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
So it seems they may be wishing the editors who delete that list a long editing career. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Gravedancing

Drmies. The problem with flippant dismissals of legitimate complaints is that they encourage WP:GRAVEDANCING. Is this fine?NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Gosh, you were an asshole and someone responded by echoing, and now you're whining about it? I would have taken the week off, personally. --JBL (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Please avoid personal attacks. I would remind you to be CIVIL.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure you would, but while you're doing that you might take a minute to remind yourself about it, too, since "you were an asshole to someone, etc." is a completely accurate summary of the situation (and also not a personal attack). --JBL (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, so McGregor lost? Drmies (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
And no, that's not fine--but if I were to start blocking for flippancy in that DR conversation, you know I'd have to start with you. Drmies (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
'You were an asshole' is a personal attack.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "You are an asshole" is a personal attack. "You were an asshole" is criticism. It's incivility at worst, but not a personal attack. The former implies that one will continue to be an asshole, whereas the latter implies the possibility of doing better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Who cares about being WP:CIVIL? It's a personal attack.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I do, and if you want to continue editing here you need to stop needling other editors. Your behavior in that DR was subpar. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I won't comment further, my point was that being CIVIL is extremely important. It was a response to MPants's comment 'it's incivility at worst'. I would argue that WP:CIVIL is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. It's curious that I've been the victim of gravedancing and a personal attack (the latter of which on this very page) and yet I'm the one on the receiving end of your castigation.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I feel like I'm spending too much time on Drmies' talk page, but I simply must point out that it'd be a good idea for you to ask yourself why you're on the receiving end of the castigations here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
User:MPants at work, you're always welcome here. We're out of peach cobbler, though. NEDOCHAN, let me just say that I also think that CIVIL is very important, and that you have demonstrated a pretty blatant lack of civility. Continuing with this, and it has now turned into badgering, will likely lead to a block. Please draw the appropriate conclusion. BTW you are welcome to take your complaint to ANI, where you are likely to become acquainted with another serving of alphabet soup: BOOMERANG. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I've never been much a fan of peach cobbler. When it comes to desserts, sweet potato pie reigns supreme in my home, though I'll give a nod to those damn Yankees for coming up with pumpkin pie. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Controversies in BLP

Hi. You just mentioned a few minutes ago that "Controversies" sections are discouraged. Could you point me to the discussion or policy page for it? I checked the MOS:BLP but couldn't find there. Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think the reference you're looking for is WP:CSECTION. Schazjmd (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes--thanks. That's it. DaxServer, I think you saw I retitled the remainder. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks you two! Now I need to find all the articles in my watch list and make the appropriate changes!! -- DaxServer (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I tell you, it's really an important thing: separate sections tend to focus undue attention on sometimes minor things, and they also pull things out of the chronology of a proper biography. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    As a suggestion, I think it's important to link to this policy from BLP page. Several editors, like me, would be unaware of it. -- DaxServer (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Lynching of Leonard Woods

On 16 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lynching of Leonard Woods, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Leonard Woods, a Black miner accused of killing a white mine foreman from a prominent family, was possibly lynched to prevent a trial that could have tainted the reputation of the foreman and his family? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lynching of Leonard Woods. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lynching of Leonard Woods), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Exo (group) GA Reassessment

Exo (group), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--Whiteguru (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

favor?

I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark V. Bacino could use a little checkuser magic. Maybe my alarms are mis-calibrated. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Interesting, 78.26--they geolocate hundreds of miles away, but! FWIW, ModLang1126 is another version of User:Popdude, who must have logged in without remembering they had been blocked. That is not bad, in my book--they were blocked for the username, fine, and now they have a new account. But they clearly have the same (undeclared) COI on John M. Borack. Now, given Jaskocd's comments, I think you can block them as MEAT, down to a syntactical level, and they match, geographically on one of Jaskocd's IP, and besides the location (which, as we know, can be quite ... off), all the technical stuff matches. So I think you can safely--well, I'll do it, and I'll make it CU blocks. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

ygm

a strange one has been sighted under the radar, and your omniscient ever all seeing perspicacity might be of some functionality - it's been a log time between drinks, trust my stupidity is remembered, more or less JarrahTree 09:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

An appeal for clemency: Seanmhougan

Hi, can I put a case for Seanmhougan? They seem to be a new editor, who's so far only tried to edit the article Hand warmer, with a serious conflict of interest as they are employed by a manufacturer of hand-warmers. They got reverted umpteen times by MrOllie, once by me, and finally by you, and inevitably blocked.

Behind the scenes, rather than purely edit-warring, they did also put a message on MrOllie's talk-page[6], discussing in quite reasonable terms why they wanted the text in the article; I put a message on their Talk page [7] explaining what they were doing wrong, and explaining that they must declare their CoI. My post was at 20:09. They reverted MrOllie again at 20:49, were blocked by you at 20:50, and then wrote a reply to me on their talk page at 20:59. It's a bit weird that they replied to me when they must have seen the block notice underneath, without referring to the block, but from the timing, it's possible they hadn't seen my warning on their talk page before they committed the final revert.

In mitigation of their situation: (1) they are a very new editor who may have been unaware of the 3RR rules, or of conflicts of interest; (2) their attempt at discussion on MrOllie's page shows willingness to engage and discuss; (3) they had actually toned-down the commercial aspects of the text they inserted on beaver-skin hand-warmers and made it far more general and encyclopaedic, again showing willingness to follow the rules; (4) from the timing of events, it's possible they didn't see my explanation of what they were doing wrong, and warning about edit-warring until after they'd made the final revert; (5) their reply to me on their talk-page shows willingness to follow correct procedures, albeit rather retrospectively. I think there's a chance that this is a new editor attracted into WP by a theme that's personally important to them, who's messed up absolutely catastrophically in their first few days. It would have been nice to find out whether they are likely to have interests beyond hand-warmers. They certainly needed a really big warning to get their act together, but a permanent block offers no chance for redemption - and my feeling is that they're not totally irredeemable. But I'm (mercifully) not an admin, so good luck in evaluating these things! Elemimele (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Elemimele, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that they have any interest in our project except for as an advertising venue. So while I appreciate your efforts and your advocacy, I have yet to see a reason to do anything else but await their unblock request. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest: Carolina Public Press

Thanks for your note. I created the page for Gerald Gordon/Fairfax County Economic Development Authority more than 10 years ago and I no longer am connected with that organization so frankly I have no stake in what happens to that content. Have the rules changed since then? How do nonprofit organizations (such as Carolina Public Press) gain a presence on Wikipedia if their articles are not written by a staff member? Our goal is hardly self-promotion; it is simply to have a presence on the Wikipedia platform as other news publications do. Just wanted to be clear on that. Eacconcia (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Hello Eacconcia; "gaining a presence on Wikipedia" makes it sound like we're some sort of business directory. I can assure you that Lynching of Leonard Woods wasn't written by a staff member of any organization. And "having a presence on Wikipedia"--well, if a director of an organization writes that presence, then it's by definition self-promotion. And without putting too fine a point on it, anyone who can see Carolina Public Press will see that its content was 100% promotional: "Our award-winning, breakthrough journalism dismantles barriers...", "Carolina Public Press’s staff of professional journalists is committed to ethical, nonpartisan reporting on real and important issues facing our communities..." So, if you ever want that article up, it will have to be written very differently.

    Now, if you no longer work for Gordon or that Fairfax organization, you don't have to declare that, of course, but if you want to be involved, one way or another, with a CPC article, you will have to declare your COI. So please read the relevant guidelines and adhere to them: WP:COI. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi Drmies!

Am new to Wikipedia - is this the right place/way to ask a question re recent edits to the UK Music page? Thanks UKMusiceditor (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

July corner

July

June continued ... last year's flowers match the image on the user page nicely, see? - DYK that her last reply to me was in a thread Green for hope? - The DYK set in honour of Yoninah appeared yesterday, including Psalm 85, with the kiss of justice and peace - we wrote that together.

Fourth of July: Brian's birthday, remembered in gratitude for his unfailing inspiration and support - remember the Chapel - the missed - the music? - Can I interest you in a user's first FAC, Carillon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Music happens. On the Main page now: "my" school. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

On Becoming Notable

Skunk Shamie Wikishit had a lot of great ideas for this question. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Blast from the past

Today I was somehow linked back to my AfD/DRV experiences with the page Involuntary Celibacy. I believe I saw your datestamp in some of those discussions. I must say these discussions, though they did not conclude in my favor, impacted my understanding of sourcing, consensus and process a great deal. It's very humorous to go back through old discussions and then use rollover to quickly see what's happened to those editors. Lotta blocks and abandoned user accounts. Especially humorous to see a page completely deleted and salted be recreated and repurposed entirely. Halcyon days... BusterD (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Hey, there's more fun things to look at. During your RfA I looked at a few old ones, to see if they went the same way, RfAs from like ten years ago--and then you see like a dozen opposes, and half or more of them are permanently blocked, indeffed, banned by the WMF... But I'm telling you, these hot points continue to be hot points. The whole Shakespeare authorship thing was before my time, and guess what, a couple of weeks ago we had another example of it... Drmies (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The Shakespeare authorship dispute is actually fun (unlike American Politics, Gamergate or the Middle East). Also, when you read the talk pages you can learn things; it's like a liberal education. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

What to do about persistent MOS violations by a user?

