Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 137

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130←Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140

Why did the picture of Sandy Marton get removed?

Ok, you provided a valid reason to remove the 'modern popularity' section. I'm not contesting that. But why was the deletion of his picture necessary? (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not aware that I removed a picture--if I did, feel free to put it back in. My interest was to get rid of all that unverified and unencyclopedic stuff added by various users including User:Zamber Rensil. BTW there was some blatant racism in the history as well, as another unfortunate side effect of that little bit of viral fame. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Relatedly, I see you've not been notified of WP:AN#Sandy Marton. Interesting first edit. I count three other accounts with less than five edits in Special:PageHistory/Sandy Marton too... -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Ha, I suppose I should comment on that veridicity. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Tamzin, you're totally being an SPI person, haha. Yeah, it may well be that there's a sock or two in there, but who cares--they'll go away. Thanksdd, Drmies (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Does vaguely gesticulating in the direction of possible sox sound like me caring? :P -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Tamzin, I ran into another one, just above the AN section. If you look at my log you'll see I CU-blocked a bunch of socks of User:Shaban Roman Petrovich (who was active on two ranges). The most recent batch, starting with User:Search for the essence, is I believe also a set of socks of Petrovich, given the similarity between User:Persecuted editors (who is CU confirmed with the others in the second batch) and Petrovich. Hello world! So, what do you think--open an SPI, or just tag em? You can do that much better than me, so if you don't mind... Drmies (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Shit, I meant to put money on how long it'd take them to get blocked. Oh well. I'll open a pro forma SPI, since I doubt this is the last we'll hear of Shaban (and because mass-tagging is easier with spihelper).
              P.S. A useful trick to turn a segment of a block log into a list of {{checkuser}}s: Copy-paste everything into an editing window and use the find-and-replace button in the top-right corner, with "Treat search string as a regular expression" checked, to turn .*? blocked (.*?) talk contribs with an expiration time of .* into * {{checkuser|$1}}. Replace all. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

A new userbox may be needed

Hello Drmies. I hope you and your family are well. I saw this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible promotional use and distuptive behavior and thought "it is a wonderful thing to be a self-confident amateur" and to edit alongside so many others who are the same :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

In the proud tradition of ANI 2.0

Someone seems unhappy that I have nominated a few of the crème de la crème lists on WP for deletion, and is now trying to tell me I'm bludgeoning (with my usually short replies), by highlighting the shortcoming of their reasoning. Mind telling me if I should indeed keep quiet? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think your contributions are substantively fine but also that it wouldn't hurt for you to disengage. (You are not the only person to whom the latter part applies.) --JBL (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
JBL, I resemble that remark... Drmies (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Ha! --JBL (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

New Baby Blue section for YoUDee

Dear Drmies,

I am trying to add sources for the article of my university's mascot, YoUDee. I recently added an addition to the YoUDee article for Baby Blue, YoUDee's sibling mascot. I see you reverted my changes because there's not any "independent secondary sources".

I see three problems with this.

1) There's no benefit to secondary sources with something so branded like a mascot. All a secondary source will do is rehash information from UD's official website. This article from Newsweek (quite recently) that mentions YoUDee just copied the text from "YoUDee's Profile" on UD's official bluehens site with minor syntax changes. If you google the text "YoUDee's proud lineage...measured in minutes", the second search result is the bluehens dot com profile.

2) Secondary sources cannot feasibly add any new valid information about YoUDee's sibling mascot Baby Blue, otherwise it would not be canon or legitimate.

3) I've searched high and low for sources on just YoUDee. It took me a month before I found a ProQuest article, then the microforms for a pre-YoUDee mascot pictures. I have found little about Baby Blue that is not just an aside, "[YoUDee was at a charity event today... Baby Blue, too]".

There is some precedent for the ~800 character edit I made.

1) University of Kentucky's mascot have all of their mascots listed. 2) The Nittany Lion of Penn State has three total references, two of which are university primary sources, one of which is a dead LA times link.

Maybe the text I wrote was excessive. Could there be a Baby Blue section on the YoUDee wikipedia page, "Baby Blue", and the paragraph text just reads "YoUDee has a sibling mascot, Baby Blue". I think it is notable enough that some people would benefit from it. Personally, less than half the university students I have encountered are aware of Baby Blue. And I've seen multiple people use the YoUDee wikipedia article by their own volition.

I apologize for the length of this -- I just wanted to convey my thoughts fully.

Respectfully, Jvillemare (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Jvillemare, this is the thing: if there are no secondary sources, it really shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Things are not inherently notable (unless they're presidents or caves with Neanderthal remains). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:29, 5 October 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.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Buildings in Savannah Historic District

Hey friends and visitors--what do you make of this? List of lighthouses in the Netherlands, which I've done a bit of work on, has a bunch of red links, but those are for things that pretty much have inherent notability. That's not the case here, with all these entries. I would appreciate your advice. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Oof -- has a very WP:NOTWEBHOST/WP:NOTDIRECTORY feel to me. Nice photos, at least. But hard to imagine there being anything to say/any sources about more than a handful of these.--JBL (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD SPA

I don't know if the header rings any bells, but the above seems to have a very narrow interest in a few list articles, and in making spurious votes to keep them at AfDs (this includes copy-pasting the same argument). They haven't been active anywhere else besides in two short bursts. Or maybe I'm just being too suspicious. Anyway, wish you well, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It's also possible there's a link with Special:Contributions/2001:8003:24d1:a000:2ceb:c26a:6ecd:b209, but that's not obvious enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
You got mail. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bartolo 5565 RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for solving the previous one. This seems to never end: what about Special:Contributions/LashandaWilhelm? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Performance Food Group

Hi Drmies, I would like to have suggestions on what can be improve to unpropose the deletion of this this article? And I don't think that this article is in a "run-of-the-mill". But I would be happy if you share me some of your opininon about why is this article considered a "run-of-the-mill". Thanks! :) Loh Shi San 罗熙善 (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Hello LohShiSan--basically, if all that can be reported are financial figures (and maybe takeovers, etc.), that's what I call "run of the mill". That kind of information is simply the basic reporting of facts, whereas the GNG requires some in-depth discussion in reliable secondary sources. But for these articles I take guidance, or at least try to, from DGG, who has extensive experience, and maybe they care to weigh in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you very much for sharing your opinion. Loh Shi San 罗熙善 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sara Gibbs

Sara Gibbs and her husband, who have never edited Wikipedia before, are completely baffled that their IP address has been blocked. Any clue? kencf0618 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Eh, no? I don't know who these people are or what their IP address is or what accounts they may have. I assume you're posting here for a reason, that somehow my name came up, but if that's the case, if my name showed up in a block log, for instance, then there's probably a reason given in that log entry. And, eh, many, many cats?? Drmies (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker)@Kencf0618: My guess is that it is a rangeblock or an IP used by a prior user - something of the sort. When people use dynamic or shared IP addresses to vandalize or disrupt Wikipedia, those IP addresses will often have to be blocked to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. The software that runs Wikipedia can't tell the difference between them and the person(s) the block was intended for, so new editors end up caught in the block too. The solutions: depending on the type of block, tell them they may be able to edit after creating an account using <https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:CreateAccount>. If the block prevents them from creating an account, they could try creating it using a different internet connection. If that fails, they can ask for help at <https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Request_an_account>. Geoff | Who, me? 17:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. This situation was new to me. kencf0618 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Drmies,

I'm running into pages tagged CSD G5 and when I looked into the page creator's block log, I see a notation that they've been blocked by you with a reference to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bartolo 5565. But when I check out the SPI case to verify everything, Bartolo 5565 hasn't been blocked and I don't see them identified as the sockmaster. So, maybe the case name should be changed? I didn't see that possibility mentioned in your closure so I'm just posing that question to you here as I'm not sure if the SPI will be reviewed again or simply archived under that name. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Silicon Image

Message from Gyudongk (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC) on "Silicon Image" page. Hello Drmies, I am not sure if I use this Chat correctly but I am obliged to respond to your edits on Silicon Image wikipedia page. It would have been great if you chat with me first before whacking the page down. Silicon Image is a defunct company since it is sold to L company in 2015. Hence I am not a paid editor of any sort in this matter. I wonder why you considered if my edits have conflict of interest. Did you get a request from somebody ? I wonder if YOU have such a conflict of interest and if so, that would be a far more serious issue and I would have only two possible remedies then.

I happened to have worked for Silicon Image for quite a while and the wikipedia page has been the old timers' resort to recall the good old days when we were young. Since the page has been deserted for quite a while (as you can easily see many dangling references, mainly because Lattice Semiconductor got rid of Silicon Image pages), I have been getting complaints from my old colleagues if we can do anything for the page.

as you can check from the history page, I started cleaning up by correcting those dangling links. And then I added further info on the early days of Silicon Image and the whereabouts of them today.

Meanwhile, somebody (probably you included) eliminated not only my edits but also most of the content that has been there, making the Silicon Image wikipedia even less useful. In a sense, I can restart from the clean canvas that you provided. However, I have no intent in editing war in wikipedia without having an appropriate discussion with anybody who would feel uncomfortable with my edits although I have no idea why.

Someone can contribute on something only if that someone is knowledgeable on that something and I happen to be very knowledgeable on Silicon Image. Some could claim such a knowledge as 'conflict of interest' but that doesn't apply to this case as Silicon Image does not exist any more and its legal owner (L) liquidated the assets already. As was clearly stated, the ownership of the name and most of the rights related to Silicon Image is owned by L company currently but L liquidated most of the tangible and intangible assets at the moment as was described in the Silicon Image page, which is now long gone. As L liquidated most of them, I don't think L would have any interests on their already liquidated assets' whereabouts. If L feels uncomfortable from telling that L liquidated them, that means all the more reasons why wikipedia has to encourage such information on wikipedia. (BTW, they are all public information)

Although they are all liquidated, it is a worthwhile description where and when those technologies started. Silicon Image left quite a strong footprint in several technology fronts. HDMI and HDCP are few of the examples.

The current whereabouts (Invecas and then Analog Devices; HDMI Forum and CTA, etc) also provides useful information to the oldies and anyone who would be interested too, although all of them are public information.

I would have restored my contents if I didn't get a message that sounds as if you have some sorts of authority. Your message reminded me the faint possibility if my edits could offend somebody in any reason. I still wonder what portion of my edits offended me to start such a massive attack and an accusation. Your explanation would help me a lot in what and if I could contribute further in wikipedia.

It would be great if YOU restore the page to my last state. If you have any valid reason not to do so, I'd love to listen. If you do not have any reason but did so anyway, I'd love to listen too. -- end of message from Gyudongk (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  • A conflict of interest doesn't mean you get paid. A former employee who is doing it out of love has a conflict of interest too. The material I removed was material that, as I indicated, was not properly verified by secondary sources. If that material is somehow useful to some, that is another matter--we're an encyclopedia and we work by way of secondary sources and that's just the way it is. Being "offended" is...well, it has nothing to do with anything. Having knowledge is a great asset but having secondary sources is a necessary asset here. If these facts are so important, surely they have been written up by things other than the company itself. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sock of blocked account

Hi, you blocked PlayboygatsbyFanpage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a while ago. Appears like a sock, Fan boy 5421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has appeared. Please do the needful. Thanks! MT TrainTalk 17:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Anwar Usman

Why did you revert it?

