User talk:Drmies/Archive 141

Archive 135

←

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

→

Archive 145

Peter Moore (shoe designer), ripe for expansion and possible DYK

Hi Drmies and talk page stalkers, I just accepted this draft about one of the designers who designed the original silhouette for the Air Jordan. He died while the draft was waiting for AfC review so I added the NYT obit, which is robust, but there are more sources out there. I am not a content creator so thought I'd post a note here in case there are stalkers is interested.

Drmies, I hope you don't mind but thought at least this is not an ANI 2.0 request and couldn't think of appropriate/active WikiProject. I also know you are active at DYK thus your talk page might be a good place. Of course if you do mind just let me know. S0091 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm I have no doubt that there's a DYK in there--but it's not one that's up my alley. Cullen328, is this something you can do something with? Drmies (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

BLP content removal

Hi Drmies and Drimies' talk page watchers. Perhaps one of you can help sort out WP:HD#Content deletion on biography of a living person? The Kamahl Santamaria content in question was added by an IP and it was removed by another IP. The IP who removed the content used the buzzword "libel" which makes me think that they'll keep coming back to remove it regardless of whether it's BLP OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Marchjuly, please do me a favor and post this/something like this on the article talk page. I'm looking at the content and as far as I can tell (without reading the sourcing) the content is not inherently unacceptable, but everything depends on the quality of the sourcing and whether the text reflects that accurately. Please feel free to ping me from there, if you like. What I can tell, after looking at this (and I don't know how strong or reliable that short Newshub article is), is that "raising concerns about the hiring process TVNZ had followed", added by User:Melonbob, is NOT reflected in the source, so that doesn't bode well--though that half sentence is not a BLP problem. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking at this. It appears that user asking the question about this at the Help Desk was advised to start a discussion about this at BLPN; so, WP:BLPN#Kamahl Santamaria is where it's now being discussed. I'll add a {{BLP noticeboard}} template to the article's talk page, but it seems like it would be confusing to try and discuss things on two separate pages now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Lord_Tweedsmuir_Secondary_School

Many thanks for reverting the bad edits on Lord_Tweedsmuir_Secondary_School made by that one user, I tried my best to revert but I am a little less experienced than yourself, I have given that user a final warning as they made 8 non constructive vandalism edits to that article. Hope this was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karaokemac (talk • contribs) 23:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Sure, you did fine--thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

• New library partner - SPIE
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Your recent partial block of user:CheckersBoard

You might consider the block merits an increase in scope: [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sheesh--thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

is this our non-friend?

this ones hitting some of his old haunts including shit about happy meals and a recreation of an old article (the douche one). PRAXIDICAE💕 16:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• I checked but can not substantiate that. Thanks though-- Drmies (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Pronoun

I met a new user (one edit 2018, next today), Charlie Golightly, on Richard Adeney, changing pronoun "he" to "they". Please watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Ha, already overseen by Graham87. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Graham87, thanks for the block. I checked--it's so weird, it looks like a hijacked account, but I found no other edits from that person on the range. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Administrator changes

Tamzin

Barek • Darkwind • Geometry guy • ProcseeBot • RoyBoy • Sean Whitton • Valereee • Visorstuff • WAvegetarian

Sn0wflake → VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news

• Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
• The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
• An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ay%C5%9Feg%C3%BCl_Y%C3%BCksel

Sehr geehrter Drimes. Mein Englischkentnisse ist mangelhaft. Deshalb habe ich bei Ayşegül Yüksel möglicherweise ein Fehler gemacht. Vor Jahren hatten Sie mir mit der englischen Atilla Engin-Seite geholfen. Jetzt brauche ich wieder Ihre Hilfe. Können Sie mir für die Ayşegül Yüksel Seite helfen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ay%C5%9Feg%C3%BCl_Y%C3%BCksel Vielen Dank --Gemalmaz ^ileti 22:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Gemalmaz--kein Problem. But the problem for this article will be properly sourcing the biography section. That's always difficult for writers/academics, and especially for someone for whom there might not be a lot of English sourcing available (and my Turkish ... well let's not talk about that). Look at the edits I made. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism on Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels

Hi Drmies! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you kindly, my friend! :-) I just wanted to shoot you an FYI to let you know that I went and extended the block that you applied to 86.185.199.66. I extended it from 31 hours to match the same one-month block that you applied to 89.211.181.104. Aside from the abuse that was observed, and the obvious fact that this is the same user who's IP hopping and adding the same vandalism back to the article - I ran a WHOIS on both IP addresses, and they originate to completely different countries and ISPs. I find it very highly likely that these IP addresses are both open proxies or VPNs. Hence, the reason I extended the block. Knowing you as well as I do, I highly doubt that you'll have any objection to what I did, but if you do object to the block extension that I placed, please let me know as soon as possible so that we can discuss it and make sure that the appropriate resulting actions are taken. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oshwah--interesting, thanks. Now look at this. I don't know who the best person is to ask for advice: someone with institutional memory and some expertise on that proxy stuff. Zzuuzz is always my go-to expert... Drmies (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, VPNs. Given the proxies, likely location, irrelevance and narcissism, you'd think this was Blue Barette Bam. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you zzuuzz. Yes, now I remember that target of theirs. This editor is a waste of electrons. Zzuuzz, please adjust blocks as you see fit? Is this a case where someone can drop a ton of VPN/proxy blocks, even if they won't do all that much? I think it's still $1 for one of those blocks, right? Drmies (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Zzuuzz - That's exactly what I figured - VPNs. I'm available and happy to help should my assistance be needed; just let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Imjimmer

Just saw that you blocked Imjimmer (talk · contribs) for 72 hours. I fear that they are worse than just extremely rude: They inserted File:Portuguese India 16-17th centuries.png, a map by Hugo Refachinho in this edit, and File:Persian Gulf z1507-1750.gif in this edit. The latter one has been created by a sock of Hugo R., see meta:Special:CentralAuth/Ruyandrada. They also created two maps that have the same idea that H's maps have: Showing the greatness of the Portuguese empire. For the abuse history of Hugo R., see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hugo_Refachinho. All the best for you and your work, Rsk6400 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Spammer

See Special:Contributions/Helengalmonte. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh that was pathetic! Sorry BilCat, I was outside, working. Galobtter, thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries, they're blocked, and that's what counts. BilCat (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit

Hey Drmies can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit? I think only you and Callanecc (not so active) got the logs of this case. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

silly bot

This is a troll bot, take a look at this. They're not fixing any redirects - they're just pointlessly piping them. And now they're mass welcoming vandals/random users via what appears to be a bot. Please just block them entirely. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard

On 15 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard is the only U.S. cemetery reserved exclusively for coon dog burials? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Key Underwood Coon Dog Memorial Graveyard), 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) 00:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Privacy concern

I have a privacy concern about the use of an email-address here. I don't think that is useful as a source, nor is it a good idea. But as I have dumped IRC, I have no idea how to get it hidden. The Banner talk 08:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Got it--thanks Banner. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

A beer for you!

cheers! Thanks! Lectorlatinoamericano (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Just happy to be here and hoping I can get back to helping the ball club

It was really awesome that my first substantive AIV report in many months got immediately acted upon by one of my favorite Wikipeople. Much obliged! Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Woohoo! But that one was easy. I did revdelete a bunch of that racist stuff. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Class dismissed!

Well they certainly weren't interested in what you had to say on the matter, were they? -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Ha, and then I accidentally rolled back your edit to the article. That talk page history is itself reason enough for a block. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to make sure you saw the "erudite" comment. What's the point of a compliment if the complimentee never sees it?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh, I saw it, and I'm still blushing. My wife has many words for me but that's never been one of em. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
      • At least they did not tell you to, "fuck off." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know that ...

weird fellow.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And you've been deceiving us all these years. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that dude is such a fucking asshole--you have to wonder if he ever gets Thanksgiving invitations from his own family. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear! And I thought my stalkers were weird! BilCat (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Haha sports fan--this guy is going for two editors--but then, they played more than one hand themselves. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess my stalker isn't a Dawgs fan or something! BilCat (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Wait--Tennessee? You know they low down...and they some snitches... Drmies (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Have to be loyal. BilCat (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Re your earlier block of User:CheckersBoard

You might want to take a look at this edit, and the accompanying edit summary. [2] I get the distinct impression that CheckersBoard is trying to pick a fight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

And see also the talk page. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm--I saw one of their edits go by this morning but didn't check. Let's see. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Done. There is no place for that. Thanks Andy. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, could you please help me?

Hi Drmies, this user is accusing in an AE Request that I am following him and targeting his edits.[4] Is there any ability on the part of you administrators to tell if I have arrived at this article by looking for the list of contributions of the user in question? Thank you very much.
PS. I suspect that the user is following me all the time. How could he get to these articles every time I edit, without having made a contribution before?[5] Is there any way to tell if he got to these articles by checking my history?--Mhorg (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You can use the tools here to get a breakdown of the timeline of your edits and theirs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest @ScottishFinnishRadish:, however I would need to prove that I did not arrive at an article by checking the user's history, but arrived there independently. Mhorg (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

We typically only look who's first to edit the article, which is about all we can do. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is so sad, thank you Drmies.

Would you like to participate in this AE Request? Currently there is only one administrator dealing with it. Mhorg (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I was wrapping up my comments while you were typing this, Mhorg--and I'm sorry to say that I am troubled by some aspects of your editing there. Please note that my problems with your editing are focused on very specific things: RS, but especially the BLP. You seem to have a habit of dropping suggestive remarks (or test balloons), like about Zelenskyy and the Nazi picture--but you just can't do that here. And you can't say "Sources about the unreliability of her rape reports" as a heading on an article talk page, stating something that is a matter of argument, not a matter of fact. At the very least you should have said "alleged". But the Denisova edits--I cannot, we cannot let you make highly negative comments about this woman's life and work across a spectrum of article, in article space and in edit summaries. You need to leave that be, one way or another, and if the AE request doesn't close with a topic ban, then you should expect all those edits to be scrutinized from the BLP perspective. You were notified of the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom for BLPs, and I urge you to take that seriously. Leave her alone. Don't remove content from other articles where she's mentioned, and don't write up edit summaries that clearly and unnecessarily reflect negatively on her. Phrase edit summaries etc. in ways that do not insert unnecessary detail or opinion. This is important. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

[I wrote this without reading your last answer] Of course Drmies, I accept criticism and am ready to improve if I get something wrong. I often don't know any rules, if you notice I often ask questions to other users. However, for me the important thing is that there are several administrators to look into the matter, one administrator is already talking about a Tban. I don't think I deserve it, and I think I have the sources to back up those actions I took (among other things, for the first time since I've been on Wikipedia I'm doing text removals per WP:BOLD, which is practically the technique adopted every day by the user My very best wishes everywhere on every articles). Thank you. Mhorg (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok Drmies, I understood what you mean. And I will try to be more careful in the future. However, do you think something like that counts as a Tban? Can't it be quietly discussed on the talk pages as it is with any other character and with all other users? I don't understand why I have to take a Tban for matters where there are sources about it, and they are matters of some importance. This lady has been heavily criticised in her own country. And by the way, I should point out: I tried to remove that part once, then I tried to group it, then I added information on criticism. Would all this be destructive behaviour? I am being accused as if I have been editingwarring on the article for months.

And it would be the last straw if a Tban was triggered by a user who is breathing down my neck, who has already been admonished by an administrator, and who has resumed wikihounding me (and even denies it!).