We have an editor that continues to make changes that violate MOS:ERA and MOS:ENGVAR, despite being usually (but not always) quickly reverted, and multiple warnings/encouragements on their talk page. It's tedious to keep fixing these, especially if I don't catch them right away. Is there some standard procedure for dealing with this sort of thing? I'm avoiding naming the editor right now, as that may seem like I'm asking you to deal with it as an admin. I only want that if that's standard. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi--well, it seems to me that it's really just disruptive editing--so you warn, and move on up to level 4 warnings, and then report at AIV? I don't mind dealing with it--but I really do think that it's not much different from the more vandalistic kind of vandalism, if that makes sense. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker)At some point it becomes "refusal to listen to advice from others" and that has the same de facto effect as refusal to collaborate; and well, this is a collaborative project... So yes, it is disruptive, and if polite explanations won't do it, it is a CIR (C = competence AND collaboration AND communication) issue which is also disruptive... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, so persistent disruptive editing is treated like vandalism. I see how that makes sense, but callings something "vandalism" that isn't obvious true vandalism takes some explanation to avoid appearing to assume bad faith, so requires special handling specific to the case at hand; I worry I'd mess that up without advice. I shouldn't have expected there would be a one-size-fits-all procedure. So, I think I must ask for at least a little precious time from editors experienced in this sort of thing.
    • The user in question is Frankk20168. Maybe just review User talk:Frankk20168 and these few example edits: [8], [9], [10]. There are many other edits like this, but note that the great majority (95%?) of the user's edits are fine. Thanks. --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This is in regard to OpIndia

Hi, pls have a look to this page OpIndia. It does not seem constructive. Would request you to clean up the page, seems to be a mess. Not even WP:NPV Thank you. (This is me Jarvis (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC))

Reply

Hi Drmies, I've a weird problem emailing you - I think it's on my end for once, but anyway. I won't chance emailing you through the interface. All I want to say is yes, yes, yes, enjoy your coffee. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Block notice needed

When you did a block on User:IslandVibez, you forgot to put a suitable block notice on their talk page. Thanks for the hard work anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Twee minuten stilte

On 26 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Twee minuten stilte, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Karel van het Reve, author of Twee minuten stilte (1959), inserted a fake letter to the publisher in the first edition which was real enough for later book owners to return the letter to the author? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Twee minuten stilte. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Twee minuten stilte), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent topic ban violations

Hi. Santamoly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely topic-banned from Eastern Europe related articles. The user was blocked before for persistent topic ban violations, now the user violated it again - Wagner Group (Russian military organisation). There are more edits in EE area in their contribution history. --Renat 13:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jozsi77d

You might want to inform this editor that Wikipedia and its mirror sites are not reliable sources. Judging from the previous warnings on their talk page, I figured a word from you would be taken more seriously. They also added a "source" with a ?phone number? included? Very odd. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

  • Library design improvements continue
  • New partnerships
  • 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Q

Hello, Drmies. I'm having an issue with the ownership an editor has taken of the article Nicki Minaj. I've noticed many others have pointed out in his talk page that this is a repeated behavior. Asking for an experienced, third-party opinion, for a less-biased lead section of the mentioned article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Well, I don't know if I'd call that it biased, but their version is clunky and clogs the lead, which is already a bit overdone. BTW I think Cybertrip's "western" is unnecessary, and the whole "according to NME" likewise. Speaking personally, I do not like that first paragraph at all, with all those "animated" phrases. If someone is the best-selling this or that, that's a fact. The problem in the recent history is that it's you against them, so if there's edit warring it's really both of you. But the most salient point is they claim there's consensus for their version, and I don't see in the talk page archives that there is any such consensus, nor do I see their name (or their earlier name) in there. Plus I don't think that someone with so little experience (relatively speaking) should be edit warring in a GA.

    Anyway, this is really a matter for the talk page, and that should be tried before you go to ANI, and if you take it to ANI, you should probably ping Beeblebrox and the others who they've been in conflict with. Besides that, this is one of those GAs that I find unreadable--too full of detail, many of which are pedestrian and others just lists of things. The size alone is--well, that's pop culture on Wikipedia, I guess. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

John Davies poet 1944

Hi, and thanks for your help and advice. I've put the bibliography on my Talk page, and I'm now quite sure that all my sources are secondary and reliable.Moonbread (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Alt-facts IP

Who in their first recent edit describes this horror as "the left theory of the State supermacy [sic.] over the people". I think we might be dealing with alternative facts (that is, non-facts) here... Mind keeping an eye and applying either of the appropriate remedies if need be? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi

I think our friend is back[11] compare [12] and [13].Thanks --Shrike (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Got it--thank you, User:Shrike. He made that account not long after being blocked, and just a few days before the rangeblock. I did not see any other accounts. It's so disconcerting that these idiocies always go hand in hand. Like anti-vaxxers who are also "anti-globalists" but are really antisemites--I guess antisemites believe all kinds of bullshit. I'm sorry that this kind of stuff so easily gets a platform, and please call on me next time you see it. BTW thanks for including the name: I'm bad with names, and it would have taken me a while to bring that back to mind. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool

Hello Drmie, I've seen that you protected the page Tim Pool. There's an ongoing edit war regarding the usage of "far-right" on his page, I was hoping you can help with resolving this issue. Thanks!

  • Ha, one of those editors who are complaining about the "far-right" allegations wants me stripped of my admin bit--when I removed some awful terminology and semi-protected the article from such vandalism. With such editors around, it's hard to solve anything. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop topic-ban violation

Thesee edits by BunnyyHop[14][15] are a topic-ban violation per your close[16] unless I'm miss-counting months or missed an update. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to see that particular edit as violating the topic ban; I don't think it should be that broadly construed, though they may well be trying to see how far it goes. Maybe the best thing to do is to ask (at WP:AN) for another admin to look at it? Drmies (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The edits are made in an article for a country with a Marxist-Lenist regime and ideology, and the specific content that the editor is removing is explicitly about the Marxist-Leninist regime (the editor is removing descriptions of the regime). The editor explicitly mentions 'Soviet and Communist Studies' on the talk page, which shows that the editor is aware that the content in question pertains to Marxism-Leninism. This is what the user was topic-banned for: whitewashing Marxism-Leninism as an ideology and whitewashing Marxist-Leninist regimes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

I made the mistake of looking at the deleted revisions of Iris Wilson, and my brain has shut down at the sight of [[Child prodigy|child prdogy]] in the first revision. Why would someone misspell it so badly, but then pipe the wikilink to the correct article??? Like, clearly they knew it was misspelled or they wouldn't have had to pipe it, but they didn't feel the need to just fix the spelling instead? I don't think my brain is going to let me think about anything else for the rest of the day. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Hmm that's sad, WK. Why don't you think about CRT for a bit? BTW you may have seen my note at AN3: these are, I think, recent iterations of an old one. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Katiesimions

You just blocked Katiesimions as a spammer but I just found an earlier account that made identical edits: Katie Short. The one is likely a sock of the other. I haven't found any more. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussing edits off-wiki

Hi Drmies! Hope you're well. I was wondering, are there any policies that relate to taking discussions off-wiki? Following recent edits to Kwak Dong-yeon, User:Samekizofu seems to be under the impression that their edits had already been "approved" and "agreed to". After seeing their comments on User talk:Aoowassana it seems they want to take their discussion of the edits privately, off of Wikipedia. Are there any polices on this you could direct me to? Additionally, do you have any advice for the information that was added? It seems heavily biased in my opinion, but I'm not sure the best advice or polices/guidelines to direct the editor to. Alex (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Hey--well, there's nothing I know of that forbids that, and if there were, that would be problematic. It is true that Wikipedia editors can be held accountable for what they do off-wiki that relates to on-wiki activities, but that's a different thing, and I doubt that's relevant here--we're talking harassment and all that. So I don't think there's much for us to do here--not until, for instance, we see evidence of coordination and tag-teaming in an edit war. Beeblebrox, the IDs on that talk page, are they OK? I don't know how private/public that stuff is. Anyway, Alexander, I think we're dealing with a serious lack of competence, English skills included. This edit speaks volumes: it's fan stuff, and it's not well written, to put it mildly, so I fully agree with your revert. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

My English is not that well I accept, but the information I added was already revised by a native English speakers from England. Also all the informations I added have proper citations, I also shorthen and summarized them with @Aoowassana. Its not fan stuff like what you said. About Fan Meeting, why it should not be added? It's also part of his career. The fans have to pay for expensive tickets in order to attend, its not like they are free fan meeting. Other Korean actors also have these details in their pages. Samekizofu (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any problem with me and editor @Aoowassana to have private talk right? I meant no harm, i just afraid that my edit will be deleted all again like this, so i asked her to approve it first before i added to Wikipedia. Thats all. Please understand this matter Samekizofu (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  • "Approve" an edit is a concept fraught with difficulties. Fan meetings fall under NOTNEWS: that something was reported in some source (typically a source friendly to the industry) is not a valid reason for inclusion. As for off-wiki whatever, if you want a more open assessment of a proposed edit you can use the article talk page. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand what @alex and @drmies trying to tell me now about my edits were too biased. From now on I'll try to edit and rephrase some information in the more proper format. And if i want to discuss off-wiki i ll do as @drmies told me. Im new to editing Wikipedia, so i dont know that i can also discuss like that here too.

About fan meeting, please delete those information from other korean actors pages as well.. You should have the same standard right? Here are some that i found (some are in fanmeeting section, and some in Career section) Kim soohyun Cha eunwoo Lee joon gi Park bo gum Song joong ki Jang ki yong

Also, I ll add some information that i consider its not too biased on Kwak Dong-yeon's page later, so please help revise again when i add them. Thank you so much Samekizofu (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Ningen Isu

I've been a fan of theirs since I was young enough to still want to be a ninja when I grew up. In fact, they might have been the first rock or metal band I ever liked, as I grew up listening to Country music. I'm happy to see someone else here appreciates them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:22, 7 August 2021 (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.

Pahunkat (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The Love Songs of W.E.B. Du Bois

On 27 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Love Songs of W.E.B. Du Bois, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Love Songs of W.E.B. Du Bois, a new novel by Honorée Fanonne Jeffers, mixes narrative with "love songs" that illuminate the lives of the protagonist's African, Creek, and Scottish ancestors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Love Songs of W.E.B. Du Bois. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Love Songs of W.E.B. Du Bois), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and the good day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Only it looks like the publisher postponed it ... when? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Ha, if I were doing this for promotional purposes I'd be unmasked right now: that's news to me. Oh, Amazon suggests you're right! Wow, I had no idea. BTW thanks for your help here. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
    well, I was prompted by changes to the article, which I was ready to dismiss as unsourced, but - for a change - looked at the publisher myself and found the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
August songs
Thank you for articles like that, and frequent help! My 12th today, DYK? I decorated, also for a birthday. Songs invite to more music, places, food and flowers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Today: 2 interesting DYK (I think), sadly 2 who died (on top of 2 from Poland yesterday), and a concert in which Daniel Barenboim just played piano, - and afterwards he and the orchestra received last year's prize (pictured). - I had no time yet for your suggestion. Just nominated Schloss Gripsholm (last day to do so) but would prefer to have some English sources for the bitter "brown" background mentioned in one of the German ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Mail Notice

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.

Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The Suicide Squad

I just wanted to let you know, as a watcher and on-and-off editor of The Suicide Squad (film) article and a colleague of User:Adamstom.97, that User:ErnestoCabral2018 was the one who was vandalizing the article with unsourced statements that were unsupported by the present sources, and that Adam was reverting the vandal's constant additions in the edit war. Adam should not have been blocked as he was restoring the article in good faith against vandalism. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I wish Adamstom had notified an administrator, or made a note on the talk page, or left an edit summary explaining why those few words were vandalism. Please note my last comment on Adamstom's talk page: someone who removes a talk page comment in which an editor tries to explain what they're doing is likely not operating in good faith. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Renzo Martens

Hello Drmies, I don't know if this is the right way to communicate with you but I wish to send you a draft for the Renzo Martens page so you can check for promotional or advertising material. This is not my intention. You have been removing new content, that I added to the Renzo Martens page today, but you have also removed content that was already there; the paragraph about Martens' work Episode I. The page is now not only outdated but also incomplete. Could you let me know how I can send you new content we wish to add to the Renzo Martens page. Thank you! Kind regards, (HAART2021 (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC))

Explanation

All text placed between < ! --- --- ! > is invisible and is trash, this IP range is guilty of it: Special:Contributions/89.8.0.0/16 Werkenone (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Your edits on list of characters on Inuyasha/yashahime.

Thank you. I am new to Wikipedia and I have tried to trim it back but I don’t know what needed to be there. I have asked but I was treated poorly. I have read a few pages on Wikipedia. You did cut the a few of the areas I did question but I don’t read it all because I wanted to research what was needed to improve It better. Is there any good sources to follow that improves the articles? Any links or advice would be helpful. Thank you again. FedualJapan (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Sure thing--thanks. The thing with this article is that it's a list of characters, and that suggests we will get a list of characters, who played/voiced them, and what their characteristics and roles are. In many of those articles you get a complete fictional biography with all the events and all the things that happened, and that's just not cool. On top of that you see a lot of original research, esp. in the form of adjectives and as comparisons. These articles are often edited by a multitude of IP editors and they tend to just collect material like sludge; they get bigger and bigger. A good rule of thumb is that every character gets a few sentences, no more. And keep in mind that often some of them also have articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

My block and topic ban

I am rather bemused that I was blocked for breaching the terms of a warning before that warning was issued: that does not seem like a sensible juridical procedure, but ho-hum.

Yes, I probably did allow my annoyance that the self defensive clique who closely control MP were so caught up in their "you scratch my ego, I'll scratch yours" that they allow a total falsehood to appear on the MP get the better of me. But I do believe, and will continue to believe,that those who have assumed control of the most visible pages are the ones who should be held to the highest standards of accountability.

This mistake was made in the article by Joseph2302, based on a poor translation of a news report of several weeks earlier, which not only should never be considered statement of fact for the actual startlist of a sporting event, but never even said that she was listed to be a starting member of the squad, nor for which squad. But Joseph did not actually propose that claim for the main page, which is why I maintain that the bulk of the blame does lie with Schwede66, who unilaterally changed the hook that had been approved in a consensus building manner. And who has not, I believe, apologised for introducing factual error to the main portal of an encyclopaedia, which surely is the absolute antithesis of anything that an encyclopaedic project should do. As I said, and do not apologise for saying, either one checks assiduously what is to be on the Main Page, or one does not care about the accuracy of the Main Page: there is no in-between.

While I will abide by your topic ban, I do believe that editors should be able to pursue false accusations made against them, as Joseph did against me: he said at WT:Alisa Schmidt that I was blaming him, which I had not (I have subsequently discovered that he would actually deserve a sizeable proportion of the blame, as I set out above, but I had not levelled any accusation at that point). And I do not believe that an editor should be allowed to simply go quiet and refuse to justify an accusation that he/she has made. He did offer to engage with me on the matter at ANI, but you have prohibited that: maybe he could have been persuaded to re-read my words and admit that his accusation was false. The idea that he did not know what I was asking him to apologise for (as he said at ANI) is frankly untenable if he had actually read the interchange that he was part of.

And meanwhile, because you have topicbanned me, I cannot re-iterate the correction that I made here, and Joseph erroneously reverted here. Google translate renders the relevant part of the cited document thus: " The 400-meter runners Karolina Pahlitzsch from LG Nord Berlin and Alica Schmidt from SCC Berlin each qualified for the relay." You will note that it does not specify whether they were being considered for the women's or the mixed relay: Joseph seems determined that his unsourced assumption (that the women's 4x400 was intended) is encyclopaedic fact; perhaps you can insert a true version into the text, rather than allowing this unsourced lie to persist in the encyclopaedia.

I will not be tolerant of people trying to contribute to Wikipedia beyond their competence, and when they persist in erroneous and unencyclopaedic 'contributions', that can only be to the detriment of the project, I will not pussyfoot around telling them so: encouraging poor editors by kindness is not going to make Wikipedia better than it is, and taking fools lightly only make Wikipedia appear foolish. Kevin McE (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  • User:Schwede66, User:Mackensen, User:Girth Summit, User:Maile66, please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#Problem_editing_pattern_by_Kevin_McE, to refresh your memory. The thread was never resolved and it went straight into the archives. If I'm not mistaken, we have a half a dozen admins (well, five: the five of us) saying this can't go on, time for blocks, etc. Now Kevin McE comes here, saying they will abide by their topic ban and then violating that same topic ban, twice, and continuing with the battleground attitude (see their last paragraph) that led to the ANI thread in the first place. If there is another choice but an indefinite block, I'd love to hear it--and talk page stalkers are welcome to help advice. Or do we just block for a topic van violation? But what about the ongoing personal attacks ("poor editors")? Kevin McE, for the time being I am not interested in further comments from you, since it's likely you'll only dig yourself into a deeper hole. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I would consider this response from Kevin McE a sufficient justification for an indefinite block (per Drmies), but I'll hold off in case anyone else from that group sees it differently. Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Best that we discuss this at ANI. Schwede66 21:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I typed out some comments, but I see that it's at ANI now, so I'll go make them over there.
    • Question on the topic ban paperwork, if you're considering blocking for the obvious breaches: was that logged, and what was the WP:Ban authority? I didn't see that in the ANI thread, and I'm not seeing it in the editing restrictions log. If the TBan wasn't formally enacted, I'm not sure that a block for a breach works; other options would be an indef block for threatening to continue editing disruptively, or going to ANI and proposing perhaps a TBAN from the main page-related areas, since that is what he seems to getting so hostile about. Girth Summit (blether) 21:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Indef block - he still doesn't get it. We need to consider our vast and varied editing base. We have school children editing Wikipedia. We have university students who are taking it as a course - and not always getting everything perfect. Our encyclopedia is open to everybody in every part of the world, every age group, every learning step on how to do this, every demographic. Please see the last paragraph Kevin McE wrote above about people he "will not be tolerant of". Based on Talk:Kalākaua coinage, I guess he means me and Wehwalt. And both of us admins, who went through a public assessment and vote by way of the required Request for Adminship. And may I say that nobody - absolutely nobody - has produced as many Featured articles as Wehwalt. That makes Wehwalt pick of the litter. Yet, KevinMcE couldn't even "tolerate" him. Kevin McE has been on Wikipedia 15 years. If he hasn't learned tolerance of other editors in that time, when will he? — Maile (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you block this user?

This user, who has never made an edit, is sending me "thank you" notices for every edit I've made[17]. The pings are annoying. Can you (or someone reading this) block this user? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Two of the most serious admins on the project have taken care of it. Funny, neither of them made it a username block. Sorry you had to be on the receiving end of that. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Soft block of CoralSpringsCenterForThePerformingArts (talk · contribs)

This account looks like block evasion of CoralSpringsCenterForTheArts (talk · contribs), who was hardblocked. Pahunkat (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I see. For non-profits I have a tendency to go with soft blocks. Their edits were not exactly neutral, but it wasn't as bad as other stuff we see. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting

Would you please have a look at the talkpage in question? A user who has never edited the page thought it would be a great idea to weigh in on the talkpage with insinuations I have an anti-LGBTQ agenda and that I edit in bad faith (as well as why Wikipedia should be ignoring WP:V). I responded civilly (but admittedly pretty angrily), and left an AGF template on their user talkpage, telling them that if they persisted in such accusations, I would report them and seek a block. Today they have doubled down at both the talkpage and their userpage. I'm pretty offended by this garbage accusation and doubt I could respond without violating civility myself, but I do think an admin needs to address them and their behavior. Happy Friday! Grandpallama (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Appreciated. Grandpallama (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Email FYI about LTA

Hi, in case the "email this user" function here also had issues, I wanted to note here that I sent you an email. It's about an LTA you blocked previously and who has popped up again. Crossroads -talk- 05:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Please take a look at new User:LayinItOnTheLine and their edits on Gwar. They insist on adding unsourced information despite my making multiple attempts to tell them, via their talk page, that it needs a source. The most recent attempt to do so received a response of "you're more than welcome to edit it yourself if you REALLY wanna do it by the book" and "fuck the rules". Seems to be a preview of what we can expect regarding their contributions to the project as a whole. Thanks NJZombie (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I accidentally nuked one of your contributions because I didn't pay enough attention. I thought Twinkle had gone rogue on me but instead removed your warning. Schwede66 20:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

They are back at it again

There is a anonymous user who you have blocked before that has returned and is doing the same thing as before which is non-constructive edits and vandalism. I have warned this person repeatedly not to do it but they persist. I believe these three IP Addresses are all the same person and are all linked. User talk:119.18.1.210, User talk:119.18.1.210, User talk:119.18.2.245. I think a longer block is needed or something else needs to happen.Sully198787 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

79.25.64.0/18 block

Would the IP data at User:Beyond My Ken/Brescia LTA allow the widening of this block at all, to potentially include some of the other ranges they use? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

<tps>As an admin who has a good deal of experience with the northern Italy LTA, the Telecom Italia ranges they inhabit are so broad and so dynamic that we would have to block all mobile devices in Italy to keep them out. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
No problem. Now I've discovered the LTA page it's easier for me to present their history of disruption on RFPP and AIV reports anyway. FDW777 (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Acroterion. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi - just to let you know, I pulled TPA here. Hope it's self explanatory. Girth Summit (blether) 15:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Revdels from your BLP/N posts

I collected the diffs of where the name was introduced from the articles and talk pages. I think I got them all. I'm not sure if it qualifies for revdel, but I assume it does as he hasn't even been charged with a crime. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25].

Moved from my talk page

An IP left a request on my talk page.

Moved from there

Hello. I would like to report these IP Sockpuppets that are unhelpful and suspicious. These IPs needs to blocked, or, you can investigate them, keep in mind and watching over them.