His personal life section is in literally two different sources, look at it. Or just translate it using google translate. Either way it's there. Therefore it is not unsourced.

Khalif Ali Husain the Third (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  • I am not going to Google around for some sources that you should have included in the first place, and NO, you will not put those kids' names in there again, because they are not notable, and it serves no encyclopedic purpose. I am going to remove them for the last time and if you stick them back in I am going to block you: this is ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    By the signs of it, they have not gotten the memo ([2] - why would the wife's name be any different from the children, and what does the number of them have to do anyways?). I don't know if WP:INVOLVED applies here? Anyway you surely have lots of talk page stalkers, some of them who, unlike me, might actually be admins. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I appreciate you blocking the creator of List of governors of Texas by age. I don't want to bother you, but I noticed upon further investigating that article's history, the same day the article was created, an IP editor who illicitly removed issue notices there later the same month edited Young Liberals (Australia) (including a major edit). In the following month or so, four WP:SPI accounts (CountryBumpkin2020, Gimp112, LocalCbrHero1988, and Gimp 8032) made substantial and controversial edits to the same part of the article, sometimes in opposition to each other. Only LocalCbrHero1988 made edits directly in support of the IP's changes. I don't want to send you on a wild goose chase or falsely accuse other editor's of misconduct, but the conduct and some name similarity to what's come to light at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bartolo 5565 seems highly suspicious to me. You seem like an expert in these types of matters, so I just wanted to let you know of my concerns. Thank you for any expertise you can provide, and humble apologies for any inconvenience. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Mole whacking

Hi Drmies, I see that you blocked 178.152.102.244 for UPE yesterday. Well, this looks like more of the same to me. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response! Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure thing--we aim to please! Drmies (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

VXFC

Hi, I wondered if you could block WP:VXFC's latest IP, Special:Contributions/79.78.136.198.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

IP on El C

What a creep! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Help!

Hi, Drmies,

I've blocked five or six sockpuppets over the past hour or two and he keeps creating new accounts. I thought blocking account creation would have some effect but it has had none. I posted on Bbb23's talk page but, hey, it's Saturday night and people are busy. Is there secret CU magic that will work? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Tiny bit of translation

Dutch Maiden

Hi, I hope all is well! If that's ok, what's this say - title & caption, the 2 long words mainly? Many thanks, Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions

Previously I put this on your userpage, my apologies. Again, I'm new. This should be on your TALK page (as I believe it is now)... thanks!

Hey @Drmies: thanks for your comment. I don't see what is wrong with just mentioning a comparison. If you or anyone else doesn't like it, I do not need to make it again, but I feel that I supported my points fairly enough. Anyway, I don't need to do it again if the consensus is against inserting Ross Ulbricht's website on his own article page. Also, isn't the talk page the place to bring up things that might need to be hashed out? Instead of just making edits on the main article? That was part of my effort I suppose... but I am still somewhat new to the wiki, so if I am stepping on toes somewhere, just let me know.

Lastly, I LOVE the little "admin stats" thing you've got going on above here. If I copy and past that "{ { adminstats| Th78blue } } (without the spaces) would that work for me too? I know I am abviously not an admin, but that is SO cool!! I've wanted something like that to track all of my own activity. Thanks! Also, please feel free to delete all of these as soon as you respond (please ping me or leave a message on my own talk or user page) THANK YOU! Th78blue (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Making an inapposite and rather offensive comparison is like what Hitler did to the Jews. --JBL (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
JBL this sort of exaggeration is the worst thing to happen in all of mankind's history! HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Th78blue, this isn't about stepping on toes--it was simply an offensive comparison and I hope you will refrain from making more of them. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
My understanding of the wiki is that we are to document the facts as they stand from secondary sources and so long as we also do so in compliance with "neutrality", "notability" and "verifiability" etc. I did not intend, and frankly do not see how, my comparison could be construed as offensive. But even if so, my original points still remain unaddressed as it relates to the inclusion of a small blurb about the petition on the Ross Ulbricht page, only in so much as I am seeking answers to the "Washington Examiner" piece used as secondary source for a one or two sentence piece on the petition with ~500,000 signatures... Th78blue (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, if you don't understand that, then I got nothing more to say. You keep talking about the same little point, which I already had no interest in, and that deflection is also distasteful. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Mail notification

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.— Mathglot (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Eric Zemmour

@Drmies:Hello, I contribute on this page since end of September, and I have seen that you set up semi protection, which ends up today. I think that, until the presidential election is over in France (end of April 2022), it would be wise to extend this semi protection, in order to avoid any trouble, since this person is highly controversed and subject to overheated debates, in the media and on internet. What do you think? cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  • That article is still way too fat, and adding stuff like this doesn't help. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Drmies:Hello, Thank you for the extended protection. One question, if you allow: As IPs are not allowed to contribute to the main article, is it consistent if they are still allowed to contribute to the talk page? as here, or here? Isn't there then a risk that they turn around prohibition to contribute to this article in trying to influence the debates on the talk page, in one way on another, even asking (or strongly suggesting) other editors to write in a certain way, as here?? If yes, should the talk page be also protected the same way as the main page? TY in advance. Cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
      • No, the threshold for disruption on talk pages is much higher. IPs, for instance, can fuck around on talk pages without it being a nuisance in article space, to put it bluntly. They are free to make their case, but less free to edit articles, so to speak. Now, if they're being disruptive, that's another matter. For instance, this comment is silly and irrelevant, but not disruptive. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I understand, thank you for the explanation. What about insistence to change a particular wording, whereas against consensus and sources as shown here by this registered contributor?--Emigré55 (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for Unprotect Battle of Montese

@Drmies: Hi, I Requested to you Please unprotected Battle of Montese because I've Accepted Submission of Draft:Battle of Montese . This Article is Very NotableTopic ;I my Opinion this Topic Article of Are not Exist in Wikipedia. When I Accepted Submission of this Draft than I see This Page is Fully Protected and I did not moving this Draft to Article Namespace.Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 13:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  • User:Lazy Maniik, thanks, but the article is not very well written and, worse, it's almost a carbon copy in many of its phrases and details from the now-deleted copy. On top of that, the editor who created the draft has a strange editorial history, and I have little doubt that this is another iteration of the original sock master. TheresNoTime, I'd appreciate you having a look at the data; Favonian, maybe you can confirm behavior. Please go ahead, either one of you, and place the block if you agree. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Looks like'm. If only we knew a CheckUser who could confirm it. ;) Favonian (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Favonian, that's why I pinged TNT: they had checked a previous one. When a user is on a dynamic range you just can't always see what's going on there, unless you also figure out a range, run that, etc. But I was already pretty much convinced from a few details on the SPI page. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Comparison of a previous sock with this one on pt-Wiki Favonian (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The plot thickens! It looks like one of them warned the other one. WP:HAND? Favonian (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Blocked w/o tag per SOP. The similarity in (sentimental) prose between the post-war sections was a give-away. Sorely tempted to G5 the draft. Any objections? Favonian (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Go for it. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Never mind, I did it. And of course I had mistyped TNT's ping... Drmies (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

is making me dizzy. All that eye-straining, mind-blowing verbiage from Eashleyfox is from today? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Oh, more came today. Ohnoitsjamie also declined, but there's a new one--and, amazingly, in incredible verbosity it seems that a COI is acknowledged, and still the steps in WP:DISCLOSE weren't taken. Instead, the user is doing some--well whatever they're doing in that unblock request. It's a common thing with COI editors, of course, that they refuse to read the guideline and act on it, but the most striking thing is that they FINALLY owned up, to being "an archivist in an unpaid capacity for the Ted Stamm Archives". *lesigh* Ohnoitsjamie pointed at incompetence, quite correctly. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Question - Moved from Idiot Drivers talk page after a blanking

Hey Drmies, so I asked a question on Idiot Drivers talk page to you, but he blanked his talk page before I believe you saw the question so here is the question (Copy/paste form). Drmies, not saying you are wrong or right here, but since the edit in question was on his user page, technically, did he vandalize Wikipedia? I believe a template should have been used, but maybe not the vandalize template. Not sure, but I would love to hear some input from you so I can learn about the choosing of a template in a user page edit situation. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

plz take a look

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:CompactSpacez#October_2021 Thanks.

@Drmies: Thank you for informing me on this topic, I did not know about this, but when I did the copyvo test of that draft, it was showing 0.0 percent and I found the article correct, so I have given it Any submission made ready to be accepted.Best Regards. ---✨LazyManiik✨ 04:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, you don't need a copyvio test to tell you it wasn't good to begin with, but with my admin glasses I was able to see it was substantially the same as previous versions. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Bethesda-Chevy Chase rival reverted twice as not notable

The rivalry with Walt Whitman HS (MD) has existed for decades. Anyone affiliated with either school or with knowledge of the area knows this. I note you are a fan of the Alabama Crimson Tide. The University of Alabama article has no references for the rivalry with Auburn as it is widely known among college sports fans. Likewise here, though obviously on a smaller scale. But just in case you persist, two links were added to recent articles describing the rivalry.--BoboLink81 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Ahem. You are welcome to count the references in Iron Bowl. "In case I persist"--dude. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • High school rivalries are a reliable source of poorly-sourced and excessive detail. At the very least it should be sourced to something like the Washington Post - you can't tell me that the Post hasn't somehow covered Whitman-B-CC games in the past 30 or 40 years, and it should cover all sports. Go find yourself some real sources - your college professors - and Drmies is a college professor - will expect it of you in the near future. Acroterion (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • My edits adding sources were made in good faith in response to Drmies suggestion, but reverted by administrator Acroterion with the summary description, "Doesn't belong in the infobox if it's not mentioned in the article, and student newspapers are far too narrowly focused to support an assertion in a global encycloepdia". I chose to reference the Whitman student newspaper article because it was specifically about the escalation of the ongoing rivalry. A student newspaper is a reliable source for a subject of local interest and WP:NEWSORG does not appear to make any distinction. Many high schools have local rivalries, this as previously cited and referenced has a name, "The Battle of Bethesda". There are references in Washington Post sports articles such as "Whitman holds on against Bethesda-Chevy Chase to extend winning streak". and "Whitman maintains its flair for the dramatic with close win over Bethesda-Chevy Chase".. Now if I add these in WP:GF would that be acceptable? As an alumnus and parent of alumni who has lived in the area for decades the rivalry is long standing and locally acknowledged.--BoboLink81 (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but your last sentence contains a seriously, even dangerously dangling modifier. OK, a newspaper article about a girls' soccer match says "rival"; I don't know that that makes something a rivalry. But really, are we wasting all this time and energy on a stupid infobox where you feel the need to add "rivalry"? We're talking about high school sports. No one is going to live or die. There's a million fucking things in the world that are much more important than any of this will ever be, and you, a parent, an educated and computer-literate person, choose to spend your time on this? Yes, we're a global encyclopedia, and there is a gross disparity between things that are covered and things that are not. The article on your beloved school is half the size of Kinshasa, and Kinshasa has 15 million inhabitants--so if you are here to actually improve our beautiful but imbalanced project, and if you are a moral person with any sense of respect, you might could find some better article to expend your skills and time on. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring over RM closure