Sorry for the outburst, and thanks for your opinion. Mhorg (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that's fine. But the BLP is a serious matter. Yes, all those things can be discussed, to a certain extent--first of all, they need to be discussed neutrally, so that means neutral section headings. Second, the edit summaries--but I don't want to repeat myself again and I don't want to scold you here. Third, such material needs to be discussed based on reliable sources, which is also why the Zelenskyy thing was problematic for me. Finally, Wikihounding--as I said at AE, I don't want to get into the personal interactions. El_C made that note, and I assume they did so for a reason, but it was a year ago and I cannot judge whether that is at all relevant to these highly visible and frequently edited articles; I tried to judge on the merit of the diffs. And a promise to be more careful in certain matters might help you at AE as well. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

For recent cases of wikihounding, I appeal to your kindness, if you could at least verify these 7 links, at least maybe I would get some justice (note that no admin has yet taken any of my points into consideration, only those of my opponent), as the user has harassed me last year and has started to do so again (and now he is probably getting a tban against me, which was what he had long dreamed of, to exclude me from discussions).

Talking about the BLP issue, I am taking advantage of this unpleasant situation to learn how to handle certain situations. The user now accuses me of this too.[6] Considering that the source is first class in Italy (the first Italian channel), and that several sources have spoken about it, that the text seems to me to be neutrally reported, and that it seems to me to respect the WP:PUBLICFIGURE, is there a BLP violation here too? Thank you for your patience.--Mhorg (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll have time to deal with these reports of mine, even if they don't clarify the violations I have committed, they will at least clarify who the person is who is attacking me and painting me as a malicious user. Dennis unfortunately seems to believe him, as he writes "as you tend to talk 'at' other editors rather than 'with' them", but I can assure you that the only hostile exchanges in discussions I've had are with MVBW and maybe a couple of other users (with some of them we've even resolved peacefully. I sometimes lose my patience when users talk in forum terminology without bringing sources).

Also, note that I never got a warning from administrators for my behaviour, I only got a one-day block[7] for clashing with a sockpuppet[8] (which you busted, I don't know if you remember: "User:LauraWilliamson is a sock of a particularly irritating longterm disruptor; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordimalo/Archive. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2021"). I asked EdJohnston if he could remove the block from the counter, but he told me it was impossible.[9]

That said, I have read your assessment carefully and am fine with accepting the ban on Denisova and related issues. I have tried to take note of all the points about BLP, and edit summaries, etc., and I will make sure I stick to the advice you gave. In short, I would like the opportunity to prove that this was a mistake, and a lack of understanding of BLP rules. Had I known they were so tight, I would have been much more careful. Mhorg (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive new editor

Hello, hope you are well, this new editor [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bishopdoesit]] has already been warned few weeks ago, but they continue to remove sourced material and ignore warnings, can you please do something about it, the amount of removed text in article is already getting problematic, like this example [[10]]. Thank you.

They obviously continue to go at it, [[11]] obviously not stopping. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:06 25.June 2022 (UTC)

Now NotHere blocked by User:Ohnoitsjamie. BusterD (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you anyway and to admin Ohnoitsjamie Theonewithreason (talk) 21:26 25.June 2022 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Issues with the Operation of ANI and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Carter00000 (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Well that’s going to be rejected shortly. Bad idea. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, Maybe not. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Carter00000 I know, I saw the email request. It’s possible it will be accepted since it’s a conduct issue, but I’ll be surprised if it is. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Guess not. Turns out "the reverts were clearly illogical, so could not be considered a content dispute" isn't a great argument for why a clear content dispute isn't a content dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. GoodDay hit the nail on the head, and I think I made that point earlier. But there was nothing to see--I looked. But this happens a couple times every year: user comes in, pisses on the rug, blames us when we say "hey don't piss on the rug", and then takes a dump. And with a bit of bad luck they find one or two regular editors who for one weird reason or another goes along with them. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Tom Jones

Hey Drmies, hope you are well. Did you mean to fully protect Tom Jones (singer)? -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes I did. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Discospinster changed it to a three-month semi and I converted it to an indef semi ... I think that's the best position for the article in the long term. Graham87 04:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I couldn't decide--there wasn't a huge amount of vandalism, but I have no problem with semi-protection. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Pinging LuK3. Graham87 04:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    • (talk page watcher) Works for me. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

CSD question

Hi Drmies, I have some questions regarding CSD tags. A user added a CSD tag to Redeeming Love (2021 film) and its talk page. This is a redirect page to Redeeming Love (2022 film), which was moved to that title last year. The user gave no reason for the CSD, and at first glance, I don't think it's eligible for CSD. As a non-admin user with some privileges such as Page Mover, what am I able to do about in this situation? Should I leave it for an admin to deal with, or am I able to remove the CSD myself? (I'm not asking you to deal with it yourself, if you're not able to at this time.) Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @BilCat: IMHO, you can-- if you did not create the page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I fell asleep before I could make the edit, and an admin removed it. BilCat (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think KinoFan2021 thought they were doing the right thing, given the change in year--thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The South

Putting aside their username, since when did Deepfriedokra become you?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Good question. But DFA is from Florida, not the South. And I'm not really here by choice either, BTW, but then heatwaves are everywhere. The effects of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade, of course, are terrifying, and having two teenage daughters is greatly increasing our anxiety level. Fuckers. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm from Georgia, I only live (if you call it that) in Florida. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I've always considered northern Florida part of the South.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I was going to say, DFA, I was in Georgia on Friday and I didn't see you. "Northern" Florida may well count as Southern, but we're writing microhistories now. The Republic of Winston is Southern still... As for the panhandle--I used to think we, as Alabamians, should take it by force, but then I realized that if we had, or did, it would just be full of oil platforms. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

      As I recall, what is now Tampa rebelled against the rebellion, but slow COVID and encroaching senility have clouded the memory. Before statehood, we had West Florida and East Florida, as separated politically as the East is from the West. Yes, those North Floridians deserve a state of their own-- or something. I should imagine there are many in the panhandle that would welcome Alabama, and that very little force would be required. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

      I'm sure y'all know better than I. I lived in Georgia once, and I have a first cousin who lives in Florida. A radical white feminist with children of color, both of whom, in different ways, are as radical as their mother.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

      That makes me happy to hear re: your cousin in FL since we're considering moving there due to cost (MD is currently too expensive for the type of house we're looking for + cost of child care), so good to know there's like minded people. ;) PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

      Glad to be of help, but I'm not how many people there are in Florida like my cousin. BTW, she lives in southern Florida.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

      Massachusetts isn't too cripplingly expensive once you're outside of the large urban centers, and the state is small enough where commuting is never that bad. It does, however, get less than no degrees, and there are several months where you're lucky if you see above freezing. On the plus side you don't have to worry about flesh eating bacteria or brain eating amoebas in the water. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

      Hard pass on the cold, the only reason I agreed to move out of the city (I don't drive) is if we lived on the beach. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

      Without the cold, how can you convince yourself that ice fishing and snowshoeing are hobbies and not punishment? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

The recent request for Arbitration to which you were listed as a party has been declined, as the Committee felt it was premature. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 15:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

As was foretold of old. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not wearing a suit

FWIW, I'm in my underwear. This is, after all, Florida. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• TMI, my friend! We just had a nice storm come through, and the temperature dropped about twenty degrees--finally. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yay! 84 F. In my room. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Why do you insist on living in hell? PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't know about DFO, but I don't have a choice. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• What is wrong with people these days? Wikipedia has gone to pot. PS: I am wearing the full complement of street clothes plus foundations (as they used to be called in the old department stores), even though I live in Hawaii and it is Saturday and I have zilch to do today. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I only edit in a tuxedo and top hat, normally seated at a mahogany desk in one of those libraries that has a staircase ladder on rails. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    • ScottishFinnishRadish, someone is going to find this diff at RfA and call you out as a liar. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
      • @Praxidicae: Dragged here by my parents at a young age. Now I'm stuck. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
        • I'm lucky enough to live in an area that swings from -20 in winter to 110 during the summer. It's the worst of both worlds! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
      • I'm a classy radish, and no one can prove otherwise. Also, I'm sure I've said far stupider things that people will object to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

      It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

    • ScottishFinnishRadish, the single best item of advice I've received in 24 years of mandatory continuing legal education came from Harry Pregerson: "You attorneys seem to believe that, when we're reading your briefs, we are sitting at broad mahogany desks in comfortable historic offices with a fleet of clerks at our command to provide us with law books and their well-reasoned thoughts. In fact, we are reading your briefs in seat 19-C on Southwest Airlines from Burbank to Oakland. Please accommodate us in your typography and exhibit presentation."

      I actually did have those rail-mounted foofy little bookcase ladders in my ex-office, not by choice. I'm 5'6", but dyspraxic. I was forbidden by management ever to TOUCH them. I have a bunch of $4 random thrift-store golf putters in every appropriate room that solve shelf-item-retrieval problems, though, and I pity the fool who ever burgles my space because neither they, nor I, will ever know what might have hit them. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

      • I work in a high tech manufacturing lab, and everyone I talk to about it assumes that is going to look futuristic and sleek and shiny, but what it actually looks like is a windowless beige room with a stained drop ceiling, oversize erector set pieces supporting liquid nitrogen piping and heavy electrical cords dropped down from outlets in the ceiling.
      • People always think that every workplace but theirs looks like it does on TV, when in actuality almost every workplace looks like the cheapest commercial beige paint a company can buy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
        • This is getting funnier all the time. I guess in comparison my office at work isn't so bad. I even have a window! Drmies (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
          • I don't want to have to upload a deliberately askew picture of my office to Commons, but I just took a really nice shot, for my own joy, emanating from this thread, that incorporates (a) a not-TOO-stained drop ceiling, (b) "the cheapest commercial beige paint a company can buy", indeed! but also (c) my window, which looks into the most charming courtyard conceivable under local watering restrictions, continually utilized throughout the day by elementary-school-aged kids in an autism-spectrum day program and their one-on-one caretakers. I'm not even a Kid Person and this is the most joyous office view I think I've ever had (and I used to have a panoramic view of both downtown and the entire Strip). Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
            • Right on. My window opens up to a kind of outside hallway, a space between two buildings that looks like a place where convicts get to breathe fresh air, but is actually occupied by kids from the day care center. I do not mind the sound. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• 
  The Radish' office?
• 
  Drmies' office, note the window

Distinctive manifestation of WP:CIR

hej! Kindly take a look at the past day or so of activity from [12]. It's not overt "vandalism", but something's going on here from a user with a particular pattern of non-WP:CIR English syntax/usage errors. I appreciate a second look from you and your TPSes who are familiar with particular species of ESL mishaps. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• I actually just checked into that, and I looked at some more. Little I can do until the user starts editing again; let's hope they improve, and write acceptable edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

New editor with "bot" edit summaries

Hey, I noticed a new editor [13] who is making edit summaries that give the misleading impression that the edit is being made by a community approved bot instead of a new editor. I see that in their tp there is a template with a complaint about one of their edits. Isn't making such misleading edit summaries an issue? I have not checked their edits to see if they are all good or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks--fun thing, I saw that name and for some reason noticed it. They need to stop that. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • They could have helped themselves a bit by adding BOT to their username to somehow reduce the possibility of detection, like JasonBOT :P Thanks Drmies for the quick response, they could create a mess with such edits. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