1.) For the past few months, the IP ranges of "124.106.226.215", "58.69.105.139" and "58.69.105.140" are active at The Broken Marriage Vow, Marry Me, Marry You, He's Into Her, Darna (2021 TV series) and other Philippine TV series articles. An example of those IPs is their persistent, disruptive reverting at The Broken Marriage Vow page. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) They are also refactoring/editing talk page comments. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

2.) I have seen most of the IP sock ranges of "120.29" (76 & 78) in making disruptive vandalism edits. So far we have "120.29.78.194", "120.29.78.93" (who was globally blocked for 6 days and 23 hours until 19 August 2021), "120.29.76.223" (the most active), and most recently a new IP "120.29.76.194" (sock active since 18 August 2021). All those IP socks are usually very active at MOR Entertainment, Kapamilya Channel, It's Showtime (Philippine TV program), and all other articles and pages related to ABS-CBN. They are also active at trying to disruptively protecting the pages of The First and True Home of Asianovelas (protected until 20 August 2021), Asianovela Channel (protected until 21 August 2021), and probably GMA The Heart of Asia. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

I suspect that there's going to have more new sockpuppets connected to all the IPs that I mentioned above (as per WP:SHARE rule), and I hope someone would take actions against them. -136.158.42.180 (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I haven't got the mop (that might be useful some point in the future, but not interested in that right now - busy IRL too), so I can't take any action (feel like the IP was confused or something); and I don't have time to give my uninvolved opinion either. Feel free to opine as you see fit. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

WHACK

Lachi (artist)

Hello, over the past few weeks I have been updating this article and tried to remove anything promotional. Please let me know exactly what the issue is. You can tell me which exact lines and I will revise or feel free to revise yourself. Honolulucb (talk)

  • Please see my recent edits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Hmm I just checked. There is too much there and I am sure I may have some disagreements after I check. Let me check. As far as the external links that you said are spam, that was not added by me, but how is her Authors Website that has more info about her and also her Itunes page considered spam? I have seen many artist pages with iTunes. Could you please point out any policy regaring these and iTunes pages not being acceptable as an external link??? Honolulucb (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
      • The standard is you get one of those, per WP:EL. The "author" page--well, she's not notable as an author (yet), at least there was no evidence for it in the article. And an iTunes link is always spam--that should be obvious. If you see that in other articles, feel free to remove it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Please check here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources ALLMUSIC is a relaible source!!!! Before you do major distruction to the page, make sure you are familiar with all these stuffHonolulucb (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
          • You need secondary sources, not such collections of primary material. The point of references is not just whether the title is spelled correctly and the date is accurate, but much more whether a release is notable or not. That's why in that context it's not acceptable. On top of that, there was already a secondary source, and if that verifies, you don't need more. If that's all, I've not done a bad job improving the article. Also, please don't be rude to me on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1994 in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erin Moriarty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Drum corps decades old discographies?

Dear sir: I see that you have deleted extensive discographies of the shows for the Blue Devils Drum and Bugle Corps (from Concord, California), the Santa Clara Vanguard Drum and Bugle Corps (from Santa Clara, California) the Phantom Regiment (from Rockford Illinois) and the Colts Drum and Bugle Corps (from Austin Texas). I have not had time to go and check the websites for the top 20 'world-class' groups or the next tier of 20 'open class' groups so there may be more.

These groups are one of the major sources of musical education in the United States (and even somewhat in Europe, the UK and Japan) today. The groups comprise musicians from the ages of 14-21 many of whom are music majors and hopeful music educators. Their instructors are music educators from all across the country, including many from major college campuses. The scores are all individually written, and carefully composed. The groups all obtain proper copyright permissions for their adaptations. Hundreds of thousands of followers attend their shows throughout the nation annually, and their alumni networks are a powerful force for good in terms of raising money for musical scholarships and promoting civic values. Many high school students learn about classical music and composition from these groups and from these groups alone.

I understand that you are a famous decades-old Wikipedian and I am a mere couple of page editor with only a plate of welcome cookies. However, I do know musical education. These discographies are a huge source of information for musical students from middle school through college. I am not sure you understand what it means to music students to have them deleted.

I hope you will reconsider deleting these rich histories. Please feel free to respond and explain why you think these are "unencyclopedic" -- if you felt they were unsourced or needing more citations, then the proper recommendation would be a banner asking for this to be corrected. I will gladly do that research and modifications if given the chance -- would much prefer that rather than having to undelete information caught happenstance and done quietly.

Saltwolf (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but that your hobby is important to you doesn't mean you get to use Wikipedia as a webhost. I might have been more inclined toward conversation if you hadn't left a totally passive-aggresive message here, or lied in this edit summary and invented some BS about a "campaign", or made some patronizing insult here. Every word you said questions my good faith. Drmies (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Just... what the hey? They can't ALL be sockpuppets, can they? [27] 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, there is absolutely no god rain for your continued removal of this information. There are musical groups and it is no different from discographies on any other page related to a band or artist. We have sources for them. Please stop with this foolishness. Cleonpack93 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Reason, not rain. Clearly. Cleonpack93 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

IP out of no where

Howdy. I suspect the IP reporting Bearcat, is likely a block evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Old thanks

I've been thanking some of your old edits recently because I saw you got involved with cleaning up the edits of Blackdoom77 back in the day. That user was a sock of Troy86, who's posse of socks are the subject of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Troy86. I wanted to bring this to your attention in case you were interested in helping out, there's a lot of unsourced content, poor translations, and general goofiness (is that a word?) at the CCI, mostly revolving around ancestry articles. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 02:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Bare feet!

Hi, I'm not sure whether this needs attention, or what to do about it, but the article on Physical restraint is also infected by bare feet. The basic introductory paragraph, "Basic Methods" is 13 lines of text on my screen, 3 dealing with handcuffs, leg-cuffs, and martial-arts holds/locks, the remaining 10 being a discussion of how bare feet limit a prisoner's freedom, which is a bit of an odd balance. The text seems to come from Eduard Meister and IP 89.183.2.92. This is way outside my field so I don't feel qualified to edit, but personally I'd be inclined to get rid of the entire foot stuff. It feels like fetish stuff rather than legitimate information about restraint. (sorry to leave this with you; you shouldn't be the Sole person dealing with feet, it's toetally unfair, and probably rAnkles) Elemimele (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Random passerby comment: agree the "bare feet" section is undue weight. Have trimmed a little but it could do with more; alternatively someone (anyone) could write a massive expansion of the other restraint pars to even the section up. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I seem to recall a prolific sockmaster from ten or more years ago who plagued bare feet and anything conceivably related. I would be surprised if they'd gone away entirely. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Yeah me too, was it BFExpert? Kept adding homages to every possible use of bare feet. To each their own I guess. -- Euryalus (talk)
Yeah, I think that's the one. Their particular emphasis was more on ... appreciation, rather than the more aggressive focus of the chief contributor of recent times, they don't look similar to me. Thanks for clearing that up. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Controversies section on Vivek Agnihotri

Hi Drmies. Could you be so kind and come up with a better name for Controversies section in Vivek Agnihotri? I couldn't think of one. Thanks :) -- DaxServer (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's always rough. One solution that works for biographies is to ferry the content into the main narrative. So the sexual harassment allegations--there is no reason to NOT move that to the first paragraph in the filmography section. "But it's not directly related to the movie"--yes it is. So that's one--and the other, you might could keep in that section but rename it "Social media", maybe.

    There is a larger issue here. On the one hand, a separate section on "Controversies" focuses attention on it in perhaps an UNDUE way. But on the other hand, those sections are generally much lower down the page, much less visible, and sometimes (I've seen it happen) they are placed below big fat graphic sections like a discography or a table with awards--and those often signal "end of article", thus making the controversies less visible. Personally, I think that half of this is so directly relevant in the biography to one specific event, that that's the right place for it. Does that make sense? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the inputs. I've moved the sexual harassment allegations to the filmography career and has put on the same paragraph as the movie, since, as you said, it's directly related to that. I'm expecting someone would object to this stating this should be under a section. Will wait and see what they say, if at all. I've renamed Twitter section to Social media and has put under the personal life section. The new social media section doesn't describe "social media" activities but only one event. But that doesn't relate to his career. Will see if someone has other ideas. Thanks again! -- DaxServer (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The IP

Somebody just registered a brand new username, "Bearmutt", just to leave a snarky message criticizing me over on the Simple English Wikipedia instead of here. So I don't know whether it's a banned user, or an active editor who's just trying to keep their powder dry by logging out or creating alternate fake usernames so that they can't have their attacks linked back to their primary identity, but either way somebody's definitely playing games and actively fishing for any possible excuse to try to get me into trouble. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2021 (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. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 12:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Hey Drmies.

I saw your comment elsewhere - Thanks - pizza sounds great : )

The editor requested clarification, and while responding, I went and looked over WP:BAN in detail.

I see that bans can be placed by admins. Do you consider the topic ban you placed to be considered a community ban (as a result consensus of the first discussion), or an admin placed one (by you directly)? And did you log it at WP:Editing restrictions (or maybe someplace else)?