Hey, if time permits, can you take a look there? One editor closed a RM, one of the participants reverted the closure. The closer reverted suggesting a move review request, the other editor reverted again. What is supposed to be the solution to such a case? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Well this is a bit unusual. Dr.K., I don't know what dispute Buidhe was supposed to have had and whether it was directly relevant here--but I'm not sure I really want to hear a long story. Buidhe, I think you should play it safe and just wait for a completely uninvolved editor (or admin) to close the discussion, and at any rate we know you have an interest in the area (just like Dr. K)--it's better to prevent a fight and bickering, by just being patient. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your input but in my opinion, letting this out of process reversion of closure stand simply encourages similar behavior by other participants in move disputes when the discussion is closed in a way that they don't agree with. I don't agree that I have "an interest in the area" that the move dispute is about. I will also note that Dr.K accused me of hounding without any evidence. In fact I found the move request because it is listed on WP:RM. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, the reverter is arguing that your close was out of process. All of you here have "an interest in the area"; none of you should be closing anything east of the Pillars of Hercules, west of Bagdad, south of Verona, and north of Timbuctu. Respectfully, of course. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: RM was attempted closure by an closer who was involved in parallel disputes at other articles with several of the RM's voters, (including me, who initiated the RM in the first place), however they have been reverted and now an uninvolved third party Admin closure has been requested at: Wikipedia:Closure Requests. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

    • Buidhe is invloved in a content dispute Pushbacks in Greece with two of the participants at the move request, SilentResident and Khirurg. However, Buidhe has a history of being neutral regardless of disputes with certain editors. Last December Buidhe had a content dispute with Khirurg, and the latter reported Buidhe for edit warring and tried to get them blocked. I intervened there to support Buidhe's defense [3]. A month later, Buidhe closed an RfC where I was in dispute with Khirurg and SilentResident, giving them right [4]. I am not against an admin making the closure, but it is very obvious that "No consensus, not moved" will be the result no matter who makes the closure. I doubt that someone would close such a controversial and balanced discussion with sth other than "no consensus". And "no consensus" in this case means "not moved". A waste of time really about sth that will bring no benefit to any of the parties involved. Drmies, thanks for your help, and this is my last post here. I hope not too many comments are made here to make this a tiring time consuming thing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Ktrimi991, no worries--I appreciate you. Edit warring is usually a waste of time, unless I'm involved in it. Let's see if someone is willing to take care of matters. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter what contributions Buidhe made in the past, what matters is that he is recently involved in 2 disputes with 3 other editors who were RM voters. Like the admin said above, let the Move Request be closed by a *completely uninvolved* party. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I'll take your word for it, and that makes sense. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Hi doc. I'm disappointed to see the reason you pinged me is because of the usual reporting action by the opposition, thinly disguised as the usual request for your comment.This game is getting really old. In any case, I'm always glad to talk to you even under these less than auspicious conditions. Silent R. has explained well the situation. On top of that, I wish to add that yesterday Khirurg reverted Buidhe at Pushbacks in Greece and then commented at the DYK of the same article. Soon after that, Buidhe closed the discussion at Imia. Aside from these heavyhanded COI-ridden, HOUND tactics by Buidhe, this was an utterly incompetent close because the discussion is still ongoing, !voting is still going on and even an RM regular has relisted the discussion to elicit more comments, per usual RM best practices. Despite the opposition's spin above, this move request is still to be decided. I think a warning to Buidhe would go some way in mitigating this disruption. Regards. Dr. K. 01:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO apparent breach

Drmies, can you take a look at the Epidamnos#Roman_remains section? Someone 7 years ago pointed out to the fact that that section has been copied from "The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites" (1976) - online copy for the entry there. The section might need to be deleted from public view by an admin. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio tool does seem to bear that out. Being published by Princeton University Press implies there is a copyright, and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't do so. I'll see how far back the vio goes. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Primefac. Funny enough I was busy getting my boy to not plagiarize on his academic project on the history of Alabama. Boy just copies and pastes... Drmies (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, @Primefac: can you took at the [[5]] subsection? The editor who made the copyvio breach on Epidamnos, roughly at the same time created that article. As you can see in the diff, he cited as his source that website. He apparently copied content from that website, made some minor wording changes and pasted it on Wikipedia. Even today, the [[6]] subsection contains a paragraph that was apparently copied from that website. The paragraph that starts with "The School of Nisibis, founded at the introduction of Christianity into the city by ethnic Assyrians". Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Haven't had a chance to look into the matter, though if it's from the first revision of the page we're talking 500+ revisions... any other tps'ers are welcome to take this one if I don't get to it first. Of course, the other option is for a non-admin to remove the content in question and put in a {{revdel}} request. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

Guess I should notify you too? Better safe than sorry. Cheers. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I hope you had a happy Halloween and that your month is off to a good start. Sorry to once again bother you, but I have some socking concerns at the bundled nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chancellors of Germany by age. I'm concerned that 144.130.153.129 and Virender 95 display similar narrow prolific interests/username with the sockmaster at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of New South Wales by age. The IP editor's many 2020 edits to List of prime ministers of Australia by age (now up for deletion) directly lines up with the sockmasters known behavior, as does Virender 95's massive trivia additions to an Anglo politician article, List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age. I would greatly appreciate if you could look into these concerns. Thank you for any help you can provide. Sincerely, Newshunter12 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • It's pretty pathetic, huh, that compulsion. I blocked a whole bunch and will tag them later. Oh, next time, please note that it refers to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theotherscrubbythug, so I don't have to look for it--I have a pretty poor memory, haha. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Duly noted, and I can't thank you enough for your extensive efforts to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. The compulsion to create this vast sock-trivia nexus really is pathetic. Some people just need to turn their computer off and go for a walk instead. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Does Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theotherscrubbythug need to be renamed after User:Bryson 85, since that is by far their oldest (yet) uncovered account? The original investigation name was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bartolo 5565 if that helps anything. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
        • It's all in a day's work, Newshunter12, and I don't mind at all. Again, if you make it easy for me it's easier--there's a whole bunch of sock masters out there that I've worked on, and I have a bad habit of forgetting their names. There's the right-wing troll from England, the AP2 troll who I think pretends to be liberal, the dude from England who is interested in lesbian soccer players, the Dutch/Eastern European one who likes old wars, the one with the radio stations in the Philippines, my correspondence partner Arturo in California... There's so many! As for renaming that one, maybe, but I leave that to the clerks, who are much better at doing that. User:Blablubbs, any thoughts? Drmies (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
          • You're well traveled down these roads, it would seem! I'd have a bad memory to if I had to remember so many Loony Toons in action, haha. I am good at paying attention to the small details of events/incidents and keeping track of all the moving parts, so if you ever need some non-admin assistance wrapping loose ends up, I'm more then happy to help. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Hm. The account is indeed substantially older, but also less active than the currently listed master, and their block came after the first rounds of indefs. Moving is the procedurally correct thing to do, but just moving and retagging would likely be somewhat confusing to onlookers since there is no record of the account at SPI, so the account should be filed pro-forma. In the end, it probably won't matter much – if I randomly came across this, I probably wouldn't do anything about it – but since it got brought up, we might as well. Unless one of my trainees is feeling bored, I'll try to get to that tomorrow. --Blablubbs (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
            • Yeah, personally I don't care, really. The current name, it's just stupid (but then, they do stupid things)--but again, that's why I'm perfectly happy to leave that to others. BTW I appreciate y'all doing that work. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
              •  Clerked. Took 47 edits. Clerking sure isn't doing my namespace stats any favors. And go figure that the one time Drmies doesn't hint he wants me to clerk something (like he did last time with this same case), he asks someone else who then does exactly that. ;) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
                • Haha, imagine running CU on a handful of accounts, a couple of ranges, etc., with dozens of tabs open, and all so you can place a few blocks and make one note on an SPI--that's not good for one's editing rate either. Getting one were you can mass-rollback is the only way to make up for it. Write any articles recently? Drmies (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • If you need any help with the editing rate, opening recent changes and setting up a decent list of filters so you get lots of vandalism to revert will do wonders for your edit rate and your namespace stats (provided you don't need to give warning templates as freebies to everyone...). Article creation is of course more interesting, but that takes time and effort (neither of which are good for the edit rate). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • Grumbles. I know what you're getting at, Doc. Soon, hopefully. I go through phases of being drawn to content and coding on the one hand, and being drawn to admin-area stuff on the other hand. Drifting back into the former sort of phase now after a lot of SPI work. Gonna try to steer my efforts toward content, thus, even if part of me really is dying to work on BRFA/'zinbot 2. Most of my content work has always been removing bad content, but I'm aware that uh... certain parties... may value seeing seeing an article more comprehensive than H.R. 1 to my name. For now, got a redlink-to-DYK in mind. On verra ce qui ce passe. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Not acceptable"

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychedelic_therapy&diff=1053464088&oldid=1053463914

Why are some of these "not acceptable"? Helper201 (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

    • They still report on and link to evidence based scientific data from both outside and inside. Also, not sure what you’re trying to say about Health Europa as that links to a 404-error page. Helper201 (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Health Europa states on its about page - "Most of our content comes from key figures within the public sector, academia, industry and the scientific community". Helper201 (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Corrected: [8]. Wait--are you seriously saying we should just take their word for it? Because that is not going to happen, no matter how many dogs the editor walks dogs and how many first-class degrees he has. Wait, the digital publication editor has a lot of plants! Come on now. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
They have editors, so what's the problem there? Every publication has editors, that doesn't make their information unreliable. Note, I'm not saying we should publish the editors’ opinions as fact, I'm talking about when the website report on scientific studies (in regards to Health Europa). I'm talking about using their website as a third-party reporting on others scientific trials etc. In regards to their own research like in the case of the Beckley Foundation, if they are deemed a reliable organisation that performs research to proper scientific criteria then what's the issue? If there is data to say these organisations post unreliable information then removing them is certainly justifiable, but if they aren’t then I don’t see the problem. Helper201 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, "they have editors" is an argument that is never going to fly at WP:RSN. That they don't pass standards set in MEDRS should be obvious, and that both websides are neither independent nor proven reliable is damning in general. This is not a matter where we can go "reliable until proven otherwise"--that is not how the web works. But don't take my word for it: bring it to the noticeboards, if you like. As for me, I would revert additions based on that sourcing. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Need an admin conversant in Taliban, etc.

Do you or any of your TPWs know an admin conversant in Taliban, etc.? I have a stealth vandal doing damage but I don't want to report at AN or ANI because I'd have to notify him. It seems like almost every one of his now-21 edits is either vandalism or completely uncited [9]. IMO he should be autoblocked. I did leave an "only warning" just now. I am not conversant enough, and don't have time to figure out, which of his other edits to revert (besides the three latest ones I just did). Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I don't--I can tell you this: this is not a clear sock of any known editor, and there is no evidence of IP disruption, and that's a relevant thing to know. But for vandalism and uncited info, simply giving warnings and then reporting for vandalism if need be may do the trick. Maybe they'll actually talk to you--and you can certainly tell them that their edit summaries are insufficient. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask you for your assistance and to stop an edit war?