June songs

Thank you for having stopped it. I reverted their edit to one of my articles - the edit summary alone had not alerted me, but seeing what they were doing. Will the other edits also be reverted? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

... and roses for yours in the edit notice, with an excellent message - I read my own from time to time, DYK? - Two bios under the recent deaths, sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for improving articles in June! My song collection is especially rich, look, and the hall where I first heard DFD, Pierre Boulez and Murray Perahia. Do you find the baby deer in the meadow (last row)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

today: a song about getting through the night, after plenty of music over the weekend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Supreme Court

Thanks for your attention on Supreme court ([14]). Just so you know, the vandalism actually goes back further (and will likely continue until the RPP request is filled) and similar dreck fills the logs and diffs all the way back to this version. TJRC (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm--Biggus Dickus or Pussy Galore?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of memorable movie character names Drmies (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Based on the article creator's responses, Badger should be on the list! BilCat (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

PROD notifs

About this... I didn't give it much thought before the prods but twinkle automatically notifies the page creator when an article they created gets prodded; obv you knew that already but I apologize for the disturbance. --VersaceSpace 🌃 05:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that option is a checkbox on the nomination splash that can be turned off if necessary, though obviously that's only helpful if you know and/or remember who created the page. Primefac (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Somehow I missed that...I'll definitely be checking that box in the future. --VersaceSpace 🌃 14:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

User:VersaceSpace, no apology necessary--I know it was automated, and I appreciate Primefac's help here. I was just, you know, cleaning up... Drmies (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

CU request

Some days ago I warned Ftillimi for edit warring on the Arbëresh language article. After that they stopped reverting. Today a London IP started to edit with the same weird POV. I note that the first edit of Ftillimi on enwiki was the creation of the draft article of a London-based Arbëresh linguist. After I warned the IP for edit warring, ARBERESHTV started to make edits with the same POV. After another editor reverted ARBERESHTV, Ftillimi reverted that editor. Due to being on the phone at the moment I can't open the SPI page and the case needs quick CU due to the accounts causing edit warring with multiple editors, can you please use CU to compare the two accounts? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• I can't say much, but I can say that there is no reason to suspect Ftillimi of foul play. Now Arberesh is problematic, but that's a different matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, it can't be a coincidance that the very first edit of Ftillimi on enwiki was the creation of the draft article of Martin Di Maggio. Di Maggio is the person who operates the ARBËRESHTV YouTube channel. They even placed a link to the YT channel in the draft article. And then an account named ARBËRESHTV emerged with the same POV as Ftillimi. In any case, I understand you see this in a way other than I do. Thanks for the time, cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Btw, ARBËRESHTV apparently reverted your edit as "vandalism" [15]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Also, both Ftillimi and ARBERESHTV have the habit to write in UPPERCASE letters [16][17][18][19]. This combined with pushing the same POV and the fact that Ftillimi wrote the draft article of the user of the ARBERESHTV Youtube channel makes it obvious that Ftillimi and ARBERESHTV are being used by the same person. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
        • I saw; they are disruptive. You can start an SPI if you want, and the YouTube thing is powerful, but I'll have to come by and state that there is no technical evidence for that claim. Now, it is possible that there's hanky panky of one of two kinds--either MEATing, or a technical evasion that I do not see, so I won't dismiss it, but there is nothing that I can see. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
          • If the CU data does not connect the two accounts, I will not open an SPI - at least for now. If the disruption persists, then I will try to understand what is the best way to deal with it. Maybe they improve their editing after all. Thanks again for your time. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
            • Yeah, sorry. Still, that YouTube thing is bothersome. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ted (franchise)

You recently deleted the draft article at Draft:Ted (franchise). This was a collaborative effort and a lot of work went into make this page. Why did you delete it? Please reinstate that draft.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) See the deletion log entry. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Geoff. DisneyMetalhead, you should really, really wonder whether you want to be associated with an LTA who's been vandalizing this place since, in the case of this article, 2016. And what is this obsession with drafts for franchises? Drmies (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Glane23: and @Drmies: I have no association with whoever it is that you have an issue with. However, Ted is a franchise now and I was working on the draft article. I had an admin reinstate the article. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that you were wrong in stating that some other user made the article... I was the one who first started working on it. Secondly, why are you making a declarative statement as to what my "obsessions" are, User:Drmies? Strange indeed.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, thank you for correcting my error. You saw this in the history, I'm sure, and the edit by this IP, which led me down that path, incorrectly I suppose--looking at that IP's deleted contributions will give you an idea of what we're dealing with. The three dozen or so entries in my log for June 26 of deleted drafts are perhaps my excuse for missing one. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I left the earlier creation by the sock you mention, deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Franchise articles seem to be the in-thing in pop-culture subjects right now. See Top Gun (franchise) for but one a example, with a possible recreation discussed here. Oddly, we.don't have a franchise article for The Flintstones, which is certainly one. (My attempt to create one at Draft:The Flintstones (franchise) petered out, but I wouldn't object if someone else wanted to work on it.) BilCat (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• The IP (well, there were at least two IPs) created dozens and dozens, going back to 2016. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much

Thank you so much for temp banning that IP range. The last four months on this website have been dreadful with a guy following my every edit. Thank you so much. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Sure thing--I saw the latest revert and checked on it. But there's a thing--Ohnoitsjamie, you partially blocked that range for quite a long time, and I blocked them sitewide for three months--is that OK with you? Drmies (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sarah Jane Murray

The article Sarah Jane Murray has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability doubts and potential self-creation/promo.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Prune request

(talk page watcher) We can all use some good prunes. Especially chocolate covered with an almond. DFO

Hi there, hope you're well. Would you mind giving the Hyomin article a bit of a prune when you get chance? A few bits seem unnecessary to include to me. I’ve seen you do this with a few other articles hence my asking you as I trust your judgement on what should be removed. Alex (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Do you know that a K-pop fan a couple years ago contacted my employer to complain? Threw in a whole bunch of BS accusations, next thing you know I'm at HR, etc. Overly dedicated fans of anything are dangerous. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  Wow. And HR called you in for not-at-work BS. SMDH --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• The K-pop mafia and the K-beauty mafia have gained too much power. Our democracy is at stake. If they join forces with the K-drama mafia, we're doomed. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Alex, did you see what happened after my mild and delicate pruning of some of the content? Drmies (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I have now, I'm not surprised they decided to revert but some of the edit summaries are.. questionable. I've replied on the talk page though I'm not sure how far that will go. You were called into HR because of Wikipedia activity? Yikes that's taking it to a new level. Alex (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    • It was such obvious BS that it was dealt with quickly. It was not the only time--there's some Indian troll who claimed I got paid to edit Brian Krzanich, in order to obfuscate Intel's illegal dealing in stolen minerals or some crazy shit like that. I had to go and explain that too. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Atul Kochhar

I have seen some very dubious edits on Atul Kochhar. Now the editor admits that he is the personal assistant of mr. Kochbar. A quick search on google pointed to a PR-firm. I don't want it to become an edit war but I certainly do not want the article to degrade to an unsourced BLP/promo-vehicle. What now? The Banner talk 21:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I doubt if the PA got the message duck alert. The Banner talk 17:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Basshunter

Hello. About the interview in YouTube. Example: This is interview and can be published at New York Times website in form of text or it can be published by New York Times on YouTube in form of video. Is there any difference? About golf balls.Why not?. Also I don't think it's wrong information. Website is actually called "NZ Herald", not "The New Zealand Herald". Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• I find this hard to follow. There was an interview with the New York Times but they published it on YouTube? Sounds very unlikely. On Wikipedia we prefer that content be verified by reference to printed sources; it's not too much to ask to do that for this subject too. There's still a half a dozen or so links to YouTube videos in the article, which is one reason why it's such a bad article. Golf balls? How on earth is this detail relevant to a multi-million dollar earning artist? No, you can put that on Wikia if you like, but it shouldn't be here. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes I gave example so it's easier to understand. It's independent source just in form of video so I don't see why it would be not recommanded. There is no difference if it is a text or video format - source remains the same. "I'm puzzled why "first" and "last" were replaced with "author" - you write name and surname - order as in any biographical article... Nonsense to reverse it. So if it is encyclopedic author then you are going to link it as [[Scott Kara|Kara Scott]]? Absolutelly redundant. Eurohunter (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    • What you say makes no grammatical or semantic sense. It's independent? Bravo. Is it reliable? Oh, that's another matter. What even is the source? And we have "first" and "last" for a reason: in Swedish, in English, in a whole bunch of languages that helps with, you know, the alphabet. Even if I disregard that, there is this--it makes it hard to decide if you are what the Dutch call a comma fucker, or if you are just showing incompetence. The website of a newspaper reflects the article in the newspaper, and so we cite it as a newspaper, unless it's the blog of a newspaper's website.
      Anyway, that you don't see the difference between video and print is kind of sad, but the entire article is full of problems. You cite this--that's barely an interview since it's really just him yacking, and what even is FaceCulture? And why are they not listed in the citation? Are they an RS? And what on earth is this--why is the article called "Download"? Which article is it anyway? Because "Download" is on page 23. Page 26 is "Radio- & TV-Airplay", a page that doesn't list him. The entire section of notes is full of such questionable citations. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Nelson Piquet

Gtroviz has continued to resort to personal attacks within edit summaries over at Nelson Piquet - just notifying you as I saw you gave them a warning re NPA. Patient Zero^talk 23:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry I missed this earlier. Thanks User:RickinBaltimore--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Timeline Bullet Club

Hello, Drmies. I have seen you removed the timeline from Bullet Club. You said it doesn't work. Can you tell me the policie? Other articles also have this kind of tables, so I want to understand it better. Thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• HHH Pedrigree, one can start with either MOS:COLOR or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Yes, lots of other articles have problematic timelines too, particularly bands. It's very sad that people pay so little attention to accessibility for people with visual impairments. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Breaking of a ban on article

Hello,@Drmies hope you are well, [[20]] according to admin @EdJohnston decision on article Zachumlia me and editor Santasa99 were both warned and will be blocked if we edit without reaching consensus on talk page, that was something that was officially posted on their talk page too [[21]] since then nothing happened on talk page, actually I was the one that had support from other editor [[22]] but today Santasa99 made the same disruptive editing on the page Zachumlia [[23]], which means they broke the official warning. Can you please react. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 02:18 09.July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, this is too cryptic. You said EdJohnston warned you two? EdJohnston is an administrator in whom I have complete faith--why would I jump into one of the matters they adjudicated? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I left the message on their TP, but I am not sure when are they online. Theonewithreason (talk) 02:22 09.July 2022 (UTC)
    • Now being discussed at User talk:EdJohnston#Breaking of a ban on Zachlumia article. I've notified User:Santasa99 of the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Y2edit

Any chance this could be a sock? Special:Contributions/Mossad3 Some of the same interests, uses multiple posts on talk pages to get their point across. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding: I believe it's them. For example, this edit is from Y2edit?'s range (see SPI and my earlier range block); RegentsPark suggested that the IPuser use DR or start an RFC, and a couple of days later (one day after Drmies applied an LTA rangeblock) the Mossad3 account was created and the RFC started. Matching area of interest and POV too. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Y2edit? will be stale soon.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Doug that's about a 100% chance. Thank you all. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• I filed the report some days ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav and that's where the reports involving this user's sockpuppetry should to be filed at. Y2edit? is him and there are many similarities including that this user always ask someone to "adopt" him after he is sanctioned.[24][25] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Squashing Discussion