Just trying to dot the t's and cross the i's  : )

Thanks again : ) - jc37 22:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Jc37, Drmies, hope you don't mind me jumping in, and feel free to kick me out if this isn't welcome.
From my perspective, the Topic Ban most recently enacted at AN is community-endorsed, and should (as you have said) be considered indefinite, appealable in not-less than six months (as the standard-practice default situation). I agree with the guidance you've given to M - it's a main page ban, so they shouldn't edit or comment on anything that they would reasonably believe to be associated with the main page, such as DYK hooks or TFAs or the like. On the other hand, I'd personally allow them a certain amount of leeway with regards to edits to articles that might back-link to the main page in some obscure way. They shouldn't feel the need to click 'What links here' before every edit, but if there is a pattern of editing pages that 'just accidentally happen to be' related to the MP, then they'd be in breach.
Regarding the original topic ban, unless Drmies tells me differently, I don't think that it was ever formally enacted. It was bloody good advice (in a similar vein to 'you are hereby topic banned from kicking that landmine'), and it wasn't unreasonable in the circumstances, but I don't think that there exists an on-going formal editing restriction over-and-above the one that you enacted with your close of that thread. I also think that your 'do not prolong this' advice is very much on-target. K needs to walk away and do something useful, not follow contributors to that thread around demanding explanations.
That's my tuppenceworth anyway. Feel free to tell me to piss off if this is unwelcome. Girth Summit (blether) 22:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Girth Summit - I understand your concern, but that's not for me to decide. And he does have the option (as I noted) to ask the community for clarification, though I personally wouldn't suggest that on the near term, for what I presume are obvious reasons.
As for Drmies's tban, he used the actual words "topic ban". And WP:BAN does allow for admins to do so, so unless or until he states otherwise, that's a topic ban. I just wasn't sure based upon the context, if he was determining it a result of a community consensus or placing it himself. That said, I defer to him on that, of course : ) - jc37 22:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so I just re-read Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Authority_to_ban. And I don't remember if the tban was before or after the editor was blocked. - jc37 22:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Jc37, it was before the block, and even then, a ban could only have been formally enacted if it was part of a set of unblock conditions that the user agreed to. I am absolutely not trying to give the good doctor a hard time over this, but I think we should just look past that ban as 'not formally enacted'. We can block users, and then require them to accept a ban as an unblock condition, but that's obviously subject to review by other admins looking at the unblock request, and we can impose bans unilaterally when it's an arbitration enforcement action (that has to be logged as such), but for better or worse we can't impose them just because common sense and good judgement says they're necessary. Girth Summit (blether) 22:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm does it still matter? I should have gone about that in a more formal fashion--I suppose what I meant was "if you bother any of these people again in relation to that article I will block you and I encourage any admin to do so", just in more official speak. But I think we're well past that now--I doubt that the user will remain interested in the topic, or trying to bother the editors about it. So let's just drop that, and next time I'll phrase that differently. Thanks Jc37--I'm having a TrimTab IPA, one of the best IPAs from Alabama, and I have one for you if you like. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I support this proposal. I'm jealous of your IPA, but raise you a glass of Dolomiti Pinot Grigio on my way to bed. Girth Summit (blether) 23:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Drmies - Thanks for the clarification. I'll correct my comments accordingly.
And, sure, if you want, though I still miss true Chicago-style deep dish. All that cheese and ingredients. mmmmmm  : ) - jc37 23:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Updated - jc37 23:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks--though I will never understand that fascination with deep dish pizza. Thin is the only way to go--that's how you get the taste of that dough, and that's how mushrooms and prosciutto shine. Burying things in sauce, bleh. I just saw that Johnpacklambert got indeffed--well, don't let anyone say nothing ever happens. And now for some BLP matters on ANI--woohoo. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Chicago-style pizza - The picture on that page is the other kind of Chicago-style deep dish. lol I'm not a fan of the chunky tomato sauce topping either.
I went looking online, and [28] is sorta like what I mean. It seems that Mama Leona's on the north side is under new management and so has a different menu : (
(I bought an extra-large there once, that they put it in a box tied with a string that you'd need a crane to lift - best pizza I ever had, bar none : ) - jc37 08:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that looks a lot more appetizing than other pictures I've seen. My sister-in-law, whose in-laws live in Chicago, once sent us a box of frozen pizzas (crazy luxury) and it wasn't bad at all. I'll call on you next time I'm up there, OK? Drmies (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

JRobinson99

You blocked JRobinson99 (talk · contribs) for a week back in May 2021. It looks like he was puffing up athletes (Special:Diff/1021397869) and comic book films (Special:Diff/1022306905) back then. He's now edit warring to bloat up comic book articles – see Special:Diff/1040382912 and Special:Diff/1040580929. Worth another block? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me why are trying to block me? What have I done to warrant such a block. JRobinson99 (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Johannes Schott

On 27 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Johannes Schott, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Johannes Schott of Strasbourg took over the printing company of his father Martin Schott around 1500, and printed texts by Protestant reformers such as Ulrich von Hutten and Martin Luther? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Schott. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Johannes Schott), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


DYK for Martin Schott

On 27 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Martin Schott, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Johannes Schott of Strasbourg took over the printing company of his father Martin Schott around 1500, and printed texts by Protestant reformers such as Ulrich von Hutten and Martin Luther? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Schott. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Martin Schott), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

unblock modification request

I responded very carefully for several hours a while ago in great details, addressing your points. The 2 articles in question, your primary concerns, seems to be at the root of tensions between myself and the community. Even at these articles, I did not make a single revert, although there were a few mistakes I acknowledge and I apologize for. I understand things like this take time; however, I have edited hundreds of articles from topics varying from beer to pharmaceuticals to media to many other topics. So, Dr, I am imploring you to modify my block from the namespace to just those 2 articles. Or just take my word that I will not edit these 2 pages (I would obviously get caught). Thank you for your consideration. Sucker for All (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Sucker for All, I don't understand this at all, really. First of all, I don't see where you ever addressed my points, about the anti-semitic suggestions for instance. Second, I did not place that block for the Article namespace--but I did agree with it, and I don't see yet why I should change my mind, especially since you simply have not addressed my or Valereee's concerns--what I do see is that you suggest that Valereee and another editor are in cahoots. I also see you write things like "my edits at the Jews of Antwerp and Languages of Belgium definitely led to improvements and more accurate information in both articles"--yeah, that's one of you putting it, with the passive "led to improvements", when what actually happened was you disrupted the articles and then I improved them. No, if you need to implore anyone it's Valereee, and you need to learn how to write a concise unblock request that addresses the salient points and doesn't wander all over the place. These discussions over the things that led to your block do not give me much faith, however, that you can do that: the focus is lacking, and the emphases that are placed are on the wrong things. I am sorry, but I am not going to be your champion here--again, especially considering what I consider to be racist innuendos and statements you placed in article space. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Dr, any admin could be "implored". But while I am disappointed by your post, you have accused me of issuing "racist innuendo", which is alarming. Point to this innuendo, as I have never been accused of anything of the sort here and am appalled that this impression was given to you. The fact is, when users or humans interact a lot, they form a bond, and Valereee was frustrated at me for pursuing Jesse the way BlueboyLINY falsely pursued me (after all, he was briefly blocked for that interaction, not me). Valereee's not in cahoots since she warned me she didn't like friction, but it left a bad taste in her mouth just the same way mustard or pickles leaves a bad taste in my mouth making it difficult for any person in her position to be 100% unbiased; she needs support. And whereas the most recent edits at "Jews of Antwerp" involved deleting sourced information you yourself did not delete, my deletion of "Languages of Belgium" unsourced material led to better sourcing. You said these 2 articles were of greatest concern to you, so I have really tried to address these issues to you specifically. I have pledged not to edit these pages or any pages you specify. Of the hundreds of pages of edits I've made, a very small number have encountered resistance --you pointed to only 2 unresolved issues--, and in no case have I reverted an edit even once since my first warning from an admin. Where should I place my emphases? I will. Where do I lack focus? How can I focus better? I'm trying my best and will not stop trying to do my best here. The more specific the points made are, the easier it will be for me to improve Sucker for All (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Here we go again. This is article improvement. This, well I guess you can call it improvement of a kind, if you will, but you are not going to be given credit for my edit, so "led to better sourcing", your passive construction, really means "I did something and because you disagree with me you reverted me and then improved the article".

This is not an improvement and your number is made up; this is an improvement. One of the things I refer to as racist is in this edit, precisely because it is not verified by the source that you provided, and your subsequent edits didn't make it any better which is why Writ Keeper reverted you here. The other objectionable comment is in this edit--the old cliche about Jews and banks, *lesigh*. I am not going to support a lifting of that Article restriction until it is clear that you understand that the synthesis you were guilty of in the Antwerp Jews article was indeed a violation, and that we will not, NEVER, hear anti-semitic canards again about Jews and banks, or Jews and newspapers, or whatever.

The lack of focus--well, again you're talking about Valereee, saying somehow she's biased yet "she needs support"--what? And some other editor getting blocked, that is of no relevance to me. So you were right one time--good, I'm glad for you. But another thing that rubs me the wrong way is using the passive construction to deflect: you say, about the racist innuendo, "this impression was given to you"--no, it wasn't "given" to me by some vague unidentified entity: it was your edits that performed it. But I'm really tired of this; half of what I said here I already said a few weeks ago. I don't want to do this again; we're in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. I believe I've done enough to explain what I think is problematic about your edits and your behavior; it's time you do your part. Formulate your unblock request, separate the wheat from the chaff, and good luck with it. I am not going to be directly involved, though I reserve the right to comment, as is befitting in a collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sucker for All, at the same time that you are asking me here to help getting you unblocked, you are aiming for a new level of dickishness with these two edits. I'm at a loss for words, but I can't be because of your commentary. Word to the wise: don't come back here unless it's with an apology. Other word for the wise: do you really think I would ever support an unblock after the stunt you pulled on that talk page? Drmies (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry that we don't exactly always agree, but whereas no editor's perfect, I really just do always edit in good faith. The concluding sentence of a source you quite like ( https://dbs.bh.org.il/place/antwerp ) said "In the early 2000's there was an increase in physical attacks on Jews and Jewish property especially by members of the Arab immigrant community of Antwerp," and I believe that that caused the population decrease. "due to" created a WP:Syn according to Writ, but you yourself didn't revert this edit unlike the 1st edit which lacked a source or the 2nd edit which lacked more precise sourcing, the 1st a clearer problem with Syn. More encyclopedic language would be warranted such as "in the 2000s, many Jews and Jewish property were attacked,(source) and the population of the Jewish faith currently stands at 15000(source)". Whereas this was a deletion of a section with a citation needed at its center, this created a syntax error while diminishing the importance of a Jewish man. I did not revert my edit once the source was added, and again apologize for this edit; nobody's perfect. My unblock request is formulated, and any advice you have on approaching the WP:FUNC or WP:Oversight or another similar body (or an individual within such a body) would be appreciated. Sucker for All (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Again, you still don't have a source for 15,000; the source you cited says that the Orthodox Jewish community is 15,000, not the entire Jewish community. And whether you believe attacks on the Jewish community caused a population decline is irrelevant, you need reliable sources that say that explicitly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Writ Keeper, I give up. And where did they get this "source you quite like" from? The source was already there. I'm not sure if we're still in NOTHERE territory--it's more like we are in CIR territory. Oh, I thought of you today: go watch Resurrection: Ertugrul, and hurry up, because it's gone from Netflix on Sep 20. Hurry up: you got some 75 episodes to go and then you'll see what I think is a Turkish-inflected caricature of a real shaman. It gets very bloody. (I guess you can skip the first season and go right to the beginning of the second season--and the caravanserai scene--but then you won't learn why Ertugrul is such a hero, and how he met Halime Sultan, and how far Selcan Hatun has come, and why it's so weird that Gokce is so weird, and what this mysterious bearded character is who appears to Ertugrul in a hallucination and gives him a cup of milk in the middle of the Mongol camp--it's Ibn Al-Arabi of course. Don't even get me started on what's happening with the Kayi tribe--or on Aykiz...poor Aykiz... Anyway, gotta go. There's five seasons and my clock is running. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Filetime

Bad timing on this, but Filetime apparently can't stop themselves from harassing me. See their removal of my images from Soho, Manhattan, replacing them with inferior images - they are all, in point of fact, complete crap. This person really has absolutely no idea what is and isn't an appropriate image for a Wikipedia article. See Talk:Soho, Manhattan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Coordinators and help needed

Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

Geolocation

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.