I don’t know who to go to but you did have me advice from before. If you are not someone to go to, can you direct me to who. I made some credible edits and there is someone removing them and saying they are original research when they are not. I posted on the talk page of the credible sources. But that person has now posted a warning on my talk page when I was improving the article and doing the right thing. It has turned into a edit war and I was only posting information from credible sources. It is from the animated shows themselves. If they are original research then all of Wikipedia is base of original research. This is on this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(given_name)

And this is what I posted on the talk page before I got a unnecessary warning on my talk page. https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/tv-shows/Sofia-the-First/Princess-Maya/

https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Mary-Long/. (Voice Actor for Maya in eps 103).

https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/tv-shows/Sailor-Moon-Super-S/. If you look will see the Maya from eps 142 as Mayako with a Japanese voice actor. Cloverway made it Maya where viz and Japanese sub is Mayako.

Below is pictures of all three Maya’s. The other two are screenshots of viz episode summaries containing Maya for eps 103 and Mayako for 142. I did have pictures from Sophia season one eps 8 saying Princess Maya is voiced by Mary long but the snapshot of a black screen. However, the link above on Princess Maya or this link on Olivia Grace, has a green check mark with Maya. Should suffice enough. https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Olivia-Grace/

https://ibb.co/WDnsYKW https://ibb.co/rFXzrWR https://ibb.co/RQ3YVN5 https://ibb.co/yWvwvS9 https://ibb.co/4M3XjNt FedualJapan (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Well, FedualJapan, JesseRafe, who's been around the block a few times and has a bit of experience, said "They are not mentioned even once on the Wikipedia articles for those series." That is a valid reason for reverting. These characters are not notable, and continuing to insert them is indeed disruptive. Characters don't become notable cause you got a screenshot of them--characters aren't notable simply because they exist. I mean, I have a student right now whose first name is Maya, and my university has a Wikipedia article, but adding her to the list would be... well, not good. So I'm afraid JesseRafe is absolutely correct, and you just have to let this go. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I have read the article Jesse gave me and there wasn’t any about having to be mentioned on Wikipedia articles for it to be credible and those what I put fits within parameters. And sorry Jesse is calling it original research when it is not, so they are not absolutely correct. Just because you have been around the block does not mean you can’t handle things wrong or make mistakes. From what I read they are good edits. If they were original research than most of Wikipedia is original research. Also there are many Maya’s in that that are minor characters and probably not mentioned on their Wikipedia pages. They have been okay which my helpful edits are Not. 

Your example does not work because she is not a fictional character that has existed in a show and she is not a notable person unless she has accomplished something worthy like Author or medalists.  If anything that backs how these three are correct to be added.  Those three characters are notable and are fictional characters named Maya. While the two from SailorMoon were in one episode, Princess Maya from Sophia is in many episodes. It was weird she is not on the Wikipedia page when others are there.  It being on a Wikipedia page or not should not be criteria.

But now I have a problem. Those screenshots and links prove they are credible sources and not original research. It seems it is dismissed as credible sources but that goes against two other Wikipedia articles I was given. I was following these links as well. I think from the Wikipedia articles Jess give me, these characters should be mentioned, they are fictional characters named Maya. FedualJapan (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those links: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources

Which now “Characters don't become notable cause you got a screenshot of them-“. I had links using beyond the voices with a green check and I have screenshots of the summaries of those episodes. So either the Wikipedia article in this comment is wrong because the links and screenshots are reliable sources or I am being told wrong here. Or only a few of those screenshots were looked at. FedualJapan (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but you are wrong. User:Ponyo, I see you've been down this path too. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • FedualJapan You don't have concensus for your edits and your sources are sub-par at best. It appears you have no interest in absorbing anything others are explaining to you, however, so I suppose I'm just whistling into the wind.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • And it seems you don’t understand because with user:Ponyo I followed the one link and the right information was placed on the page with reliable sources. I had good faith in that ip editor that post that and verified it a credible source. I am following the links and was trying to put the right information on that page but Jesse was the one disruptive and taking good faith edits off. They did not have good faith because they did not talk to me but instead falsely accusing me of original research and unnecessary warning. Which it seems talking to me is what Wikipedia wants. I posted reliable sources. I can find more. I am sorry but it is not me who is wrong here. FedualJapan (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • OK. You are not following the rules for indenting posts. You post paragraphs that start with a space. You posted links here to some website (behindthevoiceactors?) and some screen shots, none of which prove that the tiny little minor characters you fought over are in any way notable. JesseRafe told you that, I told you that, Ponyo told you you have no consensus and your sources are not acceptable. You make false claims about vandalism and edit warring. You refuse to accept that someone who's been here for 15 years may know a thing or two. You are not listening, not to anyone. You have an editorial history consisting of two things: trivial things to lists of characters to children's TV shows, and long, drawn-out posts in which you argue with others, such as me, Ponyo, and User:Xexerss. You fail to understand basic statements, and you proved that here. I'm not even going to respond to that comment there, since I would hate to tell someone on the talk page of an article that they can't read English, in this case the word "contribute". You added 6,183 bytes to my talk page in 6 edits, and I see no discernible progress. And I'm about to run into an edit conflict because you won't stop. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • To Everyone, I have been rereading. I wished people were like MJL in explaining things and this would never happen. What has happened especially with Drmies is just lack of communication, misunderstandings, and assumptions on both side that cause everything to escalated. I never troll and I wasn’t trolling but I had to reread after it was claimed I was trolling Drmies. I am sorry for the misunderstandings. Maybe we need less bite and try to understand the other side. Also there were two issues I had not one and mostly I was fighting it was not original research. The links are reliable by the Wikipedia policies. MJL explained the other issue and I will make a case for Princess Maya.
    • Ponyo I am sorry you have problems with a reliable source and calling it subpar. The page I posted says . “ Behind The Voice Actors - An online database of voice actor credits in anime, cartoons, and video games. This can be used to shortcut verify the roles as long as the credit itself has a green check-mark that leads to an on-screen capture of the closing credit that confirms the role “ and I absorb correct information and reliable information not people who are in the wrong. Have a good day FedualJapan (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh. The page you posted says something. I'm sorry, but you need to stop posting this nonsense here, because I am going to lose my patience. And the next time you don't indent properly, I'm just going to hit rollback. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: your last edit summary... We'll make a cockney of you yet!  ;) ——Serial 18:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops

Hi Drmies, hope you're doing well. I accidentally directly copy-pasted copyvio info into this article. I instantly removed it from the article [10], however could you remove it from the history log as well? --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  • You can tell that copyright deletions are done at no charge, otherwise some of the hundreds of hungry admins who peruse my page would have taken care of it already. BTW since you're interested in Central-Asian matters, do you have an opinion on the portrayal of Sultan Aladdin in the third season of Ertugrul? I find him very striking. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks. And well, I do like his helmet. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Most of em have pretty good helmets. You can tell their budget increased from season to season; Ural Bey's decapitation was pretty spectacular. As for helmets--I do think the outfits are spectacular, especially Halime Sultan's--and who was the dude who ran Aleppo, who wrote poetry, and kind of disappeared? He's my hero (OK only in terms of his clothes). Drmies (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocking Nvtuil

The irony of you blocking Nvtuil for sock-puppetry is that that happened the same day Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LesVegas was still pending. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I get your advice on something?

I don't know if you saw the enormous clusterfuck of an ANI thread about guerilla skeptics of Wikipedia the other day, but I had a question about going forward with a small part of it. I respect your knowledge and tenure, and if you think something is a bad idea, it likely is. Do you think it would be worthwhile, and not an ridiculous pile of drama, to start a thread on Sgerbic's possible COI editing on WP:COIN? Hopefully on COIN, with a much narrower focus, it could be productive. However, if you think it would not be productive, or just have a bad productivity to drama ratio, I'll just drop it. Thanks for any advice you, or your talk page stalkers, can offer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please identify some current and actual problems! If you think adding links to a particular website is not helpful, start a discussion about precise examples on a noticeboard without mentioning any editors. See if there is consensus that a few examples of such links are undesirable. Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The issue is adding links to a magazine for which she is a columnist, and a fellow of the organization that runs the magazine. The sources can be acceptable and still be COI editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I saw it and happily skipped it--I now read a bunch and I am not really clear on the issues and on the evidence. It seems to me that Levivich makes sense, and so does Black Kite, so I'm really not progressing towards developing an actual opinion. I am not quite clear yet on who Gerbic is and why it matters, though I think I've looked at their page before, but I will say that this, I don't like the idea of it. It is true, though, that a focus on one person is more likely to be successful, though you saw, perhaps, what happened the other day with the ARS. But right now I cannot say whether that particular focus is justified--but that's really because I do not have a full picture of all that's going on. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the input that you could provide. I'd been saying before the thread even started that it would be a better idea to focus on individual editors with problematic editing, rather than what ended up happening. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Your block of Septem9th

Duck! –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Odd bug with WikiEd diff viewer

Hey Drmies! Just thought I'd let you know but, it appears that if something is rev del'd not long after the edit was reverted, if it's in the watchlist and I select diff, I can't see the diff outside of the WikiEd diff viewer. Not going too deep into specifics since 1, I don't know how to easily recreate it (might just be a one off kind of thing) and 2, it's rev del'd for a reason. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  • So I just checked one and I think I saw it too without selecting my special glasses, but I cannot recreate it. I do not use that viewer you're talking about. Strange. (It was some childish person who stuck in pictures of genitalia--pretty pathetic.) Drmies (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    You probably shouldn't provide some details as to what was contained in the rev del because it was rev del'd for a reason I don't think I was able to see that but maybe just in case, the WikiEd diff viewer should be disabled if someone somehow manages to select a rev del'd diff? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Blaze Wolf, I'm not revealing anything here that will cause anyone any kind of harm--come on. I really don't know anything about that viewer; when you installed it, maybe it had the name of the creator? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
      It's a gadget I have enabled under preferences and not simply something I installed. It's under the Editing section of gadgets and is called wikiEdDiff and appears to have been made by Cacycle. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Question for you

Hey Drmies. I have a question about an edit, well a revert, you did on Idiot Driver's talk page [11]. I know you are an administrator, so you have a lot more "lee-way" that normal editors, but in the past, I heard and thought that an editor (or administrator) never directly undid another edit on a talk page unless it broke a rule. Normally, edits like that are admin deleted from the provision rule, so would you mind possibly explaining the reason behind that revert? I am curious and want to learn when exactly an edit response on a talk page breaks the rule. From what I can tell, Idiot Driver has made similar edits on their talk page with no reversion. Thanks in advance for helping me understand! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Idiot Driver was already a troll whose stories and excuses were pure bullshit, and now they turned out to be a sock puppet too. I suppose I have that leeway as an administrator, but there's some reasoning for it too: we're not a web host, this isn't a social medium, I'm not going to let them use this platform to chat around, especially not if they are inveterate liars. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

  • On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
  • Search tool deployed
  • New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I wanna be kind so you get the OG star! Lopbunny69 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Strickland case

Don't know if you've seen the story in the KC Star today, but there was a three-day hearing, ended yesterday, an effort by the Jackson County prosecutor to reverse the verdicts in the ancient case. I've added to the article, and I hope you can take a look. You had edited the short description to read what is substantially hoped to be the ultimate conclusion and one which I anticipate will be arrived at shortly. Thanks for your interest in the article. Activist (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks. To me, "wrongly" seemed appropriate--I don't believe, for instance, that a court needs to render some verdict on it before we can use the term, when the evidence is overwhelming. I mean, it's kind of odd that the court system which failed the man (and so many others) so miserably gets to be the arbiter of what we can say... But thanks for the heads-up and the article work, and God I hope the man gets to go to the beach, any beach he wants, for as long as he wants. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
      • Haha, Bruce's Beach--that sounds familiar! And I'll add that that was one of the articles that helped me open my eyes--writing for Wikipedia has truly done something for me. PS I received no email--our server sometimes blocks gmail and other accounts, unfortunately. I'll send you an email and you can respond to that--maybe that works. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Quick peek at someone changing pronouns