Please don’t behave the way you’ve been doing. An edit was made to an article to make a non-political fact be a part of it. Someone with a seemingly biased point of view reverted it and then I pointed out that my statement was not a point of view or political view being expressed, but only a fact. You reverted that statement that I put on the talk page. Please don’t behave in ways that risk Wikipedia not being a source of information by squashing people from even discussing bias. Annfrankenstein (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NOTFORUM and act accordingly. If you don't, you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I've reverted them again on Ollie's TP @Drmies. We don't need more ideological/right wing warfare on WP. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I saw that, thanks. I'm hoping common sense will prevail. Hey, I'm watching a documentary on honey badgers. They really don't care, do they. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
      • You have more hope and faith than I do that the anti-woman crowd understands facts or common sense. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Well, what can I say. I just watched a honey badger eat the head of a snake. Speaking of snakes, I really dislike socks with offensive user names. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
          • I...am sad to say that I didn't even think about the username. I'm losing my touch. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
            • No worries. It was the user name that suggested the socking, not their editing style, which is totally inept. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
        • I've given them a couple of alerts, with a comment that although routine they may have trouble with them. And a comment that they can revert most things from their talk page but NOTFORUM doesn't apply there. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

any chance...

when you blocked this spam sock, this one popped up too? This is clearly a spam sock of some sort. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm I don't know. I don't remember the specifics of the data, but right now I see no evidence of socking... Drmies (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies

Drmies, hello. I am nelson. Thank you for your help when you spoke up to secret squirrel about the personal attack he made towards me in the two AFD discussions (I saw you deleted his comments from one of them). I do feel affected about this and tried to speak to him to mediate between myself and him but he has not replied yet. Anyway I am writing here just to show how grateful am I for your help. Thank you again and wish you a good day ahead --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Administrator changes

AA • Gwalla • Ioeth • Laurascudder • Moriori (deceased) • Nat • Rfl

Drilnoth → AFigureOfBlue

Bureaucrat changes

Lee Vilenski

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

Technical news

• user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion

I see a swathe of recent edits to Farnborough Hall by IP addresses. I suspect block evasion by Kalorama20008, whom you recently blocked. (Pinging 331dot, against whom the legal threat was made.) Maproom (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm technical evidence does not support that here. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies, for checking. Now a new account StJohnPG has made a series of equally unconstructive edits to talk:Farnborough Hall. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Tistis/TisTru

if you're referring to those two accounts being socks, well not only do I agree but the OTRS ticket tells a different story than the one being told on-wiki from them. So, they're being far less than truthful. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• The socking is CU-confirmed. I don't check OTRS, but I'm willing to let the TisTRU account go, for now, though with that indefinite partial block for that article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• You guys are busy eh. I am not operating 2 accounts. Why would I be? I've had this account for well over 10 years thank you very much so please unblock. Thanks.
• Why do you think I would have 2 accounts and for what reasons? What could I achieve with 2 accounts that I couldn't with my bone and only account? Baffles me TisTRU (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm busy watching the Tour de France, thanks. If you really want to argue you don't have two accounts, place an unblock request on your talk page (or from User talk:TisTis, haha). But, you know, we got TisTRU and we got TisTis, and both are doing promotional editing on the same topic. If you place an unblock request for another checkuser, it will no doubt be confirmed that recently you logged in as TisTis and two minutes later switched to TisTRU. We were just talking about Lance Armstrong and George Hincapie. At some points, lies become impossible to maintain. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Drmies not to mention the OTRS ticket I provided. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Journal of Arts & Humanities?

Hi Drmies! At 'Ilm al-huruf, a new editor added (and has now re-added) a copyvio from something called the "Journal of Arts and Humanities". I see you revdel'd the first one (thanks for that) and I've added a revdel tag for the second one now. Apart from the copyvio issue, the source they are attempting to add looks a little suspect to me. Have you ever encountered this journal (Journal of Arts & Humanities)? I can't find anything on either the journal itself or its publisher (LAR Center Press) to judge its suitability as a source. Thanks, and have a great day! PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Did you see this? Randykitty, are you familiar with this outfit? First I heard from them. PohranicniStraze, what is a giveaway for me also is the number of journals and their names--for Elsevier or whoever, that makes sense, but not here. I found the "editorial team" to look odd too. You may know that often real scholars suddenly find themselves listed on such editorial boards, without their knowledge; it's pretty disgusting. In this case, however, look at this. And here is an editor who apparently published in it. The article is here, and I'll refrain from commenting. I read a few articles and it's not great--in this one they couldn't even be bothered to proofread the title. One other article in Vol. 1, Issue 1, is typical of the kind of thing published by university administrators who need to pretend to have an active research agenda. I thought maybe that the first issue would be improved on, but look at this--can we get the Guild of Copy Editors to help out? So while there are indications of legitimacy, the proof is in the pudding, and this pudding stinks. There are other disqualifiers pertaining to that editorial board that I'd rather not discuss here, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Never heard of it. It doesn't have the feel of a predatory journal but their claim to be indexed in DOAJ is false. Having a print version would be highly unusual for a predatory journal. So the evidence is mixed. In no way is this a notable journal, though. At best, this is a legit, but low-quality, bottom feeder. --Randykitty (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    • But a publication fee?? Drmies (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Well, having a publication fee is nowadays more or less standard for an OA journal (and here at $200 quite modest). Of course, they also offer speedy review for $50, which is more fishy. In all, as I said, it's a mixed bag. Without some more solid evidence, I hesitate to label this "predatory". (PS: I didn't look at the editorial board where you found some suspect stuff, I don't have time to Google these people). --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Hmm I've never paid one. Got something coming out soon. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
          • It's very different in different fields. In the life sciences, it's highly exceptional for a journal not to have fees (usually in the order of several thousand $$$) and I know people who paid out of their private funds to get something published... I understand that it's different in the Humanities, where having a publication fee is the exception, not the norm. Still it's not unheard of and I don't know of any STEM journal that charges $200 (and such a low fee would actually be a red flag...) --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
            • What a world--having to pay to get your free labor published. Are you anywhere close to those fires I read about? I hope you're well. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
              • Thanks for asking. We're fine, in fact, I wasn't even aware of those fires (we don't have TV :-), they're several hours driving from us. But it could happen here, too, it's very dry... As for the OA, somebody has to pay the bills. Used to be libraries, now its the researchers (and I don't think we got the money that libraries are saving). How high those bills are is another issue, but look at journals like Nature, who need to have a large editorial office to handle the enormous numbers of manuscripts they get. And also don't forget that editors in STEM usually are paid. It's a thankless job, so why else would people do it... Again something that's different in the Humanities. --Randykitty (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
                • That's good to hear. Hey, you probably bought my book already, right? ;) Gotta pay my power bill! Drmies (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your good work! Andrevan@ 05:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Your ping

I'd say there's no way they're a new user, but unfortunately I have no clue who they are. In the words of a soon to be ex-Prime Minister, thems the breaks. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Right. New user, serious nuisance... Drmies (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wondering

Didn't really know why you blocked user Nguyentrongphu. What do you mean "clearly not here to build an enclycopedia"? Victor311 (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For starters WP:NONAZIs applies, but also a 3 second dig into their contribs would give you the answer. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Two interesting facts: (1) the user was blocked back in October of 2021, and (2) the user is an admin at vi.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Less interesting than a random account who joined months after their block. Things that make you wonder... PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Victor311, you are welcome to look at this and to follow some of the threads, including this, kindly linked in that thread by Bishonen, and maybe this, pursuant to "discussions" at Talk:Adolf Hitler. Or you can look at this version of their talk page, starting with "Refactored from ACN". Or you may ask User:El C, who gave up, or User:Deepfriedokra, who declined an unblock request via UTRS, or User:Yamla, who declined to reduce the block. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, That was pretty clear. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Request

Would it be possible to semiprotect Kulkulkan and Quetzalcoatl for a few days? Both pages are being vandalized by a vandal with an morphing IP who thinks he's found Christ's grave in pictures of quetzals or something. Mr Fink (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• I see that User:Johnuniq already placed a block--thank you Johnuniq. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Ah, thank you, Johnuniq!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Actually, I would like to re-request the semiprotection, as the vandal is back and uncivil as ever.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I blocked their range. I'll see what else needs to be done. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Maya Hawke

Xselant is continuing to edit war and insert the same information, ignoring WP:STATUSQUO and other things, despite being blocked for this just the other day. They clearly have no intention of changing their behavior. I don't know if there's anything you can really do, mostly because I think you're technically considered WP:INVOLVED now since you reverted them once. (I'm not too sure how that works.) So, this isn't me asking you if you can do anything, I'm just letting you know since you're also aware of their behavior. In any case, I'm not going to continue to play their games and will leave the article alone. Although it sounds like something needs to be done here, considering they had the audacity to accuse me of what they are doing. Just not sure what, but they're clearly the problem. Amaury • 17:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they just filed a bogus report against me at WP:ANEW, clearly in retaliation to my report that got them blocked. Amaury • 17:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Amaury, I totally agree with you--and I see that Bbb23 placed the next block, after Rosguill's first one. Thank you, Bbb. Drmies (talk)

Draft:Ayşegül Yüksel

Dear Drmies, can you make the Ayşegül Yüksel page to be moved to the main page, please? Even those who play in bad dramas are there. Ayşegül Hanım is an acamedician who is the teacher of the teachers. Please help me. Yours sincerely --Gemalmaz ^ileti 19:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The draft has not yet been submitted for review: Draft:Ayşegül_Yüksel. See the instructions under "Submitting for review" in this article: Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Glane23. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible selective removal of sources

Hello Dermis. It seems that once again a user is removing sources that perhaps don’t align with a specific view. The IP is also not innocent in the matter but clearly there is a team up to censor certain information favoring a Serbian POV. I believe you warned the user of this already. This new article appears to be undergoing a battlegrounds due to recent political events in the balkans. I keep getting messages from what seems like a Croatian IP complaining about the Serbian editors on the article. Could you take a look? So much text is being added and removed. Not sure what is up. But I see some sudden new accounts popping up which gives me concern. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the IP who is obviously evading block, but no comment on content. Also semi'ed page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I see. Though is it wise to simply delete sourced content just because of the person who added it? From a general perspective that is. I ask as it seems some users on that page used the premise of “IP Edit” to remove unfavorable cited information. At least at first glance. As well as user interaction from new accounts. OyMosby (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

OyMosby, Dennis did the right thing: it was obvious block evasion. Admins aren't going to make decisions, or shouldn't make decisions, based on content disputes over POV or whatever. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t doubt block evasion, Drmies. It is evident that the person is cycling through IPs to further edit war. My confusion was, Block evasion results in automatic revert of the offender’s edits? That was what I was confused about. As the edits also existed before the person was blocked. I am not familiar with the policy on that matter. wanted to know for future knowledge. OyMosby (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

OyMosby, there really is no obligation to act one way or another. The basic principle is that the edits of a block evader/sock/LTA/etc CAN be summarily undone (or article creations deleted per WP:G5), but they don't HAVE to be. It's a matter of judgment. Some LTAs make really good edits but do it in an assholish manner. Do you revert the positive just to deny recognition? Different admins decide on that differently, and some believe, with some reason, that if you don't revert an LTA, you are more or less taking ownership of their edits, for good or for bad. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand the rest. But:“ Do you revert the positive just to deny recognition?” Not sure I follow what that means? OyMosby (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That means that one is warranted to revert, to deny recognition, but one should ask themselves whether that is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Got it. Is there a way to make it so my talk page has protection so that not just any IP can edit it? OyMosby (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@OyMosby: Most of the article's facts relies on Balkan Insight, which as you know, is a reliable source. It's not Serbian POV. I read all the sources and there isn't any dispute that rockets were fired from Croatian Air Force planes killing civilians. The IP's suggestion that the incident is some kind of hoax is nonsense. The only dispute lies in whether or not military personnel was the target and civilians were "collateral damage" or civilians were deliberately targeted; that's covered in the aftermath section where both the Serbian and Croatian view is given a hearing.