Yo Ho Ho

M.Bitton (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of 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/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Reasoning behind Ping

I make it short, the reasoning behind my ping was I am still behind hassled by Rusf10 (I was pinged by him). Since I am not allowed to comment on his comments and I have had no contact with him, I asked you and Floquenbeam to kindly ask Rusf10 to do the same. While I am disappointed you are "not interested", I am doing what I said I would and was told. This concludes my reasoning/explanation behind my ping of you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:29 on April 5, 2021 (UTC)

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.

Heroes

Loved the picture on your user page. I'm no Crimson Tide fan, but I am a fan of Terri Sewell, and I really wished Biden had picked her as his VP. Unschool 05:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I quit after "I'm no Crimson Tide fan", ;-) Yeah, she's doing a pretty good job for her constituents in a heavily gerrymandered state. Part of her district is mere blocks away from my reliably Republican district in Montgomery. I guess Alabama's 7th congressional district doesn't look as ridiculous as some other crazy districts, but it seems pretty clear that the powers that be gave some of the Black communities in Montgomery and Birmingham to that district so they'd be safe: look at how neatly the Black communities are cut out of Alabama's 6th congressional district, and how safe it was made for Gary Palmer (politician) and the like. As for Sewell over Harris--I don't know. Sewell isn't done yet, and Harris was a great pick for the national scene, I think. Thanks, and take care! Drmies (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Socks be socking

Mind taking a look at User talk:ToBeFree (the section about some Indian person)? There's quite a few suspicious things going on, and the people doing them clearly are not interested in our policies at all... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Tommy Gibbons

If you don't like the flagicons, I don't care if you delete them, but you have to delete ALL of them. That means icons for the fighters and the locations for every fight he had on his official and unofficial records. |style="text-align:left;" Should not be shown to the reader. It is really easy to delete them if you just use search and replace for each flagicon type rather than deleting 6 or 7 flagicons for 200+ fights (both records) and making the record look sloppy.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Applying the nuclear option to an obvious example of WP:NOTDATABASE was an elegant and painless method of getting rid of the flagcruft too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
CaPslOcksBroKEn, no I don't. You put that stuff in, you need to make sure it is good stuff--and it was not. If it's so easy, you could have taken care of it a long time ago--and your search and replace tip doesn't work since for some weird reason boxers are said to represent their country (they don't), and that makes the simple replacement more difficult. But RandomCanadian has found a solution that is fine with me. And I hadn't looked over the entire article--but (unverified) "Fast Facts" and "Quotes", where did you get that from? Drmies (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


The addition of a flag does not make something not "good stuff". If you understood how to use the advanced tools on Wikipedia, you would realize that it works perfectly fine and just because you are incapable of understanding how to use it does not mean there is a problem with it. I didn't do it initially, because of the multitude of boxing records that still have them such as Boxing career of Muhammad Ali, Boxing career of Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, Roberto Duran, Tommy Hearns, Marvin Hagler, Joe Louis, and so many more that I did not see the issue. Painless this solution may be, but it is awful and restricts the history of the sport to those who know how to access these records. For example, you don't have a clue where I got the info from. It comes from boxrec.com, which I'd be shocked if you had an account for (necessary to gain all the information listed here). Instead of poking around and putting in any resemblance of effort to learn, people like you roam around Wikipedia and delete hours of work, information, and knowledge because you are offended by a simple flag. You complain so much about actually seeing the record of Tommy Gibbons, but where is this effort and energy in erasing his record completely? This "obvious" solution and version of the article that you accept so willingly ignored the fact that there was and is a boxing record on there (uncompleted) that was improperly sourced. It would be so easy to look something up and spend some time to contribute something rather than disrespecting those who take the time to do the busy work required for these famous and frequently visited articles to be.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


Even by what you are saying, Ali’s record should be diminished so that it only shows his fights versus significant opponents, which would minimize the context and restrict information.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing. As of now, full fight records are allowed. If you want to try to change that and minimize what is shown at the very bottom of the article (collapsably for most fighters with newspaper decisions this is the place to go.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Boxing/MOSGuidelines. You should talk to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mac_Dreamstate and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Squared.Circle.Boxing about this.


There is no yelling on my part. I don't care about irrelevant things when you know which posts are mine. I know how to use what I need to use in order to make things the average person is going to see. I know how to efficiently edit boxing careers with hundreds of fights and what it takes in order to make it not look like an inconsistent mess. If you wanted me to take the flagicons off, there was a much better way to go about it that didn't include deleting the work I did because flagicons offended you so much. That is lazy and rude. If you don't like talking to me, it is easy: don't delete over a hundred fights or break the code/only edit a few fights and post it. I have left links to people who are also well versed in this subject, so that is where you can go if you want to see such important and proper indent's and signs of posts. With thatCaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • How about this--how about I simply revert you every time you make a mistake? I see what "broken code" you meant: it was a simple "|". I also see that I'm about to run into an edit conflict with you because you are correcting a mistake here--tsk tsk. Would it be the lack of proper indentation? The spurious extra lines between my post and yours, which, if you are responding to me, you should thread properly? If you need help with that, see Help:Talk_pages#Indentation. And no, I could not easily see what you had written--because I'm used to reading proper indentation. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark

Hello, Drmies,

I just noticed your block of Djm-leighpark. Have you seen their talk page during their block? It's quite atypical behavior for a blocked editor to have such voluminous editing proposal. I'm not sure what to do about this since their block ends tomorrow but I thought I'd alert you. I went and read over the ANI discussion that led to the block and found it one of the most confusing incidents I've come across there which is a high bar to meet. Being disruptive and then basically reporting oneself and asking for a block? Weird. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Liz, I had noticed the same thing, even before you posted here, and was considering revoking TPA--it seemed like editing by proxy to me. Plus, it's weird anyway--they had other (inactive) accounts that they wanted me to block? I just walked away from it, since it was getting strange. Is their talk page turning into a blog? Drmies (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ...

August songs

... for improving a hook shown today! I liked yesterday's Main page, with 4 bolded names I brought there, all in memory: nominating the TFA Mary Shelley, the pictured DYK (Alfred Biolek), and two under Recent deaths, Siegfried Matthus and Teresa Żylis-Gara. August harvest. - Leo Kestenberg: would you know where to find refs for the second half? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • That's fantastic. For Kestenberg, you mean "Cultural-political significance"? No, I don't--it's well outside my expertise so other than searching Google Books and maybe JSTOR I wouldn't really know what to do. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you. We'll probably comment it out, - it's anyway not much more than a duplication in other words, possibly OR or copyvio - who knows. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

More Chesterton Academy shenanigans

[29], any chance for a revdel and block? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

2601:201:4201:A4B0:0:0:0:0/64

That does not seem to be their comment they are editing, rather someone else's. Johnashu originally added the message saying, "now people assume that raa raa the noisy lion has a season 4", meaning they are saying other people are incorrect. The same user also edited the article, changing it from four seasons to three seasons. The IP range changed the user's talk page comment, seeming to try and make it sound like there is four seasons. The same IP range is the one who had been manually reverting my cleanup on the article last month, reinstating claims of a fourth season & reintroducing errors ([30] [31] [32]). From what I can tell, Johnashu and the range are not the same person and they are not editing their own comment. The IP range also later made an account continuing the disruptive reverts, which was ultimately blocked indefinitely.

This is not really a show I am familiar with, but when trying to cleanup the article, I had found barely any sources to help confirm anything. However, I did check Peacock and the show is indeed available on there... with just three seasons. After trying to look up/find sources to help add to the article, the only thing I could find supporting a fourth season was IMDb, which of course is not reliable. Magitroopa (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 Indian Premier League

Hi. Could you please strike out this edit? Clog Wolf Howl 17:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:43, 6 September 2021 (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.

BilCat (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Hanneke Kappen

On 7 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hanneke Kappen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dutch radio and TV presenter Hanneke Kappen (pictured) presented the second Dutch radio show dedicated to heavy metal music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hanneke Kappen. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hanneke Kappen), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Women jazz singers category

I don't know where to proper venue is to ask this question, but perhaps you can advise. Since the renaming of [[Category:Female jazz singers]] to [[Women jazz singers]], are juvenile female jazz singers intended to be excluded from the category? Or are 10-year-olds to be considered young women? The issue has come up at Baby Esther. Thanks for your consideration. Ewulp (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Jewish New Year & Tachash

The Jewish year 5781 is ending soon. Would it be OK to ask that this draft article about Tachash be given as a new year present to Wikipedia's readership? Pi314m (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

At the time that this was posted, it was 1 Tishri 5782 in Jerusalem, London, and New York. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

sep 2012 not helpful

you put a wrong comment on my page about 1 article it wasnt helpful

also

oh you claimed that "consists mainly of" was wrong,

but this is incorrect, you didnt even do your research and you said that this was wrong

you also make the article better, and all you did was remove this phrase without asking or anything GovGuide (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Whitman and Lincoln (updated(again))

Hi Drmies, thought you might be interested to hear that Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln just passed FAC. I'll see what I can do with the remaining four articles in the topic... Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Holy moly Eddie891, you are just a FA writing machine. Thanks for the note. Congratulations, and thank you for contributing this quality content. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Eddie891, that was a pretty quick and smooth review. Well done. I'm in awe, really. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks Drmies, it means a lot, especially coming from an editor I greatly admire (yourself). Most of the credit should really goes to those around me, who were so kind in helping me prepare the article for FAC. I couldn't have done it without such a great community. In fact, your encouragement in early January caught me at a time go I was feeling really stressed out and demotivated on-wiki and really helped me get the energy to continue the project. Thanks for that and for not minding the past couple updates I've posted over here-- it makes a world of difference to feel like someone's noticing your content. Best wishes Eddie891 Talk Work 02:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks! That's really nice to hear, though I feel I don't deserve it. I did see, in the review and elsewhere, that others worked on the article too, but that's exactly the way it should be done. And sometimes when I'm not feeling it, Uncle G drops by or some other editor and nudges me this way or that, or I see something that makes me go "yeah, we should do more of that", and that gets me going again. I had a pretty long slew of lynching-related articles and since then I've not been feeling it, but I've also been busy with other things. (Just now, a whole bunch of discussion posts in an online class, about the poetry of Anne Bradstreet.) But one of the things that always makes me feel better is being part of a community that produces quality stuff like you and so many others do, and some of those editors drop by on this page every now and then, and then I have faith in the world again. So thanks again for doing all this good work: thousands and thousands of readers, of students and teachers, all kinds of people benefit from it. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That bit of clothing that fits between your feet and shoes...