User:Anton Olivenbaum was blocked for changing pronouns at Kae Tempest, and has now resumed their editing to change Tempest's pronouns.[12] Pretty much their entire edit history screams WP:NOTHERE. Does this need ANI, or can you take some action? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I am not Drmies (put away that SPI right now, dammit) but I have blocked them indefinitely from that article. If they go and disrupt other articles, particularly without discussion, a side-wide indef will surely follow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
After their charming reply, I have upped the block to site-wide indef with no talk page access. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/I_will_not_edit

Oddly enough, they have edited. Ring any bell? Their edits are otherwise non-constructive. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Shared ips are a bad idea - Who's sock is this? Anyone know? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

COVID LTA

I saw your comment at User talk:78.164.133.224, I'm fine with your 31 hour block. I would definitely keep an eye out after the block expires, see the edit history of SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant, SARS-CoV-2 Beta variant, among other COVID-related articles. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes--now I remember that one, but from a while ago, older than the ones in those articles. I tried a few ranges but they're all too broad, and most of them were "use once only", except for the one that Widr put a school block on. Maybe it's worth writing up. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello Drmies about there on the draft page of madam inutz that you tagged in the invalid word section, I am still improving and correcting it and it will be finished soon and I will soon publish it again as an article Funk Hipster (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, and that article has a history of COI/UPE editing, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't remove the tag. But the article sure could use some copyedits. ST47 and AmandaNP, I was wondering if y'all could have a look, being more familiar with some of its editors. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for accidental edit war

Sorry for accidentally editwarring This list earlier, I was going to apply for rollbacker soon but I think this constitutes breaking the edit war rule so I don't think I can for a little while, I guess I'll have to be more careful with my reversions from now on. Thanks for being nice about it, I should have been paying more attention really.DirkJandeGeer (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the new perms! couldn't be happier DirkJandeGeer (щи) 10:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Apology November 2021

Hi Drmies I'm just writing to tell you that I am very sorry for what happened on October 16 and 17 of 2021 I should've known about the sockpuppet policy on wikipedia and I am telling you it will not happen again S201050066 8:17 am eastern standard time November 14 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by S201050066 (talk • contribs)

  • Well, S201050066, I appreciate that, I guess--but here is the odd thing. In a section in which Andykatib and I ask you, among other things, to copyedit your writing, to sign messages, and to adhere to guidelines about indenting talk page posts, you responded in this way, precisely not doing those three things--and here again is a message that lacks punctuation and is unsigned. As Andykatib has said, some of your article work is appreciated, but in a collaborative project this kind of stuff is actually really important. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Laura X

Thanks for your edits to the above article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Highschoolprodigy

Thank you for dealing with that sock. I appreciate it. Sorry if I interrupted you when I pinged you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Sure thing. I stuck my neck out for him a couple of times, and I'm so fucking tired of it--even for me, this long ago turned into a net negative. The range of IPs we've had to block just because of him, well, it's completely ridiculous. And yeah, I appreciate many of their edits, but I'm totally in "fuck off" territory by now. Hope you're well, Sandy--and thank you for still being here, making Wikipedia better. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverted page moves

Hello, Drmies,

I noticed that several pages involving slaves in U.S. history that you moved to different titles had been moved back by Tol. They include Slave breeding in the United States, List of slaves, Treatment of slaves in the United States, List of the last surviving American slaves and List of the last surviving American slaves (there might be others I didn't see in the Deletion log). Since you made the original title changes, I thought you have an opinion on this change. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you Liz. Tol, what are you doing? What does conciseness have to do with basic human respect? Drmies (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I think Liz got all of them. I don't see what "basic human respect" has to do with it, but I do think that concision does. We use "actors", not "acting people"; "piano players", not "piano-playing people"; et cetera. For descriptors of some disadvantaged status, terminology is similar when there is a commonly used noun: "refugees", not "displaced people" (though both are used, and there may be minor differences); "victims", not "victimised people", et cetera. I don't think "slaves are people" needs to be emphasised any more than in other situations — a slave is by definition "someone forbidden to quit their service for another person (an enslaver) who treats that slave as their property" (from the article, bolding applied). "Slave" is almost certainly the more common word/phrase: Google, which is not the arbiter of common names but does show a general picture of how commonly used words or phrases are, has 814,000,000 results for "slave" and 28,100,000 for "enslaved person", and most of the latter are about the phrase itself. If you disagree, I'd recommend a single RM covering all of the titles as the issue is the same in each case. On a tangent, this is similar to why I strongly dislike the phrase "person of colour", also being a newly coined simple rewording, but of "coloured person" (which I find offensive when used in an American context). It's the same reason why I wouldn't like "person of retardation" as an alternative to "retard" (which I also find offensive when used to describe people): rephrasing something doesn't change what it means. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Also, I'm concerned about your edit summary of "No you don't" in this edit. Combined with your comment, "what are you doing? What does conciseness have to do with basic human respect?", I would like to gently ask you to calm down and remain civil. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Honestly, right now I don't give a flying fuck about what you think, or about your semantic juggling. If you can't see the difference between "slave" and "retard", then I think it's a good idea you don't aim higher than template admin. Nor do I care about your "rv undiscussed move" argument: at least one of those articles was moved a year and a half ago, before you began editing here. You're not asking anything "gently". Drmies (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Again, please calm down. I didn't intend to offend you nor anyone else, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could be more polite. I did not equate "slave" and "retard"; I made a comment on the type of rephrasing (sometimes labeled as "politically correct") that is increasingly common among American progressives. I also gave comparisons to various other phrases, and I was comparing the structure of phrases rather than the meanings behind them. I don't really intend to become an administrator or such, and would tread much more carefully with a highly used template than any single page. I don't see what this dispute has to do with my request for template editor, as I don't think it's related to my template skills or trust in editing high risk templates. As you "don't give a flying **** about what [I] think" (profanity removed), I'll take my leave and won't reply here unless you have anything else to say. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Swampyank, I think some of those moves were yours, and I think you made them around Juneteenth this year. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the Yasuke article and its talk page?

Long time no see! Sorry to bother you, but would you mind taking a look at this? The editor in question has evaded the question "Do you read Japanese?" on both his own talk page and the article talk page multiple times, and "Can you give me a page number in Lockley 2019? I'm not interested in scouring it for the page that supports your claims." about as many times, but then went ahead and added Lockley 2019 -- without a page number -- to the article.

Basically, it seems that every reliable and semi-reliable source (except Lockley -- Wikipedia username Tottoritom -- on those occasions when he wishes to portray the subject as an inspirational hero who could never be enslaved) recognizes that our subject was a slave acquired by the missionary Valignano in August 1574 while in Africa, and our article seems to have reflected that (admittedly in a poorly formatted way, often in the form of unsubstantiated categories) between 2018 and earlier this year, when someone removed it, and it's been added back in and removed several times since. I don't have a strong view on the matter, but it seems like several people (both on Wikipedia and in the the blogosphere and Twitterland) want to deny it either (a) because they want Yasuke to be an inspirational hero who was never a slave or (b) because they want to downplay any connection between the Catholic Church (or the Jesuit Order) and the slave trade. It wouldn't surprise me if some variation on (b) actually went all the way back to the 1600s, explaining the source that Eccekevin has repeatedly mentioned on the talk page (first here).

It's possible that in the 2,000 bytes he has now added to the talk page[13] he has finally answered some of my questions in a polite and helpful manner, but I've become so exasperated by the WP:IDHT I've been exposed to over the last three days (including multiple instances[14][15][16][17][18][19] of a failed policy proposal being thrown at me, seemingly for no reason other than to confuse me) that I feel the need to ask for help. Honestly, I was hoping the hype around the Netflix cartoon would have died down by now and the various problems with the history article could be solved, but it seems not. The dirty little secret around all of this is that hardly anyone editing the article (or talking about the subject anywhere on the Internet, including in various online magazines and news sources that apparently pass for RS) actually cares about the history -- the vast majority are either pop culture fans or people fighting on one side or another of a (US) culture war. Unfortunately, I've been finding myself making common cause with... well, I don't know what everyone is, but it seems at least two of the people I've been arguing with (in the seven months the article's been on my radar) think I'm a radical atheist or anti-Catholic who is trying to smear the Catholic Church by associating it with slavery, or some such.

If you're too busy at the moment, don't worry about it. Honestly, if I weren't assuming good faith that I've now become convinced isn't there, I probably wouldn't have dug in this deep and woulda just walked away and waited a bit longer for the pop culture interest in this topic to die off, which is probably what I should still be doing now rather than asking you, but... well, here I am 😅