Except for Galbraith's comments which I think are undue, all the information the IP added is already there in the section, just summarized in a sentence or two. Not paragraphs of poorly written text taken nearly word-for-word from the articles that reads more like a rant. I explained that in the edit summaries. But it's no use when dealing with a long-term abusive IP who doesn't listen, engages in personal attacks and socks with fresh IPs. The article is fine. Let's not feed the trolls. Griboski (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Griboski: I didn’t say ANY of the sources are unreliable. The IP claimed it was entirely written from a Serbian POV and I told them they are just making baseless accusations. I didn’t call the event false. I only questioned the removal of a number of sources that didn’t seem bad but were removed because they were placed by the IP. A user who removed them was warned before by Dermies for potential selective removals. So I wanted them to check. Which isn’t the best way to handle things if in fact the sources were deleted just because an IP put them there. I also questioned the IPs confrontational methods, refusal to make an account and under various IP address keeps asking me to support their edits against “Serbian nationalists”. The IP refused to listen stating they do not know how to edit yet they seem very familiar with editing. I pinged PeaceMaker67 as they would likely know more about this than me for such articles. I don’t see how I am feeding trolls. Surely nothing wrong with admin eyes on the page especially with mass edit wars going on. I don’t have anything against the article itself. Not sure if the event entirely needs an article but seems there is just enough content and sources to justify a separate article on the crime. OyMosby (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page regarding the IP's conduct. I know your concerns are done in good faith. I think that ElderZamZam's edit, and in turn my own reverts, can be easily justified in that it is restoring the lead and removing long-winded badly written and undue content, some of which was already present in the article before the IP repeated it. It was just disruptive. Thanks. Griboski (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the range that I had partially blocked earlier. I have little patience for the evasion and the lies. "Oh I'm a new editor"--no you are not. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That IP definitely is not new. They have been dropping by my page a number of times under various IPs. They likely won’t stop. They always refuse to make an account saying “they don’t know how to work Wikipedia well and edit” but they clearly are very experienced with the system. Is there a way for me to lock my talk page from IPs and only also registered users to engage? OyMosby (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Drmies: Thanks. This is definitely the same person as listed in the LTA report. Their IP routinely changes so they always come back. Sometimes it's not always the same range but it's apparent in their behavior and writing style. The pattern is the same. They find an editor they think is Serbian and make personal attacks, calling them a nationalist and so on, claiming "vandalism" in the edit summary and edit-war to no end. Then they will canvass editors who they think will support them. It's been going on for a long time. Unfortunately, there aren't many administrators in the Balkans area that pay close attention to this stuff. Griboski (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I had mentioned to the IP that in their edits they kept wiping out the lead. My concern was only RS sources and cited content that was removed. But as you explained the IP was writing undue paragraphs and quotes. Article seems to have a month lock so should keep it at peace for now. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I seldom remove an edit that a blocked editor made, except for BLP violations, or sometimes from edit warring or socking, as the goal is to restore the "status quo" if the violator had not been warring/socking/etc. In this case, they were socking, so I removed the edit because they didn't have the authority to make the edit, being blocked previously, and it was obviously contentious and shouldn't require someone else having to risk 3rr to get the article back to pre-editwar state. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I just wanted to understand protocol so when faced potentially again with such disruptive behavior I know what to do or the appropriate action. Good point about how they are puting people at risk of 3RR while the IP would have infinite reverts. Didn’t think of that. Cheers!OyMosby (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@OyMosby your accusation that I am "once again" making edits that don’t align with a specific view is false. You have repeated this statement over three times on this page, yet you have selectively ignored my edit summary Suggestions for next steps have been made for you in the TP. Please refrain from edit warring and take your issues to the talk page. I advised the IP user on the talk page to go through the proper protocol of applying for the page to be deleted.[26] This issue relates to behavior and not the sources. Drmies makes a very valid point that "Some LTAs make really good edits but do it in an assholish manner." Nothing was stopping that IP user from making an account and adding the content in a civil manner or applying to have the page deleted based on evidence the event didn't happen. ElderZamzam (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I already had a conversation about it with Drmies. No need to go over again. But you missed the rest of Drmies good point “ but one should ask themselves whether that is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. ” Because a person can be a jerk yet add valid information. Now, in reference to yourself, I initiated a concern because in your revert it removed sourced content before the IP was blocked. However Griboski later restructured to include some of this content without the IPs jumbled writing and removal of the lead (which I criticized the IP for). I said “possibly once again” due to Drmies warning you on your page once before. So at the time it added up to a cloudy outlook. Sorry for assuming it was another similar case then. Thank you for clearing it up. Also I had warned the IP multiple times as I have stated on this multiple times on this page, to make an account, stop attacking people and that I want my talk page locked so the IP doesn’t keep haranguing me. You may have missed all that. I do not condone the IP’s behavior. I can be critical of multiple matters. Good day. OyMosby (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Stop screwing with my article

Here's sources it's not made up. Stop acting like its formatting means it isn't real https://shop.crayola.com/color-and-draw/confetti-metallic-neon-and-cosmic-crayon-set-96-count-5234620000.html http://www.jennyscrayoncollection.com/2022/06/crayola-24-bold-bright-construction.html https://www.jennyscrayoncollection.com/2021/12/crayola-24-cosmic-crayons.html https://shop.crayola.com/color-and-draw/confetti-crayons-24-count-5234070000.html https://www.walmart.com/ip/CRAYOLA-SPECIAL-EFFECTS-CRAYONS-96-CT/1140967033?athbdg=L1700 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintenfreak (talk • contribs) 01:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nintenfreak: Not your article I'm afraid. It's Wikipedia's. You need to calm the rhetoric. You are perilously close to being blocked for incivility --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please calmly discuss content and sourcing on the article's talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow that's not helpful. Nintenfreak, you are welcome to shift your efforts to Wikia. Also, you asked "what the fuck" I'm doing, and " you don't know shit about this topic"--well, I have kids, and there's a variety of Crayola products in my house as we speak, though we're cleaning up. Also, I know a bit about Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

They need a rest

They obviously are on a mission. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Not anymore. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP

Hello, regarding the recent ANI on Arabic novels I came across a number of recent additions to main space and more. I have not made a determination on their notability but they appear to be machine translated. I am just notifying you because you made a determination in the ANI case. Note I may research the articles separately later. Bruxton (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think that ANI thread is about to be archived, but I have not done much there besides blocking that one editor--and redoing one article. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul Gosar

It is. If you go to Matt Gaetz edit history, I tried doing the same thing as you but was told not to. Look it up . Sorry Bbraxtonlee (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• The editor said "should almost never", and I am not going to take one single comment in an edit summary as a consensus. I'm not going to fight over it, but you should be aware that before one formulates such a general rule, one needs to be able to point at a consensus. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Check an account

Re the Lurxxer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) set of blocks, you might want to look at the new SPA ThePageNinja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that just posted at the relevant AFD. Thx. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Melody

July songs

today: violin solo and you can listen Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

yesterday I attended a unique concert - the 18th Thomaskantor after Bach conducting - and with some good luck caught him happy afterwards! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

... and another 14 July: Voces8, pictured - I have a FAC open, in case of interest --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

more July songs, from Swiss Alps and a funeral --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Messages to Daryl Prasad

Hi,

I thought you wanted me to advertise it, but from your recent message, it appears that the opposite is true. The message has been deleted from my talk page

Regards

Daryl Prasad

PS: with respect to collaboration. I am happy to collaborate with editors on the talk page of the article I am editing. However I have found that messages left on my talk page are often a distraction and do not add to the improvement of an article. Darylprasad (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Well, what can I say. Drmies (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Editor with bad citations

Who expects others to fix them. We need to do something, although to an extent I feel sorry for them. Partial block from article space, letting them make talk page proposals? Doug Weller talk 18:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know, Doug. What's happening on Marguerite de Wendel just flies in the face of convention and of guidelines. It's just poor scholarship. Short of a block, the only thing I could see is to block them from main space and let them write these articles in draft space, and they don't get moved until those citations are done properly: publication information, page numbers, footnotes. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:There is no deadline comes to mind. We've traditionally tolerated sloppy source formatting as long as there is something to work with, as there are many gnomes that will come after them and clean it up. I used to be one of those. That article does push it a bit, but if it isn't contentious, it seems some info is better than none. I don't know the total history of this editor, so not commenting on this exact situation, just saying in general I think we used to be a bit more tolerant. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Dennis, this is not a new editor--it's someone who actively sort of refuses to accept the regular guidelines for citations. See their talk page. This is also not a new problem, limited to only one article. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Now this [27] is real disruption. I didn't block him, figured someone else would, being involved and all since he was talking about my mama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Wow--that's really way out there. What kind of person says shit like that? I'm sorry, Dennis. Drmies (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Oh, I laughed at it. I was soliciting a rouge admin to block them is all. I don't get upset when a stranger thinks I'm an asshole, most people that know me think that, too. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
      • But I understand what you are saying, I'm just saying we used to be more lenient about sloppy cites. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

History of Kosovo

Hi Drmies. On the History of Kosovo page, someone with 3 sets of IPs is repeatedly adding the same contentious material and edit-warring, having already breached 3RR. Personal attacks like this and this ranting at some imaginary adversary also show WP:NATIONALIST behavior and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Could you please put the article on semi-protection? Griboski (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• I wish the lead would be tightened up and not engage in off-topic etymology. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Due to the desire of many editors to add as many details as possible to make Kosovo look more "Serbian" or more "Albanian", some articles have become a mess. It is sad because they are very interesting topics with much to talk about. The same thing happens in other Balkan topics too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Yeah, the article isn't great. It's why I tried explaining to them that adding random pieces of trivial information and repeating it several different ways, as opposed to a cogent summary with due weight and NPOV, is not the way to go. But they just ignore and see it as an attack against "their side". --Griboski (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Drmies, since you reverted yesterday on Monastery of Saint Naum, can you take a look at that article's history? It has been disrupted 6 times this month, so probably semi-protection is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Sure--but can you do something with that footnote? It's not in a good place, and the long quote has material that needs to be brought into the main text, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the protection. On the rest, I will take a careful look at it tomorrow. It seems that the article needs some work. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Bayard H. Brattstrom

Hello Drmies: It has been a while, but I have revised my article on Bayard Brattstrom according to your suggestions. I located a published Wikipedia article on David B. Wake and followed the format for that article to revise my initial submission. I provided secondary sources throughout. I have excluded items that did not have secondary sources. Do I have your permission to submit this revision for your consideration for publication on Wikipedia? Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to your response. Dinomick DINOMICK (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi DINOMICK, you don't need my permission, but your article is far from ready. David B. Wake is not a great model to follow: it's basically one single paragraph, but at least it has some secondary sourcing, most importantly this. The only secondary source you have is this, and that's just a website; the page does not verify the award, and whether that award is noteworthy remains to be seen.