Here is an account that was new in late August yet seems to understand how to do things around here, ButterSlipper [33]. Perhaps a child of SkepticAnonymous? Anyway, just doesn't seem quite right. Hope all is well! Springee (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) He does an endless amount of (misused) wikilawyering and policy-linking. Either he's merely getting better at being endlessly disruptive and searching for policies to faux-quote, or he is a you-know-what. In the past four days since his last block expired, he has been endlessly disruptive -- battleground statements and PAs, faux wikilawyering, and IDHT, across many pages and at many people, over one single issue (which is a subset of his overarching raison d'etre on wiki, which is pushing a pro-Communist agenda). The things that mitigate against his possibly being a sp are the facts that he didn't learn to create a diff until today, and he still doesn't know how to do a ping (he uses square brackets and thus they don't work). Cheers. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Pardon me ma'am, for "casting nasturtiums"

DYK for Clara Leiser

On 11 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clara Leiser, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American journalist and activist Clara Leiser traveled to Nazi Germany frequently, and documented the plight of families of political prisoners? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clara Leiser. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Clara Leiser), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You might want to tweak your archiving parameters ... (?)

Hi Drmies, I for one have a hard time following your talkpage via watchlist because most all of the edits now are done by Lowercase sigmabot (so that's what shows up on my watchlist), which cleans the page much more often than anyone else's -- often every single day. People would better know what was going on your talk if you changed the "minthreadstoarchive" to a higher number than "1", which is where it is at now. At a higher number the bot wouldn't archive every single day, but would wait until there were at least that number which needed archiving. Seems like your talkpage used to be a more talkative place; now I think things are archived before some people see it on their watch lists because the biggest participant on your talk is the bot. If you catch my drift. In any case, just thought I'd make that suggestion, which you can ignore. Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Softlavender, any drop-off in excitement is probably completely my own doing--I used to have more interesting ideas than I do now, and I feel like there are so many things (meta things, policy things, technical things) that are going way over my head. I don't use watchlists myself so I don't know what shows up and how, though I do know that archiving is not signaled for me as a new talk page message/edit by Echo (I think it's Echo that does that, these notifications?). I didn't set up the archive myself: I used to do it by hand but a kind soul set it up for me. I didn't even see that it archived every day, but looking at the (recent) history I see that you're right. I really don't care one way or the other, and you're welcome to change it for me to whatever you think is right. One week, two weeks, a month, that's all fine--thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    • OK, I slowed it down slightly. Thanks! You don't use a watchlist??? How does one operate on wiki without a watchlist? Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Alright, let's see how that goes. Watchlist? We don't need no freaking watchlists! I looked at it one time and deleted everything on it, years ago. I just looked: it says "You have 37,387 pages on your watchlist". Yeah, I'm not going to check that. Thanks for the tweak! Drmies (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, right now I'm going to one-click archive the posts on this TP that lack normal date-stamps, because the bot will never archive them and some of them are from ages and ages ago. You gave me this permission at some point previously, but now there are more of the offending posts. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If you clear the watchlist piecemeal, the server won't time out. Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Also of note is the fact that, since several months ago, items put on watchlist (or auto-added by tools such as Twinkle) are not permanently on your watchlist unless you choose that option. So, if you place a Twinkle-warning on a vandal's TP, that page will fall off of your watchlist at some point (which I haven't determined but brighter minds than me might know). Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits by 93.143.125.29

This is very complicated but somehow I ended up trying to give advice to this IP because he felt you were attacking him. Which edits were the problem? This person's edits look good to me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

have sent an email

In a moment, anyways - please have a look if you are able - trust you are well and in good working order at your end

JarrahTree 08:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello Drmies, may I ask you for a third opinion? There is a request for help from Aziyade Gil on my talk page. Since I am the same opinion, I addressed the user concerned on his talk page. Unfortunately with no success. Catalans are actually no ethnic group and therefore they should be considered Spaniards. At Basques, UK (Welsh - Scottish), Kurds, etc., the corresponding, partly for nationalist reasons, will be revised immediately. I hope you can help there or correct my opinion. Many thanks in advance --Serols (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Hey Serols--it may be that you asked the wrong person. First of all, I will tell you that I am not actually sure what policy dictates here, if anything. I do know that we see English, Scottish, Welsh etc. as adjectives before people and their professions, and I'm sure you've seen that too. Personally, I am really not in favor of fetishizing nationality over ethnicity or whatever one wants to call it: reality is always more complicated than the labels. I have seen "Catalan" in various articles over the years and I've not felt the urge to replace it--but I'll freely admit that I am less inclined to give "Quebeqcois" the same status. I myself am probably not consistent with these appellations, and it matters considerably per region and per time period. In many parts of Africa, ethnicity matters more than nationality; in some articles in some contexts it's more important to say "African American" rather than "American". Whether in this case "Catalan" is less clear to an international audience is a valid question, though one could counter that the wikilink helps with that.

    I'm not sure what you mean with the Basque, Kurdish, etc. examples--are you saying that "Kurdish" gets reverted to "Turkish" for nationalist reasons? But Abdullah Öcalan is described as Kurdish (and see Talk:Abdullah_Öcalan/Archive_2#Nationality_and_ethnicity_confusing.). Of course doing this in Balkan territory is a huge can of worms, so let's stay out of that for now. Anyway, I think these matters should be handled carefully. I do not think nationality or citizenship should override ethnicity, and to that extent I disagree with MOS:ETHNICITY (which doesn't unequivocally mandates mention of nationality, but leans towards it), but it seems that most editors do follow that guideline.

    Some of the complications and the nationalist/ethnic interests are evident in Danilo Kiš. In 2013 he was "Serbian" and "Yugoslav", whatever that means. I kept that, maybe against my better judgment, but since he was a writer I thought his language was more important. I agree with this edit, which indicates how complicated the matter is. Here he was Montenegrin for a while, here he becomes Serbian again, here I'm making my fetish point again (I'm a broken record, but I try to be consistent), and this is based on what I know about him. Here is the fetishization of language, and this will return a few times--what's the point. Here is the return of the nationalists. I agree with this change, back to Yugoslav, though I wonder what the edit summary means. And here, after "Serbian" was reintroduced, the language is removed. It's very tiresome, and in the last few years "Catalan" has also become contentious--but in that case, I'd not bother myself with it. That's not good advice in terms of our guidelines, maybe, but it is what I would do. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I just happened to be passing by and I would say that you should respect how people view themselves. I only looked at one example [34], imposing a Spanish identity on someone who identifies themselves as Catalan is rather rude and an example of the very nationalism you seem to be railing against. On a more serious point, the appeal for help seems to an outsider as an example of vote stacking, where you have ganged up with other editors to impose your view. Personally I would be included to revert you but I can't be bothered to argue over nationalism, which I consider a pox on wikipedia. WCMemail 16:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Wee Curry Monster, I appreciate you stopping by: I like company. But please don't sling mud at Serols, who came here, I don't doubt it for a moment, to ask for a third opinion. First of all, they're not getting involved in any conflict that I know of where a vote (or "vote") of mine would matter--and Serols is not known for holding such debates. Second, I don't think that Serols had any kind of way of knowing which way I would lean, and if they thought I'd simply say "yeah sure revert", they were certainly disappointed--but I don't think that is what they were looking for. Serols, rather, is an editor of the status quo, not a rebel of some sort. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Drmies, I could add a sigh emoticon but I always feel they're a little twee but instead I'll draw your attention to the note at the top of my talk page. It's all too easy to infer a meaning not intended to communication in text as we lose the context of non-verbal communication. I didn't intend to sling mud at anyone OK. I don't for one moment think they were asking you to take action, I know you wouldn't, I would imagine they knew that too. But I will draw your attention to the fact that another editor came to their talk page and from an outsider it seemed a fairly blatant attempt to involve them in a revert war; sadly Serols did act on that solicitation. So as I said it had the appearance of vote stacking even if that were not their intention. My wording was probably clumsy and for that I apologise but mud slinging wasn't my intention. However, as someone of Basque/Scottish heritage I do understand the frustration and irritation when someone imposes labels upon you. WCMemail 07:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:Wee Curry Monster, I think you did not understand what it's about. Wikipedia is an Enzklopedy which must be neutral. Here's an example: The Kurds live in 3 different states, Turkey, Iran and Syria. To write in nationality he is Kurd is nonsense. He is either Turk, Iranian or Syrians from the ethnic group of Kurds. For the example of Catalans: All Catalans have a Spanish passport, paying to Spain their taxes and get their pension of Spain. They are legally all Spaniards. There are virtually daily attempts to change nationality in Kurds or Catalons, which is definitely wrong. Nothing else is here. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
But Serols, the larger question is what was being edited, and what does that mean. Is this edit about nationality? Ethnicity? Regional identity? And MOS:ETHNICITY doesn't mandate nationality: "In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident"--so this edit would pass that test. But the most important question, for me, is why nationality (citizenship, residency) is favored over ethnicity. What is more important for Ocalan? That he is a legal resident or whatever of Turkey, or that he is a Kurd born in Turkey who is fighting for an independent Kurdistan? Nationality is no more "neutral" than, for instance, ethnicity--or, if it is, it's only in the sense that it's more easily documented. And I don't think we're talking about clearly defined infobox parameters here, are we? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Drmies, at Antoni Gaudí I was also asked - see here, please note my answer. I personally prefer this editing, that's correct neutral and would fit for all ethnic groups in the corresponding states. In my opinion, neutral Ocalan is a Turk with Kurdish background. Regards --Serols (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
No that wouldn't necessarily be more neutral or more correct and could well be favouring a non-neutral POV. To put it into a sharp perspective I would invite you to a Glasgow pub to tell the assembled throng that they are British with a Scottish background. How long do you think you'd be alive afterward? WCMemail 17:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:Wee Curry Monster, that's exactly what needs to be prevented in Wikipedia and nobody needs - Nationalism. --Serols (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I fear the point about nationalism is going over your head, its as much nationalist editing to deny someone their Catalan heritage and insist they be labeled Spaniard. Think about it. WCMemail 19:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Drmies, thank you for your detailed explanation, you helped me a lot. Wish you a nice week --Serols (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit

Since you've been active on the case before, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit please? It relates to an open report at AN3, so an early resolution will be best I feel. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No more trolling

Hey, I'm that user you blocked for 1 week due to trolling. I've learned a lesson and I'll never do this again. Thank you. KnowledgeMastermind (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think my vision is getting cloudy after reading too many pages. Did I just read above: "Hi, I'm back and don't want more attention, but I decided to ask for more anyway" ? - jc37 11:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me? No, I don't want attention, all I said was that I learned a lesson about why you shouldn't be trolling on Wikipedia, I got a 1 week block for that, I said I have actually changed. KnowledgeMastermind (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear it (and glad to see my eyes aren't so blurry : ) - I wish you well, Happy editing. - jc37 17:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
KnowledgeMastermind, I'm glad to hear that. And of course I assume you're also going to stick to one account. Jc37, I'll accept the statement in good faith; it's up to the user to prove it. You've been here for 15 years! Thanks for sticking with it. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I look at that number and it still seems odd to think about that one day back in 2006, I decided to stop merely being a reader and actually create an account to help out. : ) - jc37 17:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive User

Is it possible to get put on this anonymous user User talk:119.18.1.229. I have asked them repeatedly not to vandalise pages and they continue to do so.Sully198787 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Taking "ANI 2.0" literally

Hi, Doc. When I returned to editing last year, I vowed I wouldn't file at ANI if I could ever help it. And yet I'm in a situation where an account has done something above the paygrade of AIV but not fit for any specialized venue. As the (tragic) creator of WP:ANI 2.0, I thus feel within my rights to come bother you and/or your talk-page stalkers with this:

All the best -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Floquenbeam--that's DR. ANI2.0, haha. Did I miss anything exciting? I was making squash, stuffed with sausage and kale. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
You know, you came up in conversation with a few wiki-friends the other day, and not one but three said that it had taken them years to realize it wasn't /dərmaɪz/ dər-MIZE. So maybe Floq is like them and just never realized it's "Dr" as in "Dr". And no, nothing exciting, other than someone showing a decent way to speedrun an indef without vandalizing. (P.S. Thanks for finally getting Samay Raina the indef semi it needed. I think I've reverted close to 400 edits there now, across its gaps in protection.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
It came up at my RfA! Floquenbeam is an old man, older than me, and should know everything better. (I follow Raddad on Instagram and I'm sure he's in half the photos.) As for that article, sure thing: there's quite a few for which that is necessary, and I have no qualms at all about infinite semi-protection.

You said "tragic"--I'm glad you're here so I can share tragedy too: Turgut Alp is leaving Kayi tribe and the service of Ertugrul. I can understand it (the death of Aykiz haunts him, of course, and then to lose Wild Demir, it's enough to make any person break), and it's true that Ertugrul, now in his 174th episode, is becoming a bit of a ... zealot? but still, it's sad--really, it's tragic. He won't even stay for Mother Hayme! Thanks for listening--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

... are you okay? Do you need the real kind of doctor?
(P.S. Might I interest you in {{pb}}? I know MW auto-closes the <p> but I can't help but twitch at it. More broadly, you may be interested in my additions to WP:*: a few months ago, regarding such things. Improvements welcome, as I'm not sure my advice for this exact scenario was the optimal answer.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
If anything, I need to follow the advice of Ibn Arabi. But Turgut's situation didn't improve since I wrote my anguished note. And, eh, I need to "close" the <p>? I had no idea. I'll try your pb template. You're way smarter at this than I am. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
For more on the issue of <p> and how it can cause unexpected and undesirable results, see my note from six years ago on EEng's talk page.
Tamzin, it's good to see you back here. Although I dunno if we ever interacted, I seem to have fond memories of the input from your former incarnation. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow, someone's got a long memory, that's for sure. EEng 20:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Mandarax, I value your input so much that I even clicked on the diff--you know I don't usually visit EEng's talk page, fearing it will break my internet connection. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Aw, thanks. Yes, I'm sometimes able to view EEng's talk page on a desktop, but when I attempt to do so on an iPad, it litterally bursts into flame. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Technical help

Hi Drmies. Hope, you are keeping well. I need some technical guidance from you. I have helped new editors many times by giving them Wikipedia tutorials in person. I also conduct offline workshops occasionally as there are lack of editors in our state. Recently, I observed a weird thing. This is because I have no knowledge about technical stuff. When one of my students try to create Wiki account, they receive 'Account creation error', See this image. The person has never edited Wikipedia, never created account. So how did this happen? Is there any solution? Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I am not the one to turn to for technical help--users like Mandarax are much more clever than I am. I can't see really what is going on here. You already gave up the location and all that, so privacy is out the window; next time, please email--particularly with an IPv6 address, since it took me forever to type it in correctly, haha.
    There is a partial block on the range, but that's not relevant here. It's more likely that, if you ran a workshop, you ran into an autoblock of sorts: when you have too many people trying to create accounts, for instance, the IP is blocked. Yeah, I had that happen during a class: it was awful. There are things to do to counter that, exemptions that can be given, and that can be done in advance: when you know you're running a thing, you can get the IP or the IP range to be exempt. I wonder who knows all this--zzuuzz probably does. But what I do is I ask all those students/participants to register before the event... Drmies (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    I can't claim to understand this block either. The two block IDs are relatively old. However Drmies offers some good solutions. Gazal world (or even remote students) can also create accounts for other students using Special:CreateAccount and the recipient's email address, assuming their own IP is not blocked from account creation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    zzuuzz If I use my internet connection or my laptop to create their account, I am afraid that I might be accused of sockpuppetry in future. Are my fears right? Can I use my laptop or connection to create new accounts for them or teach them? --Gazal world (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
    I would only do it when you need to, but if you explain what's occurring then there's unlikely to be a problem. There's a "Reason" field when you create an account, so fill that in and be as transparent as you can be. If you want to see something similar to how it could look in your log, take a look at Special:Log/OutreachDashboardBot. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for Pending Change Reviwers

Hi, @Drmies: How it's you going? I Requested to you Please give Pending Change User Right for 1 month. In Before Few Months I Requested for this Right on Wikipedia Request for Right but any Admin doesn't action on my Comment.Best Regards JiggyzizTalk✍️ 03:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

NPA

Pretty sure this edit summary is a personal attack. The article is a hotbed is with infobox stuff so understand you may not want to get involved. Side question, who is Ertugrul? S0091 (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

Hi Drmies, I saw you blocked one of the IPs who kept adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick. I went ahead and blocked 2800:484:738E:8A30:7DA3:E198:3D37:FC03/64 due to continued disruption. Just wanted to let you know. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay

Okay
Sorry about the summery with the yelling. Also, I am potentally gonna add sources after adding them. PenguinBoi6969 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

  • Library design improvements deployed
  • New collections available in English and German
  • Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Any connection?

Are the brand new accounts posting at Talk:One UI socks or related to the LTA obsessed with the article itself by any chance? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Max Creutz

Err... Thanks for your help but I thought the in use template was a way to prevent other users to intervene on articles in order to avoid edit conflicts. I'm glad I discovered your welcome but untimely intervention before I started to translate. Fell free to correct my work when it's over though. LouisAlain (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

George Philip Krapp

For some reason that I don't even remember, I stumbled onto this stub this morning and tripled its length. He was an academic of the English language and so it is in your wheelhouse. If you or any of the denizens of this talk page want to work on it, fine. I have a favor to ask. In "Further reading", I put a link to a 1926 review in American Speech. I can only read the first page.. Can you email me the complete text? Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for writing him up--yes, Krapp/Dobie are some of the most notable names in the founding of the discipline. For a long time the files from the ASPR were the online sources of Old English poetry. I emailed you the article. Thanks again Cullen! Drmies (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Gerda's September corner

September songs

Omas gegen Rechts - enjoy strong women, - nice match to "yours"! I thought of Yoninah on the first day of Rosh Hashanah. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Rich Main page today: first TFA by promising author, pictured DYK by my friend LouisAlain who is discouraged by an AN discussion, and one of the Recent deaths. Enjoy! - The promising author is also mentioned (at least indirectly) here (pending unblock request), in case you have time for "in dubio pro reo" even against odds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for Clara Leiser! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

today: the day of bold red and black, for Dante who died 700 years ago, and Peter Fleischmann who died recently, leaving us films full of vision. Dante: just heard Inferno, imagined by a woman, the main character both speaking and singing with an inner 4-part voice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for help in September, - a rich harvest! On Peace Day Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Today: a woman in red (back to the beginning of the thread), two who died under "in memoriam" and LouisAlain missed - my first editnotice read: "Every editor is a human being" which is quoted from a comment by Geometry guy in a 2012 discussion on WP:AN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Redoshi and her husband.jpg

Do you have any evidence that this was published before 2019? The photo seems to be too young for {{PD-US-unpublished}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't think I ever stated anywhere that it was. The caption of the NYT says this, "Redoshi, known as Sally Smith, with her husband, called Uncle Billy or Yawith. Research suggests she may have been the last survivor of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. (PHOTOGRAPH VIA SHIRLEY QUARLES)". "Quarles" is a family name and the name of the plantation where she lived; the family likely "owned" her. But I don't really understand your question. The photo seems young? Drmies (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    • It says that the photo was taken early in the 20th century and {{PD-US-unpublished}} states that unpublished works are protected for 120 years from creation if the photographer is anonymous. This means that unpublished photos taken before 1900 are in the public domain while unpublished photos taken in 1901 and later still are copyrighted. If this was taken early in the 20th century, then it still seems too young for {{PD-US-unpublished}}.
      Note that {{PD-US-expired}} only is for published works. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
      • She seems younger than 52 to me. Maybe I was wrong saying the picture was taken early in the 20th century; maybe it was late in the 19th century. I'll go and correct it. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi @Drmies: There is an editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Lee (singer) who is making personal attacks against. Can you have a look please. scope_creepTalk 15:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

sigh

Needs someone good with young people to give him The Talk. (hint, hint) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_136&oldid=1079160581"