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

IIRC, I was sick of the talking in circles and uncivil rhetoric so I wanted to walk away in a manner that would prevent people from pinging me back in. (Ironically, the talk page discussion seems to have completely stopped as soon as I did that; more edit-warring ensued, but I wasn't involved so I don't really know what was going on there.) There's another reason that I definitely do recall correctly, but it's sensitive: if you really want to know, I'll email you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • OK I read a bunch. I'm not exactly sure what the conflict is. You're saying there's good sourcing for "enslaved" (see discussion above), but what is it?--and what I'm seeing about Lockley doesn't inspire a hell of a lot of confidence, or give me a lot of faith about the accuracy and value of his conjectures (as in the BBC article). Drmies (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if there are very good scholarly sources on the topic. There's a vague source that might be referring to Yasuke when they refer to a slave Valignano brought with him to Japan, and a number of other vague sources that almost certainly are not referring to Yasuke. Lockley and a few other non-historians take the latter as referring to him, and seemingly reject the former as not referring to him, but at least one professional historian specializing in this area considers the former to very likely refer to him.
Evidence for Yasuke's existence itself is not great: there's essentially one Jesuit source saying Valignano gave him to Nobunaga and then after Nobunaga's death he was given back to the Jesuits, one Japanese diary written by an ally of Nobunaga that describes his physical appearance, and one variant text of the official state history of Nobunaga's reign that includes some details on his relationship with Nobunaga (Nobunaga gave him a house and a dagger, and occasionally had him carry his stuff, and it repeats the claims about his physical appearance found in the diary). Lockley has repeatedly referred to this last source as an "early draft" rather than a later variant text (he's contradicted in this by his own source, the textual scholar Kaneko Hiraku -- I don't think Lockley himself reads classical Japanese or Chinese) and has translated "dagger" as "sword" (this speculation appears to have been published on Wikipedia before Lockley submitted it to a faculty publication at his university, which was the first time it was formally "published").
None of the sources explicitly call "Yasuke" a "slave", but the Jesuit source calls him a "wikt:cafre" and this appears to be translated into Japanese as 黒奴 ("black slave" or maybe "[N-word]" [i.e., a derogatory term for a Black person, regardless of slave status]), and the fact that he appears to have been "presented" to Nobunaga by Valignano supports the idea that the Jesuits at least saw him as chattel to be bartered; a different Jesuit source (a report sent by Valignano to Rome) also refers to him having acquired a slave in Africa on his way to Japan. This latter source was presented in a documentary on NHK in May of this year as probably referring to Yasuke (history being about making probability judgements), both by the narrator (who I don't trust, and Eccekevin has apparently latched onto my own skepticism as an excuse to dismiss everything in the documentary that he doesn't agree with) and by Oka Mihoko, who is a professional historian they asked to look at the document in question. Oka's blog later harshly criticized the documentary for the bad history in the other parts of the show, including one part where they distorted a source that is clearly talking about an unrelated person, because "Mr. X" (she calls him ○○-san) believes it to be referring to Yasuke; in the documentary itself, the only person who appears on camera believing this particular document to refer to Yasuke is Lockley. Lockley also made several promotional posts on his Facebook page in the leadup to the documentary's airing. Given that the producers were apparently willing to present bad history solely to appease Lockley, it seems highly unlikely to me that the documentary would present bad history that doesn't agree with what Lockley himself believes; more likely, he acknowledges that Yasuke was a slave acquired by Valignano in Africa (something accepted as a matter of fact by seemingly everyone else writing about him, except certain old [but still too late to be primary] Jesuit/Catholic sources that want to downplay any relationship with the slave trade) but has been coy about saying so on camera or in writing.
Sorry, that got kinda long-winded, but even still managed to be truncated enough to possibly be hard to read for someone who hasn't already trawled through this stuff and figured it out for themselves. Put simply, it seems to be "common sense" among historians that Valignano had an African slave with him when he came to Japan, and he gifted this slave to Nobunaga. (What Nobunaga and later Nobunaga's murderers did with said slave, who by then had been given the name "Yasuke", is a separate matter.) Watanabe Daimon is a professional historian who apparently heads the Japanese "16th-Century Historical Research Society": I'm not familiar with his work, and will admit that I found his article on a Google News search, but he states[20][21] matter-of-factly that Yasuke was a slave ("黒人の使用人（奴隷）である ... ポルトガルはアフリカに進出し、黒人を捕らえて奴隷としていた。弥助もその一人である", "弥助（生没年不詳）はアフリカの黒人奴隷で"). Despite the apparently sterling credentials of the author, this source was rejected on the talk page, apparently because it hadn't gone through peer review, but this standard is not being applied to sources that argue the opposite position. Those who argue that he was not (or may not have been, or probably was not) a slave seem overwhelmingly to be either like Lockley (i.e., teachers in fields unrelated to history, who may or may not hold PhDs or other advanced degrees, and who have a hobbyist's interest in history -- Lockley specifically appears to have been trained and employed as an English teacher, and now he teaches both standard English classes and "content and language integrated learning" classes) or "complete" amateurs (like Time pop culture correspondent Kat Moon[22] or film producer Floyd Webb[23] [Webb's colleague DeSnoo, given that she produced a History Channel-esque documentary that happened to air on PBS rather than History and that focused on 16th- and 17th-century Japan, is probably more like Lockley, but still not a professional historian]). I have yet to find any source discussing the matter one way or the other that has been peer-reviewed, probably because the primary source evidence is so thin, so we're really stuck with what professional historians have said in interviews, on their personal blogs, and in articles for popular publications like Yahoo! News.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hijiri, that's a lot of words, and this will take me a while. Also, Ertugrul is about to take over Karacahisar Castle, so things are kind of exciting. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
There's no rush, and if you've lost interest, don't worry, it's not a big deal either way. [Insert humorous historical sign-off.] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and Re: Gerard Van Beek

Thank you for answering the call from the Language Reference Desk and fixing up alllll those Dutch references in that Gerard Van Beek draft. Re this edit summary - Yeah I know lol, I did not create that bare URL... I am working at resurrecting poor Gerard from his deleted state - because that banned/blocked sockpuppet created him previously (and oh so many others, all of which have had issues) but anyway I knew that ref wasn't WP-quality - just hadn't gotten around to fixing it up yet. Thanks again for fixing it and everything else up, greatly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I am going over all the many improvements and was wondering about this sentence:
In 1950 he finished third in the 50k race at the Dutch championships, and road couple races, particularly in Germany, with Cor Bakker and with Arie Vooren.
specifically the part which reads "...and road couple races, particularly in Germany, with Cor Bakker and with Arie Vooren."... I confess I am not sure what it means...is the phrase "road couple races" referring to tandem-bicycle racing?...or is it referring to something else? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Good call: thanks! Yeah, that was a typo, "road" for "rode", haha. It's still not great prose, and "couple races", it's a thing they do on track but I don't know the right terminology. I think maybe Madison (cycling) is what this was. It might be Team sprint, but in the same sentence as a 50k race this seems off to me. Please do whatever you think fits best! BTW you may have seen I moved the article to mainspace; no need to leave it linger. Thanks again, Shearonink! Drmies (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Richard Williams Morgan

Dear Drmies - sorry to contact you out of the blue like this - you may remember me from when I made some contributions to the work you and Eric C were doing on 'The Man in the Moone'. I'd be most grateful if you have time to take a look at the article on Richard Williams Morgan in its present state - and then scroll back back through its history to the situation in early October before user:Veverve deleted most of the existing text on the grounds that it was 'unsourced'. I tried to revert what seemed to me an unjustified action - and tried to discuss it on their talk page (there didn't seem to be any point in discussing it on the article's own talk page since I'm probably the only person who has it on my watchlist). I even suggested the appropriate action might have been to tag the original article with a "no footnotes" template, since it did have an old style 'list of sources'. But they are clearly not going to change their mind - and clearly any attempt by me to restore the original text now will be reverted!

I would welcome advice from a third party! I have dug out the notes on Richard Williams Morgan I made for another purpose many years ago, and have (unlike Veverve) easy access to the main sources on RWM's life. I could find time to produce a new text complete with in-line references. But that would seem to be giving in to blackmail!

In the meantime Veverve, while leaving the list of sources intact, has made some inconsequential additions to the article from another secondary source, including one questionable 'fact'. Apart from anything else one might be concerned about the reputation of Wikipedia - the official Dictionary of Welsh Biography entry for RWM has a link to the Wikipedia article - presumably somebody there thought the Wikipedia was a useful additional resource. It isn't now!

I'd welcome your comments. John O'London (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@John O'London: I have never blackmailed you and have remained courteous throughout our whole exchange. "Blackmail" does not mean "enforcing the Wikipedia policy on inline citations". Veverve (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello John--nice to hear from you again. I am still so proud of that article--working with Eric on it was just a joy, it's many of all the things I like about Wikipedia. Veverve, I'm not sure I've had the pleasure of meeting you. I am also a cutter, a pruner, of unverified information, particularly if fluffy, promotional, non-neutral, etc. But I do not really see much of a warrant for your very first edit, where you said, about his birth for instance, "unsourced, unrelated". "Unrelated" applies perhaps to the note on the Ancient British Church, which I suppose could do with some tweaking, but "unsourced"--no, the very first source, with a link to a website, is to this page, which strikes me as a reliable source. Frankly, I really don't understand that link. What you could have done was simply turn that sentence, the first "source", into a footnote. Instead, you removed a whole bunch of content, and then got into this needless discussion in which your opponent had a point, that your removal was not justified, but you said you were not "goinf to wait indefinetly until someone decides to take the time to verify every claim in every source". Well, I verified that first paragraph from the very first URL in the article at the time of your edit, and it took me less than a minute. Yes, unverified material can be challenged, and if you had actually challenged it instead of simply cutting it, we wouldn't be here right now. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
John, if any of those sources are also available online, let's get to work on this. No, you're not giving into blackmail; you're improving an article, and I will help you, gladly--I'm very interested in these kinds of characters. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies: hello! Nice to meet you. The part about what happend to the Ancient British Church was unrelated. There was no way I could easily know what source I had to check to verify the information on the first paragraph, so I removed the paragraph. WP:V states: "Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations" (my emphasis). And I later added some information on the subject of the article, with inline citations. You say you verified that first paragraph from the very first URL in the article at the time of your edit, and it took me less than a minute, so what? It was not my burden to check every source in the list of sources given, see if they matched with what the article said, and then add them (and what if I did not find them in any of the sources given?), which is what you are de facto suggesting I shoud have done. I was removing unsourced information, not trying to keep it, unlike User:John O'London who I guess refused to verif[y] that first paragraph from the very first URL in the article at the time of [my] edit, [in] less than a minute in the name of "resisting" my alleged "blackmailing" which consisted in asking for inline sources for most information within the article. It is better to have less information which are properly sourced or to have no information, than unreliable information. Veverve (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
OK--the moment you go "so what" you've kind of lost my attention and sympathy. What you should have done? Didn't I just say that? "What you could have done was simply turn that sentence, the first "source", into a footnote." There was no unreliable information in that first sentence--there was a lack of clarity about the source of it. Now, please, step back and let John and me, and whoever else is interested, have a go at the article. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The only way I could turn that sentence, the first "source", into a footnote was by checking the source and compare it with the article, and as I said I was not going to for the reasons I explained. I already went the extra mile by checking a source to improve the article and add more information to it with inline refs, most of which you removed. Feel free to edit the article, just as I feel free to do so; if you do not want other users to disturb your editing process - including me -, I suggest adding Template:In use. Veverve (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for getting involved, Drmies! And thank you for all you've already done on the article. I see you've got access to most of the sources, and found some new ones! I note you've added some citation-needed tags - I'll see what I can do. But looking again at the sources after something like 12 years, there are also some things that may need amendment or addition. For example, some uncertainty over his date of birth. The source for one thing will be in RWM's own writings - I hope that's OK for reliability! Glad you've been able to sort out the reference list and the formatting - one thing I'd forgotten how to do since it's so long since I was really active on Wikipedia! John O'London (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies: Hi - I'd like to do some work on the RWM article - is there a Help page that explains the reference/bibliography system you're using? It's so long since I was active on Wikipedia, and I was never really familiar with that system. If I want to discuss something with you about the RWM article should I come here, or open the discussion on the article's talk page and ping you from there? Funny how Anson got RWM's birthplace wrong - he may have got him confused with his cousin John Williams who was Curate at Llanfor! John O'London (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Quick update - it looks as if Anson may be right and the Dictionary of Welsh Biography is out of step with the other sources about RWM's birthplace - worth a footnote!John O'London (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
User:John O'London, I am using the simplest of the templated options: simple citation templates for the actual sources, and simple plain text footnotes to refer to the bibliography. If you want to add material, simply stick the bibliographical information under "Reference bibliography"; you can copy the formatting/code from any of the other ones listed there. Then, just make a <ref>...</ref> note in the text, and stick in name and page number. That's it. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
User:John O'London, like this. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Drmies: you deleted numerous versions of the article for copyright infringement since 2013. However, I doubt my versions where I had removed most of the previous content of the article would contain this 2013 copyright infringement and so I think they should be restored. Am I wrong, or do you think I can ask a restoration of those? Veverve (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Veverve, I hadn't thought of that; I'll get on it. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

the giant hidden comment I tried to get rid of, and you did too

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Hi Drmies I hope you do not get blocked like what happened on February 28 2013 we will always be here for you S201050066 (talk) 5:36 pm eastern standard time 18 November 2021

Consult?