  I think you misunderstand what secondary sources are. His own article, "The Body Temperature of Reptiles", can simply not verify that "The Body Temperature of Reptiles" is his most seminal work, because it's his own article. Please consider the difference between primary and secondary sourcing. It is entirely possible that your subject is notable (but writing "he was a true academic" doesn't help your article), but this draft does not prove it. See also WP:PROF. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Hello again Drmies-

    First thank you for your reply. I believe I should try and clear up some misunderstandings on my part. I thought you did not want me to take down my first submission of the Bayard Brattstrom article, which is why it is still posted. I would very much like to take it down and submit a revised version.

    Your latest critique concerns that initial submission, which leads me to think that you may think that it is my revision. It is not. I have not posted anything since the beginning of July.

    Concerning my yet to be posted revision, I think you will notice significant improvements in terms of references, all are secondary sources. My delay in posting a revision is due to the time consuming task of tracking down all of the acceptable secondary sources (e.g. Evidence of the various grants he received is particularly hard to find). Also, I have eliminated unsupported statements that weaken the article. As my awareness of these increases, I will continue to sweep through the revision ferreting out such statements.

    With regard to the Wake article model, I used it for the way it is organized, not for its content. My revision has ten short paragraphs, not one giant one, but, I do like the structure of the article. So, I will continue to use it as a model with that qualification.

    I mean to reassure you that I am seriously taking your suggestions and am complying with Wikipedia guidelines to the degree that I understand them. It is a lengthy learning process for me. Finally, I do appreciate your expertise in guiding me through the task of readying an acceptable article for publishing on Wikipedia. I look forward to posting my revision as soon as possible. Thank you for your ongoing support. DINOMICK (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

    • Aha--now I understand. Yes, I thought you had posted a newer version. Glad you cleared that up. Hey, you don't need my permission for anything, and I'm not in charge of anything. If you have a better version, just put it in there. It's a draft, it's not in article space, you can play around as much as you like, and you can update it in bits and pieces, whenever you have something that's ready (which I would recommended). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Pictureperfect2

I knew I'd seen those odd edit summaries before. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• No problem, Bbb--there was one more. But that person will be very sad now. They live in a sad place. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

IP editor with spaceflight interest

I think 194.145.237.79 (talk) might be back as 31.192.237.18 (talk), going by behavioural patterns. Care to take a look? TompaDompa (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm I don't really see it. I did revert two of their edits. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Block of Patachonica and subsequent reverts

Hi, I've seen that you've lately reverted some edits made by the now blocked user Patachonica, or Magnatyrannus, on south american taxa of animals. I don't know if it's standard procedure or not, but as I'm the translator of most of these articles, I've been a little upset. I'm not a very fluent english writer, and a lot of Patachonica's edits were either to correct some forms, or to clarify stuffs that weren't clarified in the original italian article. (He was on the Wikiproject's Discord.) Now, he has been blocked for a month, his created articles have mostly been retracted to act as a guarantee of good behaviour, but those correction edits he made should be studied case by case, to verify if it don't lower the quality of the articles. (He wasn't blocked for copyvio but for bad behaviour with other editors, and to my knowledge never engaged in published copyvio, but this can also be easily verified.) Now, the block is only for a month, and if he comes back again with another sock, I'll be the first to help you revert all of his edits, but I don't think it's worth the hassle of removing everything now to add back everything again.

For instance, on Protheosodon, most of the correction were either corrective or productive, and their removal probably lowered the readability of the article. So please, maybe consider removing only new sections created by the blocked user, because I can't suffer my frenglish and typos displayed on Wikipedia for the world to see. SALMA mammals are already rarely maintained, making them harder to read really isn't the best thing to do. I really think he deserved the block and the retraction of his articles, but the removal of every of his edits regardless of their quality or of the articles quality without them is a bit exaggerated for a block that short.

Sorry again for disturbing you, I hope I don't break some rules by asking this, and I understand you have a lot of responsibilities on wiki and a lot of blocked users to deal with, but please consider before removing stuff by this one. Larrayal (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• But Larrayal, if you think that an edit of theirs improved an article, and I reverted it, why don't you just revert back? That's not a big deal. You make it sound like I'm on some crusade to undo their work--when I reverted them only in two or three articles, mostly because they didn't explain what they were doing and I couldn't quickly see if it was worth keeping or not. By all means, reinstate them if you like, as long as you explain what you're doing in an edit summary--it's no skin off of my back, and you seem to know that subject matter pretty well. So go for it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 51

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022

• New library partners
  • SAGE Journals
  • Elsevier ScienceDirect
  • University of Chicago Press
  • Information Processing Society of Japan
• Feedback requested on this newsletter
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi there, Dr! I've emailed you in response to yours, and hope you'll receive it, but, well, you usually don't. The address you use has always so far bounced my messages. If you again, as usual, don't receive it, I'm afraid you'll have to try providing me with a different address. Best, Bishonen | tålk 16:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC).

• Guess what, I got it! (I have yet to receive a satisfactory response from our ITS about why so many emails are rejected...) Drmies (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• And yes, I really agree with your comments and see your point. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the creation of a company page for Mitsogo Inc

Hi Drmies,

I was trying to create a page for Mitsogo Inc and was notified that the previous draft (and not page) was deleted. And something looked very odd about that.

Anyways, I was asked to contact 'the user(s) who performed the action(s)' if I was 'recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure'. I don't think there is another Mitsogo out there, so I'm probably trying to create something similar, and I am indeed very unsure about this whole thing.

So, I just wanted to ask you what happened, why the draft was deleted, and what I can do to create a page for Mitsogo without this happening in the future.

Best Regards, AudB37 (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• You mean Draft:Mitsogo, that promotional piece created by the now-blocked User:Theshininglarry, related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Egela? Please tell all those socks I said hi. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of the page, I am accused left and right by that user just because he/she disagrees. I followed rules and I tried to avoid any of this happening. S.G ReDark (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Would you take a look at this?

[28] My original thought was this was a spam link added to a number of articles. Tragically it isn't spam and these are basically null edits to the articles themselves. However, I'm not sure this is the correct way to get the message out. Springee (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

They were not null edits, this user changed their seniority because, due to someone passing away, this user thought that everyone's seniority was now off-by-one. I'm not sure if the user was correct but it is not vandalism. Andre🚐 04:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The editor appears to be correcting the seniority of various members of the United States House of Representatives based on the death earlier today of member Jackie Walorski in a car crash that killed four people, including the member of congress. What's wrong with that? Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if that's how it works, I think it's fine. Andre🚐 04:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking at it. I'm glad to see it wasn't spamming or anything like that. Springee (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again we have a situation where unclear edit summaries cause doubt... Drmies (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Who?

This is not directed at the CheckUser you. Any idea who Special:contributions/2601:647:5800:1A1F:0:0:0:0/64 is? Rather impressive, don't ya think?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• No, I don't. But yes, and that user knows some aspects of Wikipedia better than me. User:GeoffreyT2000, you know this person? If you do, tell em I said hi. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

hotline

he's back, would you mind blocking so we don't have to wait forever at AIV? (And yes, I'm positive it's him, but not gonna spill the beans on wiki.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just send it off to ArbCom, that's probably best... Drmies (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Total DramaRama

Hello- I'm not quite sure what you mean within this edit summary. Is this saying that because there hasn't been any renewal for anymore seasons, it's fair to assume the show has concluded? Would that not be going against no original research?

As far as reliable sources for the show being cancelled are concerned, the closest would be this, which only says, "3rd season finale"- nothing regarding being the series finale or the series being cancelled. The source I've seen been used to claim the series is cancelled here on Wikipedia is this, which very much appears to be not reliable.

Continuing to list the end date as 'present' is following the template instructions/documentation, which states: "Only insert the last episode's date after it has happened. In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain, for example if there are no announcements that a show has been renewed. If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using {{End date}}. This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date. This is to prevent programs from being listed as "present" in perpetuity. In the event that a program resumes airing after a long hiatus, such as more than 12 months between episodes or cancellation and subsequent renewal, the date is simply replaced with "present" to reflect the "current" status of the program." Inserting the end date at this point just because an assumed series finale has aired with nothing new goes entirely against this.

If you disagree with how it's handled, I would think it would be appropriate to discuss changing it at either WT:TV or Template talk:Infobox television. I think Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 6#Proposal to change last_aired parameter instructions may be related as well- however, I think the specific issue within Total DramaRama should probably be discussed further... Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, and thanks for citing the documentation. It says "This [adding a "last aired" date] does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date". Which is exactly the situation that occurs in the article. So it goes entirely with it. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thinking this might be worth asking/clarifying with the community, but I read it as the, "This does not imply..." sentence is regarding the, "If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months..." sentence. In the template's talk page archived discussion I linked above, it says, "...The Futon Critic's determination that series with no activity in 12 months are considered cancelled..." - such an example can be seen here regarding Celebrity Watch Party: "a show on hiatus for longer than 12 months - without any news about its future - is assumed to be canceled". Shall I ask for clarification regarding this at WT:TV? Thanks again. Magitroopa (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Sure, if you want to--but it seems to me that the "this does not imply" bit means exactly what it means: a date for "last aired" doesn't mean the show is over. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I've just started the topic- WT:TV#Total DramaRama series finale/ 'last-aired' clarification. Hoping of course that maybe someone is able to find a source confirming the cancellation altogether... of course, the networks need to try and make that as difficult as possible by not saying anything themselves... *sigh*. Magitroopa (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hello, I see you blocked this range [29], the IP continues to edit Ethiopian related articles by removing content. [30] What should be done here? I suspect its the blocked editor from this SPI [31], this is the main problem I had with the editor, they would remove referenced content. Magherbin (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Magherbin, I think you should add this to the SPI and ask RoySmith to look into it. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I took a very brief look; just based on geolocation, the 2601:152:: address seems unlikely to be related to ZemenfesKidus. But if you're pretty sure it's them, yes, please open an SPI and somebody will take a deeper look. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you Roy. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated disruptive IP

Didn't figure this needed it's own section, since there was already an apt heading. This IP is making changes you earlier reverted as block evasion. Also they're changing dates on edit requests I answered last year, for some reason. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

172.58.160.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is at it now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, sorry to bother you on your talk page about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No bother at all--I'm just biding time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

And another, 172.58.160.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Ryhmes et al (sic)

Hello, I noticed you created the lovely Glass Town article many moons ago. I'd be delighted if you could have a quick look over my book of ryhmes, as I'm hardly a Bronte expert! No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I lost my way a bit...

... but what is the best place to get some attention to this discussion: Talk:Excelsior Recordings#A full list of artists, including non-notable artists? The Banner talk 17:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm this page used to be visited by a lot more people, haha. You can always make it an official RfC. But that we don't list non-notables is convention throughout--it works for board members at universities, for hospitals in cities, etc. I know that a lot of music related articles list non-notables and it's really time to stop. That convention is written up somewhere, but I'd have to look hard where. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Whoa, I assume you listen to the Claw Boys Claw and Triggerfinger. I was watching TC Matic on YouTube yesterday--Arno performed with Triggerfinger. But considering how many articles that user created, I'd be very hesitant to accuse them of a COI with this particular subject. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I listen to who?? But he is replacing the list for the last 10 years...
  • Arno van der Heyden De Vief The Banner talk 20:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Advice requested

Hi Drmies! I would like to get a new template created that would go (at least) atop WP:MANDY, saying: “Essays sometimes oppose policies or guidelines, or are often construed that way, and such is the case here. Please do not use this essay at article talk pages to oppose normal implementation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines.” There was broad consensus at the BLP talk page that Mandy is currently being misused. Then I got a lot of negative input about my proposal at the Mandy talk page which helped me formulate the template language. So what’s the next step? If I say another word about this anywhere but the BLP talk page or the Mandy talk page, then I will get the usual BS about forum shopping and not dropping the stick, and the like. I think an RFC is in order now (as I already said at BLP talk), but I’m not sure where. I could go ahead and create the template and then fight it out at templates for deletion, but then I won’t have any RFC results to back me up. It’s clear to me that some essays contradict policies and guidelines, which is fine; in fact, there’s already a template for a subset of those (i.e. the essays that were failed policy changes). But there’s currently no template for general use on essays that either oppose policy or are often construed that way. When people read essays, they often assume that it would have been deleted if it opposed policy, but that’s not the case. More importantly, no templates currently distinguish essays that oppose policy from those that don’t. Thanks for any advice. And if I’m asking for advice here in a suboptimal manner, please tell me where to ask for neutral advice about it. I’m not asking whether you support this new template, or asking you to get involved anywhere but this talk page, I just don’t know what to do next. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Well, RfCs are all announced and linked in a central place so in that sense it doesn't really matter where you place it, but the MANDY talk page seems like an obvious place to put it, given that that's what prompted it. But "this essay opposes policy" is clearly not supported by all editors, so they might argue that your proposed template needs a template, saying "sometimes templates are written (or read) as if they are supported by policy, but this one is not". Personally I am not convinced that MANDY opposes policy. But since you have a extensive conversation there you might as well keep it there. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks! Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Manor Solomon

I have a feeling that we're dealing with a sock again at Manor Solomon. Just a heads-up. Anwegmann (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's literally me. I'm a person by the way with feelings and humane pain and all that. No needs for a heads-up though. Just maybe a little help with the proper translations to English for my hours upon hours of newly added reliably sourced contributions. Nothing more. That's why I called you to aid me in advance, Anwegmann. Same thing goes to you, Drmies. Wigwhm (talk) Wigwhm (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

But...but...but...you're a carbon copy of User:CatsDogs3! And "He made his first youth debut for Israel U-16 on 14 May 2015, and appeared internationally all the way to his homeland's U-21, where he made his debut on 9 October 2017," that's just not good writing. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Policies

This is a quiz. When was the last new policy created (not an extension of an existing policy)? What would happen if I wrote a new policy called WP:BANANAS similar to WP:NOTHERE and WP:DE - and maybe WP:CIR? It has a nice tropical ring to it, don't you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Support -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Support although cryptic comments make people paranoid per WP:They’re out to get me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm I have no answer to your quiz question... CIR, btw, should be cited more often; that sock I just blocked could have been blocked for that as well. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Rodney Howard-Browne

Hi Drmies. Could you have a look at the recent edits at the Rodney Howard-Browne article? You previously commented at User talk:Veritasandlux. I feel out of my depth dealing with this WP:SPA. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I did. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Assifbus

is requesting unblock. Could you indicate on their talk if the request is adequate? Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The Iranian origin of the tie

Avesta is one of the oldest books in the world that mentions ties. There are also ancient works that Iranian soldiers have a type of tie. It is better to mention these things in Wikipedia. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrayasna (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Please see the link in bold, on the template I just put on your talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Ovedc edits

I see you're working on Yosef Abramowitz which I've worked on some time ago and a disclosed paid editor Ovedc (talk · contribs) popped in. It seems like they're under the impression that if you disclose it, you can do promotional editing with impunity. The amount of new articles they've created that are getting through is troubling. I'm considering taking it NPOV or COI /N but haven't decided on which yet.. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• I saw your edits and thank you for them. I just went through that article with a dull axe since I am running out of patience with such editors. There's a few related articles as well. I will have a look later at that editor--by all means keep me posted. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• I've been going through them and yeah, it's problematic. Way too many resumes, almost complete lack of secondary sources, puffery, unverified awards. I see that DGG also tagged a few of them (like Philippe Halfon). I left a note for that editor earlier, but it's starting to add up. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I've gone through their other edits and I'm getting the impression that they're free to do non-neutral editing with impunity as long as they disclose. A lot of their edits are highly promotional and troubling and I've started a COI/N thread. Graywalls (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, as long as there are editors who move their stuff into mainspace, it will continue to appear in mainspace. But for one or two I looked at the history, and much of the fluffing happened after the articles went live. So it's also a matter of being vigilant. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Advice regarding update to Australian alternative investment firm article

Dear @Drmies,

I’m LizziePEP, an employee of Pacific Equity Partners, an Australian alternative investment firm. You can find out a little more about me and my COI/paid editor status at my user page.

About two months ago, I submitted what I hope other editors will find to be an appropriate update to the Pacific Equity Partners article. Since I submitted the request, and haven’t heard anything back from other editors.

I decided I’d search Wikipedia for an active and respected editor who might have any insight or advice - should I stay patient and wait for a response regarding my request, or is there a way this edit request might be sped up?

Thanks very much. Lizzie PEP (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Ha, if you want an actual respected editor, and one who also knows a bit about business, then DGG is your man! Yeah, sometimes it takes a long time for things to happen--not enough volunteers for too much work. I wish I could blame Biden for that, or Trump for that matter, but it is what it is. I'll have a look myself but I can't promise I'll be of much help. PS I'll snapchat you my secret offshore account information, OK? Update: yeah, I don't know that I can help you much here. For me, much of the material has a promotional/non-notable whiff to it. Like, they're facts, but whether they are encyclopedic facts I am not sure (much of seems a bit run of the mill), and the addition of phrases like "have each received awards" are all too close to trade journal writing. But there's others that visit this page who, perhaps, can have a look at Talk:Pacific_Equity_Partners#Comprehensive Edit Request for Pacific Equity Partners - COI and see what they think. Thanks for coming by and for flattering me! Drmies (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Dear @Drmies, thank you very much for your response. Appreciate your thoughts, will most definitely take these into consideration. I'll get in touch with @DGG. Thanks again! Lizzie PEP (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

yes, but...

what would Wikipedia be without endless, pointless, low-participation AFDs that could have been easily handled by other means? ;) PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• I know it. But with two "delete"s it's going to get deleted even without any further participation. That article is making me sleepy, by the way... Drmies (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sending you one of my attack kittens to assist you with the much needed pruning of the IEEE mess.

Randykitty (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Ha. Yeah, someone was really enthusiastic there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments that might need some attention

I am not involved in those content disputes, but due to being on my watchlist I have read parts of the discussions taking place there. I have noticed that an editor continuously refers to the perceived nationality of editors and academic sources they disagree with. So:
1. I think it's worth mentioning here that there is a group of Albanian editors who appear to be colluding to impose the Albanian nationalist perspective
2. The attempts by Albanian editors here....are risible at best
3. The obvious bias of a couple of Albanian authors cannot erase international historiography
4. Your distinguished Albanian “scholar”......I think we can safely disregard anything he has to say (or write) about anything, since it is patently obvious he is just another deranged Albanian nationalist. Cite a reliable source or go away. This comment might need to be deleted because they are referring to a living person, Pëllumb Xhufi, as "another deranged Albanian nationalist"
5. It is abundantly clear that you are the one engaging in disruptive editing across a range of articles, with the help of your fellow Albanian nationalists on this talk page and elsewhere
My question is whether continuosly referring to other editors' and sources' perceived nationality is sth that is unconstructive or not? Especially referring to a public figure as "another deranged Albanian nationalist"? Frankly, I have not read the entire discussions to see the level of civility of other editors, I just noticed this particular editor. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Again just now. they don't fit your narrative of Albanian purity....you and your fellow Albanian editors....but why this strong Albanian aversion to a simple statement of fact.....As I am not familiar with every single outlandish claim made by Albanian revisionists like Xhufi, perhaps you could enlighten us. Do Albanians really deny the Greekness of Dionysios himself?. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • My last comment, sorry for causing many tp notifications. They continue even after the issue is raised by another editor on their tp [32]. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Drmies. Thanks for stepping in and reminding everyone that policies should be followed. I just saw that the warning that you left to [33] about defamatory content about academics he disagrees with in Greek revolt of 1567–1572 was reverted/removed from his talkpage by another user who has the same views as Theodoros in the content dispute [34]. Can someone else who is not the talkpage owner actually do such a thing? Also, what does "non-productive biting" refer to? I'm puzzled as to why your standard reminder was "non-productive" and how exactly it relates to WP:BITE in the case of Theodoros who has had an account since 2008 with 5k edits in total.Alltan (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm kind of puzzled by that myself. It doesn't strike me as a helpful move. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • FYI, their response to your advice [35]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, Ktrimi991, they can insult me all they want. It's a bit childish, though some editors insult admins in hopes of making the admin feel too involved to block. I'm not following them or paying attention to them, by the way, and I think I warned them enough. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Responding to them is a waste of time. I thought your advice would make them reflect on their own comments. If they are unable to appreciate your advice, they might see themselves at the AE noticeboard one day. At that place there is no advice, only diffs to be judged. Up to them what path they want to follow. Thank you for your effort Drmies, much appreciated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

August songs

August songs

pics and thoughts on 13 August -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you Gerda. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  + the church where I heard VOCES8 and more discoveries --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Policy on listing uses of artists songs in video games, TV commercials, etc.?

I see you reverted my edit to add a link to a TV commercial that uses the song "Skeletons" to the article on the Indie group "Easy Life" (with whom I have no connection). I further note you subsequently removed a number of similar references from that article. As a very infrequent contributor to Wikipedia, I am never quite certain what the "official" policies on such matters are, and I confess that I find it hard to discover/comprehend them. Could you please point me to the relevant material so I may avoid wasting my time like this in future?

For what it is worth, I saw the commercial, wondered what the song was and - having expended the effort to track it down - thought this was of interest (as, indeed, in my opinion, was the other material that you removed). Peter Headland (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Things added to Wikipedia need reliable secondary sourcing. That's really the minimum--without that, there's really nothing to discuss. Also, the primary evidence you linked, that was done inline--please use footnotes for references. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone issue an official disruptive editing notice?

On the My Son Hunter I gave the editor Middle Passage1 a simple warning on their talk page, here,[36] about their repeated disruptive editing. About 20 minutes later, they did it again. I don't know if I should go back to their talk page & warn them again; I don't know if I'm allowed to issue an official notice such as this . If I do keep passively warning them, do you know how many times I need to warning them on their talk page before I can seek help at WP:AIV? Thank you in advance for any help. Best wishes, BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Isn't that user blocked indefinitely already? That seems like a proper solution. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think they are blocked, here's their talk page [37] But yes, that would be the proper solution. Thank you Drmies & best wishes! BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see: there's another one! Deepfriedokra, I dropped that indefblock on them, and I raised the stakes: "Middle Passage" is a highly inappropriate username when what you are doing is right-wing propagandizing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Oh my gosh!!! I just looked up the meaning of that name! You're absolutely correct, it is a highly inappropriate user name. ugh! Some people! BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
        • Holy moly! Something else I forgot. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sock

Hello. Could you please remove User:JarvisJones95 is Orca Vision Inc.‎'s talk page access? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sure. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Drmies/Archive 141,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Fifteenth anniversary on Wikipedia!