I'm watching this AFD/DRV situation and wonder whether I should be doing something affirmative or let it play out at the various notice boards. Editor seems to be digging themselves in. FTR I remain disinterested in the article outcome. I'm concerned about behaviors. The peanut gallery isn't helping. BusterD (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Ha, yes, all that sounds very familiar. No, the peanut gallery rarely helps. I think you're talking about the editor who pinged me once or twice from the DRV, but there was so much text there that I couldn't see my name and gave up. I don't know, Buster--oh, I see Sandstein sent it back to AfD. I guess that makes sense, and so I guess you probably just need to let it go--but don't feel like this should in any way count against you. It was a good enough close, but you just happened to run into ... well I'll bite my tongue. Take care: water off a duck's back, I hope. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Thx. I feel like letting the user hang themselves, become seen as the LTA they seem to be. Sandstein's relisting seemed correct, but they did point out the relentless (24 contribs to a DRV?) hectoring. The user is going either for poor judgement or incompetence. Would it be out of line to ping each of the dozen or so admins who have blocked one of the three socks to the coin threads? To my reading, the big gulp is that DGG was the admin who tried hard to get the user unblocked, yet four years later DGG is the guy who initiates the AFD. Then he validated my judgement, which felt reassuring. I've gathered sufficient information to make a good case for bad faith (breaking agreements, blatant lying, pretending innocence). My question was "should I go on offense?" and it sounds like I should let the situation come to me and be ready. BusterD (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It's at ANI now, again. Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Now that the key offender has blocked themselves, I'd like to consider other uncool behaviors exhibited throughout. BusterD (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
    • You're talking about the walls of text and the wikilawyering? I don't think there's much you can do about that. Back in the old days, the days of WP:RfC/U, you could write up these cases and have sort of a paper trail, and get input from others without the sword of Damocles hanging over anyone's head--and then you could take any continuation of troubling behavior to ANI, with the consensus from the RfC/U as evidence of this or that. Now, it's all or nothing, and that's how we saw that the Supermann thing went on for so long. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion by IP

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VR talk 13:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Does this need a noticeboard?

This whole thing seems to be going downhill fast. The editor created Category:Jewish war crimes and is now very upset that the category is being removed from the talk page, and isn't being added to the article. I have no idea if they're is some discretionary sanctions or something that would cover this, or if the combination of the clearly antisemitic category and personal attacks is enough for action. Should I just bring this to ANI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the deeply inappropriate substance, personal attacks, etc., they should also be blocked for their username. --JBL (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328 to the rescue. Cullen, we never run out of Nazi trolls, do we. Thanks. SFR, I guess you could have reported this one to UAA--or maybe AIV, with an explanation. Yes, JBL is right, deeply inappropriate. WTF is wrong with these people. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a ton for the help. If you're itching for more mop work there's another on Talk:Yom Kippur War who's accusing me on my talk page of being (GASP!) an Israeli. They've been blocked multiple times and informed of the IP discretionary sanctions. It's amazing how many racial/religious/nationalistic shit piles one steps in while patrolling edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again, and to your talk page watchers too. This is a lot lower stress and effort than trying to navigate noticeboards and such. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I think ALL OF YOU would benefits from reading these love quotes. Remember, love is good who is after marriage. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to try this one on my wife right away: To get you another thread of vow has to be tied, Tell me if there is any remaining tomb ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I love it when you talk...wait, talk what? Drmies (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I love my wife who I got to know through teletype machine conversations 41 years ago. A primitive version of an internet romance. I also love being able to block Nazi trolls by smartphone. Technology marches on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how this conversation ended up here, but boy am I glad it did. --JBL (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Cullen is a man with many talents and feelings. I appreciate him deeply. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep It Up

I saw this and i laughed, you know you are doing a good job as an Admin, when an LTA or any editor for that matter has to log out to report you. Keep up the good work mate. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:FCKLDP

Hello, Drmies,

The nightly Empty Categories list had a lot of new categories created by this editor whom you blocked this morning. Were they guilty of ban evasion? Thank you for any additional information you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Unban request from Hulged (Wahhid)

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unban_request_from_Hulged_(Wahhid), Hulged (aka Wahhid) is requesting their ban (under WP:3X) is lifted. You are the blocking admin so I'm notifying you. --Yamla (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Charles R. Larson (scholar)

On 22 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles R. Larson (scholar), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles Larson became one of the first Americans to teach African literature, after working in Nigeria for the Peace Corps to avoid the Vietnam draft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles R. Larson (scholar). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Charles R. Larson (scholar)), 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, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proxy using vandal

Hello, thought I should let you know that the IP that you blocked, 64.52.139.32 on the page Oslo Freedom Forum is most likely a proxy of 162.211.34.180 and 206.62.177.202 being used to evade their block. They have been vandalizing that page for almost a week now. --TylerBurden (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Porn or educational?

Bribe
Bribe

NudistPhotographer (contribs) seemed to be solely here to insert photos of himself doing various sexual activities. Nothing wrong with producing encyclopedia quality images on the topic of sexuality, but these don't seem to be very encyclopedic. For starters, they seem to always feature his face in the shot. What he uploads to Commons is their problem (and they don't seem to care), but what is inserted at enwp is ours. His edits all get reverted, they simply don't add anything. I'm beginning to think the interest is more prurient than it is a desire to benefit Wikipedia. (ie: NOTHERE) Not as clear cut as some other cases so I wanted a second opinion (or third) from you and the crew.

Yeah, I know, I haven't shown up in forever and instead of bringing beer, I bring problems. I suck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I knew I should indef after recently reverting their edits at Doggy style. I've now employed NOTHERE with a brief explanation at their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. I felt like it was really a problem, but sometimes just need to share to ensure it isn't just me overreacting. The more I dig into his edits at Commons, the more I felt like this was genuinely someone who didn't have Wikipedia's interests at heart. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Sweet Jesus. WTF. Thanks Dennis--and you thought a bottle of Shiner would somehow mitigate that? Drmies (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Anybody fancy going to Commons and doing what is the obvious thing, i.e. COMMONS:CSD#F10 (or G10, arguably)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Hmm I feel I've outworn my welcome there. I'd want them to remove all the homemade porn... But right now I'm more worried about going to Atlanta to play Georgia. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I try to keep the World's Largest Free Naked Selfie repository at a distance. As for UGA, just wait 'till Georgia Tech wears them down next week. They'll be tired from running back and forth from goal line to goal line, just like Notre Dame is after beating Tech 55-0. Cripes. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I've been busy the last few years. My second divorce finalizes this month. A bit crippled since the surgery, but doing major renovations to the house to sell it. You know, stuff like that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Damn. I'm sorry to hear that, Dennis. Still hoping we'll meet for a real beer one of these days. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, it's all good. I initiated both divorces, they didn't kick me out for snoring. We get along well divorced, going over to have Thanksgiving dinner with her and the kids. I just need to stay single. The physical part, well, it happens. I still work, just slower. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Ouch. I'll get first round. I'll get the first two rounds if next week the Sooners play as poorly as they did today and lose in Stillwater. BusterD (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Need your help.

Dear User:Drmies, need your input/help on Average human height by country. Engaged in an edit war with a possible sockpuppet (User:Shadowdeathss). Very low edit count user's been active since 2018, but only focuses on Average human height by country the last 3 years. I think he might be a back up sock account to one of the user you've banned not long ago. He doesn't engage in talk and both of us are well over the WP:3RR going nowhere. Don't see this getting resolved anytime soon as he only seems interesting in reverting. Belevalo (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  • They are not related to Prim96, if that's who you were pointing at. Are there others? Is there an SPI? Drmies (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the late reply, User:Drmies. It seems like a mish mash of agenda driven editors and obnoxious trolls. I don't know why the height section is such a big target. Maybe because of a masculinity issue (more height = more masculinity in some people eyes) so they try to introduce studies that put certain nations in a more favorable position (example china with User:Shadowdeathss and the newest User:Dazaif (who might be User:Shadowdeathss sock, with similarly low edits on similar topics, but came back a few days later to give the appearance of being a different user). To me it appears that these very low edit count very specific accounts were made to tip the scale in controversial topics involving certain nations. Multiple low edit number accounts (or IPs before ToBeFree put a protection on the page) can give the impression of false consensus. Belevalo (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Block and revdel needed

[24] Also on their user page. Thanks to anyone who can take care of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Your termination of discussion at Talk:George Floyd#'Fatal' levels of fentanyl

I note that you have unilaterally, without discussion or explanation terminated [25] the discussion at Talk:George Floyd#'Fatal' levels of fentanyl. Do I understand correctly that you took this action at your own discretion as a Wikipedia admin?

——Deicas (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Deicas (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I would have closed that as well. No admin bit needed to close an obvious discussion on the cusp of getting ugly. The direction it was going and overall consensus was very obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Dennis Brown — Insofar as I am aware your perception of "an obvious discussion on the cusp of getting ugly" is not a Wikipedia policy-compliant reason to close an on-going discussion. "[O]n the cusp of getting ugly" can be said of many editing disputes. Deicas (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
      • From a review of your edits it is clear that you have no interest in listening to any admin or editor unless they are agreeing with you (which I haven't seen in the discussions I've reviewed). Why on earth would anyone want to engage with you with the battleground, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude you bring to the table? If you're incapable of accepting consensus and moving on, you will likely find your editing career cut short.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Of course it is a "Wikipedia policy-compliant reason". You might want to brush up on policy before (mis)quoting it. And I suggest listening to Ponyo, as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

World Cup downhill trainings

Downhill official trainings are infact integral part of World Cup, World Championships and Olympics. All the main ski countries (Austria, Slovenia, US, France, Norway, Italy, Germany etc...), all the ski fans massively follows the scores, published in all the mainstream ski countries media. I would just leave it. Sportomanokin (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hi. I would like to see your opinion and thoughts about this. I did what Wikipedia:DDE states at first, but this IP editor is reverting my edits (and adding their unreferenced contributions) for some time while violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:3RR. Thank you for reading and have a nice day. ภץאคгöร 19:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I thought my thoughts were clear given what I responded to, and what I didn't respond to. I disagree with claims about their incivility or whatever, and I didn't count reverts (but don't you have as many?). What matters to me is that all of this was completely unnecessary. The IP editor (who, by the way, should simply stop responding in that ANI thread, IMO) is obviously trying to improve the article (I think this was clear from the get-go) and with every revert/fight/conflict it appears that you have less and less ground to stand on with the whole "it's unverified" argument. I really, really, think you should walk away from this, both from the article and the ANI thread, and I hope that the IP will step away from the ANI thread also. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Might have a Meatpupetry issue

Sorry for making yet another section for your page User:Drmies, but there might be a coordinated effort to flood the Average human height by country page by asian nationalists. A wiki user brought this to my attention. There is a page [[26]] on aznidentity (basically the asian version of stormfront). This might explain all the trollish IPs and sock accounts involved in the page. Be careful, you might also be harassed. Belevalo (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

UTRS 51355

RE: UTRS appeal #51355 Hey! Is any of this "other students" stuff plausible? Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Well, no, not if they already have accounts, and autoblock doesn't block account creation anyway, as far as I know; I could be wrong about that. But the range that they are on, it's got a million accounts, some blocked for vandalism, some for NOTHERE, some for promotional editing--and the weird thing is that I've never seen so many accounts that have no contributions, but it doesn't look like they were created in batches like a sock farm would. It's just a bit of a weird mess. Anyway, they were unable or unwilling to answer your question, and "other students have to suffer" is not a reason to unblock that account. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Sounded fishy, TBH. My concern is there is some instructor somewhere (Botswana) sending students to write stuff like that who needs to liaise with the WikiEd people. I hoped there might be an easy-to-spot UPE farm that needed plowing under. I'm only quasi-Catholic and only by conversion, so guilt trips (those poor languishing students) don't work on me. Thanks again. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Bothering you again

If you have an opinion on Talk:Florine_Stettheimer#WP:CITESELF_etc, please share.

Off that topic, I like the image of scruffy Ertugrul. Did you know they made a statue of him, but it was removed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • No?! I am greatly interested in the topic. Our article(s) on the show are terrible. In one related article I found mention of the real guy, and it linked to the show. I can't make heads or tails of the "character" article, and on mobile it's even worse. There is so much stuff there of real importance, like this. I mean, that Bamsı Beyrek was out for a while (supposedly training Dundur and Yegit up in the mountains?) because of a motorcycle accident, that's kind of trivial, but the firing of Akçakoça is a Big Thing. And in typical pop culture fashion Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Political_agenda is almost empty--I am sure there is good commentary on the politics of the show, the nationalism, the bending of fact, the supposed relation with the Seljuk empire. And what about the gender issues, about characters like Banu Çiçek--who are typically tamed in marriage? Surely there's some scholarship... Drmies (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I wish I had it on video. In Season 3 Bamsi gets into his storytelling thing, when he goes "kardesler!" and tells stories, picking up from what Wild Demir did in the first two seasons, which was fantastic. In Season 4, at the wedding of...? there's a guy who does an impromptu performance in the tent, which I'd love to show to my students when we're studying oral poetry. But I don't think we have plot summaries, and I don't know that the kind of editor who writes up plot summaries for Wikipedia would have remarked on that. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • "Know, oh prince, that ... Hither came Conan, the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen-eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet."
    • Now that's the storytelling thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    • On Ertugrul etc, it seems a remarkably successful history as it should have been. Seems to be popular genre in Turkey (maybe not only there). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes--I live in a place that's loaded with monuments to the Lost Cause. What I don't really understand are all the missed opportunities and the sloppy continuities. As the seasons roll along, ironically the actual seasons are all but forgotten--that is, the course of the year and how that affects nomadic tribes. It becomes more a soap than anything else, and it's the "anything else" that I liked best, like the things that Wild Demir brought to the show. Aykiz is now completely forgotten, and if that article I added, about "equal representation", is correct (it is not, IMO), then she could have been a force to reckon with. And Turgut could have explained to his second wife that, you know, grief and residual feelings and all that, but they didn't let him do it and so in his marriage to Aslihan he seems mostly like a total jerk. Anyway, sorry for getting carried away. I just wish there was more reality, in terms of geography (which is ridiculous in the show) and history and culture. It's been a long time since someone sang the praises of yogurt and of Mother Hayme's lentils. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Wengen (downhill ski course)

I mistakenly created two same thing articles Lauberhorn (downhill ski course) and Lauberhorn (ski course). Can you delete one of them? Thanks. Sportomanokin (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I agree, maybe this title (ski course) is more appropriate. Sportomanokin (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Arjun (Singer) Wikipedia Page and account resolution

Hi Drmies,

Thank you for your communication regarding the recent issues with Arjun's page. I would like to discuss what the process for appealing my block is (I saw that you mentioned how I should go about doing this - in my talk page - but wasn't sure what I should need to state, would this be my justification for the edits made as well as my connection to Arjun?) but also - in the meantime - would it be possible to ask you to proofread the page and make some edits potentially?

Arjun is a friend of mine who I am working with to correct the information on his Wikipedia page. I am not being paid to do the work, it's just a favour really. I removed the errors at the top of the page once I thought they were no longer valid. I checked the validity of all of the references and strived to ensure that all of the text felt biographical and not written like a press release. I removed the errors but forgot to write in the changelog what I had done. This led to the errors being re-added swiftly by Melcous which I think resulted in my blockage. It would be amazing to get some help with reviewing the page so that we can check to make sure that all of the information complies with Wikipedia's standard of writing.

I also have a small update to make to the discography section of Arjun's page which will display the songs in which he has been a collaborator. I have this written in the correct formatting and can send it over if you would be happy to add that in for me. We could discuss more if you might be happy to help with that.

I really appreciate all of your help, time and consideration with this and I hope that you have a nice weekend!

Speak soon, Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willteamarjun (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Hello--on your talk page, I posted a message that said "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing", with the link to the policy. That policy explains how you can disclose; it is clear that you haven't read the policy, or those guidelines, and that is the first thing you need to take care of. And no, I am not going to edit for you as a proxy. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

2a02:587:4100::/43

Hey, I've gone and extended that block (after mistakenly undoing it for a little while) and also blocked 2A02:587:4C00::/38 for the same behaviour. Graham87 05:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Iron Bowl

This game is killing me. Volunteer Marek 00:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Yep. My daughter is dating an Auburn fan and he was here for the game last night. The stats are crazy. Did Alabama get positive run yardage? How many sacks in total--20? Crazy. What an amazing game, esp. after the Michigan - OSU game... Drmies (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • While I'm not a huge college football follower - it did make for a very entertaining Saturday. My brother lives in Birmingham AL., so I am aware that Alabama vs Auburn exists. And OSU? .. was not expecting that. Personally I really felt for the Auburn fans. Still - considering how the Steelers did today - Saturday's college football was the highlight of my weekend. Hey Doc - hope you're doing well. — Ched (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I remember you saying that a while ago--that game used to be played at Legion Field, and the only time I saw it was there. I'm OK, Ched--thanks for checking in! Hope you are well too. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Blind revert

Hi here, just popping in to ask why you performed a blind revert on my edits to Purdue University? Not all of those had "lousy sourcing," by the way. (also, kinda feel a bit WP:NPA by that phrasing). It'd be nice for other editors to actually look at the edits before they click undo for once. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  • It wasn't a "blind revert". Your "New Ivy" thing was introduced with weasel words and referenced to some blog, and "well-renowned" was sourced to ... Purdue. So I don't think "lousy" was an overstatement for your promotional edits. I hope you're not doing the same thing for all those Indiana universities. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I wasn't referring to those edits; I was referring to the ones before that were mostly minor or hyperlink edits. My "promotional" edits are in-line with the lead sections of other large public universities of the same caliber, so I wouldn't call them weasel words thanks. And no, the indiana articles were mostly category edits if you'd like to know. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Mike hock is longer than yours

Also block evasion. I blocked User: Mike hock is small an hour or two ago. Any idea who the sockmaster is? Cullen328 (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No worse than mine. Also, my skills with rangeblocking are . . . non-existent. So, thanks for that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Advice on what to do

Some advice on my troubles with an editor would be greatly appreciated. I have been having huge problems with an editor, Tennishistory1877. I feel that his responses towards me were growing more and more personal, to the point I finally threw up my hands. I was worried I was going to get dragged down with my own responses so I said it would be best if we had no further dealings with each other... no post responses no reverts of each other... totally ignore. He seemed to agree right here. I don't know if he just pushes my buttons but I was sure others were getting sick of our arguing. This has not worked out at all as seen in these items since then.

I'm sure I'm missing a bunch, but when we agreed to leave each other alone I meant it! I do not want to deal with this editor anymore yet he's making it impossible. I'm not asking for sanctions against this editor, I simply want him to stop responding to my posts and stop reverting my edits. Even vandalism I would let another editor know and let them handle it. I will do the same and have done so since our agreement (except to tell him to leave me alone) as seen above. I know that accidents can happen but these are not continual accidents. If this was even for a year perhaps I could re-evaluate, but right now, today, I am so done with this editor it isn't even funny, and I don't want it to escalate to the point I get myself in trouble. What should I do to make this happen? Thanks, bedtime for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I am fed up with the personal attacks and baseless warnings from editor fyunck, which have been going on for months. You will see amongst the links fyunck listed the statement he made to me "You have to be kidding me or you're on drugs". This is not a statement I would ever expect a long-standing editor of wikipedia to make. I asked him to retract it, but he refused. He seems to think I enjoy dealing with him on wikipedia. I do not. But we are editing on some of the same articles and posting on the same talk threads. I have tried my best to reduce personal contact to a minimum. But when he changes a statement that an editor has put on a page to something I believe is untrue, I will not stand by and allow this happen. I reverted fyunck's edit and listed the wikipedia policy that backed up my revert in my edit summary. Then fyunck posted a baseless threat on my page (another user Sod2500 pointed this out to fyunck). This is a pattern from fyunck and his warnings on my page. It has happened before. Other users point out that fyunck is wrong, but he continues to make baseless warnings. I am not an editor that goes around placing warnings on people's pages, but with this issue I make an exception. This is a clear personal attack and I am not prepared to tolerate this any longer. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Tennishistory, these are not personal attacks. Fyunck, there's no formal iBan--you can ask an editor to stop responding to you, but if you post on a talk page or whatever you can't make them stop responding... If the reverts are unjustified, you'll have to make that point one way or another, possibly on a noticeboard--but it all depends on what the actual edits are and what the support is for your position vs. the opponent's position. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha. So a personal agreement is non-binding in the eyes of administration. We'd have to go through a formal iban procedure to give it teeth? Oh well... even if it's one-sided it's still better than nothing. Thanks for the info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sorry--there really is nothing any of us could do here. The formal procedure sucks but it is what it is. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The Emergence of African Fiction

On 26 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Emergence of African Fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles Larson's The Emergence of African Fiction was an early attempt to get to an "African aesthetic", but in the eyes of critics fell short and implicitly employed European standards? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Emergence of African Fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Emergence of African Fiction), 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, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

November songs

Thank you for another good one! - No December songs in choir, so last chance for the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Hi Drmies - hope all is well! Thanks for blocking 115.96.145.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) earlier. They've now moved to 115.96.118.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Please can you help with this too? I don't know if a rangeblock can be done here without punishing 25% of the Asian world at the same time. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I'll check. Lugnuts, isn't there an LTA who does this kind of stuff? Or maybe that was Asian soccer I'm thinking of--but I made some blocks for edits that looked really similar. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I've not come across this type of vandalism before (or I don't recall it), so it's not ringing any bells just yet. Thanks again for sorting. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

IP 142.114.219.238

Hi Drmies. You blocked this IP for 31 hours. On returning he's back to the same, [28] and [29] (the end result was to cause a cite error, which is why I came across it). I'm not sure if this is vandalism or just not here behaviour, but I thought I'd alert you. Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Marsh Hen Mill

On 2 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marsh Hen Mill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Marsh Hen Mill in South Carolina grinds heirloom grains with a 1945 gristmill they found in a barn in 2007? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marsh Hen Mill. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Marsh Hen Mill), 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, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Sans9k (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2021

Nederlands

In fact, I am preparing an exit from NLWP. When an admin starts actively campaigning against a template with all kinds of silly arguments, I am done. NLWP is becoming more and more conservative and every improvement is blocked. I will finish a series of articles about places in County Clare and then I am done there. No fun any more and too much bullying. The Banner talk 18:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_137&oldid=1073240175"