• User:Chris troutman, I'm getting old. Thanks for the reminder! Drmies (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, but I could use some help/advice

Good morning (though afternoon, I think, for you). Sorry to bother you with this, but I am not good with the more unpleasant Wikipedia issues. I have some concerns about Ldsgaming21. Their edit history consists of a couple minor and fairly inoffensive vandalism-type edits, and then they made (and undid) a rather more concerning edit at Swastika. I tried to go out of my way to assume good faith and gave them a gentle warning, which resulted in a quick edit/undo to my talk page. The sandbox they created also seems to augur WP:NOTHERE issues. At any rate, just wanted to get your opinion as to what, if anything, should be done at this stage. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, that might not be a long career on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the assistance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden movie...

I give up trying to keep this shitshow of an article representative of what it actually is, maybe you'll have more luck dealing with the delusions of the factually-impaired editors coming out of the woodwork to make this article seem like it's about anything other than a work of fiction. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Well. I'm not really sure what to do, besides the little edit I just made. Maybe it's "supposedly" a biographical film... Drmies (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've decided to just unwatchlist it. I don't have the energy to argue with people who think 2+2=5 anymore. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That article might need a full protection @Drmies, you know. By the way, the film is not a biography of HB, should be reverted first. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Describe it as RS do - alleged life stories. GizzyCatBella🍁 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

OK--change it. I gotta run. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, I will point out that Newsweek isn't known for it's journalistic integrity or factual accuracy. I'm sure Fox News also describes it as a masterful work of non-fiction that is totally accurate and truthful. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This is going to be another The Kashmir Files. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see what Newsweek had to say on the topic. But I used to subscribe to them, a few children ago, and it's sad to see how their reputation has gone down. SFR I'm going to look at that movie. I saw Hotel Mumbai this weekend, BTW, which was fantastic. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I was speaking more about how the donneybrook over how to describe the movie played out on-wiki, and the enormous amount of disruption involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that. Have to go back almost 1,500 edits to find IP editors--that's a sign of disruption already. And I see how many times you put " Not done" on the talk page. Thanks for keeping it clean. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I probably did more "rv NOTAFORUM" "rm duplicate discussion" than actually closing requests. 61 edits to that talk page. And it barely put a dent in the disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a much better film, and it's a true story, right? Drmies (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

[38] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You know where I found it. I wonder if El_C killed my chickens. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I would assume not. He's told me he's petting zoo only. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Rock hard... rooster! El_C 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

OK I have no idea what that is. Is that where geeks play video games, comment on it, and put it on YouTube? And they do that for a living? I had to watch an ad for healthcare.gov and for the electric Chevy Blazer to see that... Drmies (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, that is GTA5 on the NoPixel server. Yes, for a living; it can be very lucrative. It's called Role Playing, or RP, which is mostly ad lib acting within the confines of a video game. Some is comedy-driven, some drama, etc. It's been part of the gaming zeitgeist I'd say for 5-10 years now. El_C 21:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated, but can someone whack 2601:642:4C0D:3EB8:C947:8A50:EB6D:FC35 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) please? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

People do the strangest things. And I'm talking about the people who are paying (?) to see that. Block placed; SFR, that's $5. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you accept Silver Premier rewards points? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, Drmies, you so old! El_C 21:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Better than me, I watched the ever impressive, clearly brilliant non-fiction work, Sharknado 2. I have a lot of regrets PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's already happening!! [39][40] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Administrator changes

DanCherek • DatGuy • Femke • Z1720

Aldux • Graham Beards • Nyttend

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Alerts and notifications

Greeting, Drmies. Can you tell me how to delete the old junks under alerts and notifications. I want to delete the old junks of notifications and alert, not turning notifications off. The old junks from 2 years ago are still present. Manwë986 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello? Manwë986 (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like our only choices are to turn them (alerts and notifications) off or on in User:Preferences. There is no option to delete old ones. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello? Hello. You cleared your talk page--that's fine. Is that what you meant? Drmies (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I meant the bell-shaped thing with the name Alerts. It's between my username and Notice at the top.--Manwë986 (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Click on it, click preferences, and see what it offers. Does it matter? It's like an archive you don't have to look at, ever, if you don't want to. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I just want them to be deleted, they were been in the alerts for more than 2 years. I just don't know whom shall I seek help for this Manwë986 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Everett Stern edit reversion

I believe you reverted an edit of mine last month in error. [41] You repeated the reversion of another admin, Primefac. [42] Primefac's complaint was "removing this paragraph per WP:BLPCRIME" I had already read this section. You can refer to it, but this is what it says: "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." (Emphasis mine).

In other words, the section you removed was allowed if Everett Stern is a public figure. So is he a public figure? To me, the fact that he is running for U.S. Senate ought to be sufficient. But if we look at Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual, he is high profile under Media attention (has given interviews). He is high profile under promotional activities (has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, including press conferences for his Senate run, and before). He is high profile under Eminence (has sought a position in a political sphere). Over and over again he has met the criteria of a public figure.

Ultimately do we let wikipedia editors provide well-documented evidence of a criminal prosecution of a Senate candidate, or do we let Senate candidates remove accurate and well-sourced information that they feel might hurt their candidacy or reputation? The rules on this are pretty clear in my opinion and neither you nor Primefac interpreted them correctly here. Also, I feel your comment when you reverted that edit, "do not be fighting with an admin" is not that productive. While you also referred to specific rules, I had already read these and as I describe above, I believe they back my changes, not your reversion.

Mr. Stern seems to think I somehow have it ought for him. My interest here accurate information and fair application of the rules. It does appear to me that over time Stern has made edits to his own web page that were there to promote himself, and could not be backed up by any supplied references. And I think he is just getting what he wants in this case by protesting loudly, rather than because this is what Wikipedia rules say about how public figures accused of crimes should be handled.

Thank you for your consideration. Battling McGook (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hi--and thanks for your note. I'll make some comments, not necessarily in order. First, "Ultimately do we let wikipedia editors provide well-documented evidence [...], or do we let Senate candidates remove accurate and well-sourced information[...]?" Well, we let Wikipedia editors decide, but it will have to be according to our policies, and it won't be one single editor who decides on it. Second, "criminal prosecution"--we're talking about an alleged misdemeanor here. Also, "well-documented" was questioned by an editor or two--including Masem, at this BLPN thread, and I agree completely. I went through Google News again and found one example of the story--and it is SO minor that, in the judgment of this administrator, and that of Primefac, it is not worth sticking into a relatively short article, which it would overwhelm: that is why we have WP:UNDUE. If there's nothing new on that story, then it likely went away, and it certainly wasn't picked up by national media.
  And here's another thing, on a personal note: I can't speak for Primefac, but I find it a bit hard to accept "You're wrong about this policy/guideline" from someone with maybe 300 edits in mainspace, where Primefac and I have a couple of hundred thousand each, over 10-15 years. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be questioned, but it does mean we likely know what we are talking about.
  Well, I'm glad you didn't restore the information. I hope it stays that way. And you can be sure that neither Primefac or I will allow the subject of an article to skew the content. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Just as an additional note, while BLPCRIME might be about non-public figures, BLPPUBLIC (further down the same page) says If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article; I believe the point that both Drmies and I were attempting to make with our reverts is that it fails at least two of those three criteria, especially since it seems to have only been an allegation and not a conviction. Should that change, then by all means we can discuss adding it in, but until then we should not be adding every piece of gossip and news about an individual to their page. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    • The criticism about lack of sourcing was when it only had a single source. I corrected that, and there were three independent sources (all different outlets, dailylocal, yoursun, and wuft) before it was removed. I did also mistakenly try to use the docket as a source, not realizing that was forbidden (I still don't understand why but, that's a side issue). The point about the docket though is that it clarifies that the story is absolutely real. It's a thing that really happened and is relevant to the available information about this candidate.
      I don't see anything in the rules about"alleged misdemeanor" being handled differently than any other criminal charge. I still feel that I am correct in regard to the rules. Is it noteworthy? At least three news sources covered it. Is it well-documented? Same. Is it relevant? That's a judgement call, but I think any crime that a U.S. Congressional candidate is 1) accused of and 2) actively trying to remove from public view (here), is relevant. I will read up on dispute resolution to see what the next step is to appeal this. Battling McGook (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Primefac, I don't know what to say here. Barbra Streisand is right around the corner. You have any ideas? Drmies (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Nothing to do but wait and see if anything comes out of the alleged case. Primefac (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
          • The case is not alleged. The case exists. The criminal acts are alleged. The Streisand effect would be if Stern's efforts to suppress this led to additional coverage. Isn't that on him, not on Wikipedia editors? Because yes I do take issue with a Senate candidate successfully suppressing the truth about his indictment by manipulating Wikipedia. The class 2 misdemeanor for which he is being indicted, impersonating a public servant, comes with a penalty of up to a 5000 dollar fine and up to two years in prison, so I remain confused about why this would not be considered a noteworthy issue about someone running for federal office. It's not just about the vote. People come here looking for information before making campaign donations. His suppression of this serious issue potentially has financial benefits. It potentially already has. Battling McGook (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
            • The coverage is lousy. The Streisand effect is also us talking about it here. I don't give a damn about what Stern wants; that is not my concern. I don't give a damn about whether people come for investigating campaign donations. Stern is not "manipulating Wikipedia", unless you wish to maintain that Primefac and I are somehow on the take. So I really need you to take us seriously when we tell you that you are out of line and need to rein it in. You're violating not just the BLP but also AGF, in your accusation that he is successful at getting us to suppress the truth or something like that. Here's what you can do: email ArbCom and ask them. In your email you can speak freely. I can't speak for Primefac but I'm getting pretty tired of saying the same thing over and over again to someone who is simply not listening and who, by now, is doing a pretty good job convincing me that they have a personal interest of some kind. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion questions

Hi @Drmies, I just replied to two 3O requests and had some questions. I noticed you were somehow involved in those so thought you might be able to help:

1. Should I reply to 3O requests when an admin is already involved? (realised you were involved in one of the discussions here, not sure if it's still the same standard for admins or if we tend to consider the conversation closed when an admin gave an opinion ^^)
2. Should I reply to 3O requests or reject them when only 2 persons engage in the talk (and it's stuck) but more than 2 persons engage in the edits? Someone raised the question in Talk:My Stepmom's Daughter Is My Ex and I've no idea and it's not something I typically check.

AlanTheScientist (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• User:AlanTheScientist, sorry I saw this so late. I don't have much experience with 30, but I think it requires the cooperation of both--and I have no intention of engaging with that editor. Maybe that answers your question? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Trouble with a user's ability to write clearly in English

I have been trying to edit some of the contributions[43] made by Iliochori2, and I'm having difficulty keeping up. I noticed that you addressed them on their talk page a year or so ago, and I'd appreciate some guidance on the best, most effective way to broach the issue of an editor's lack of ability to write clearly in English. There are dozens upon dozens of pages that either need complete revision/rewriting or simply should just be deleted to which the editor has added a large amount of unreadable, turgid content or created in full. Given that you and Robby.is.on have both brought this up with the editor previously, I'm unsure exactly how to proceed here. I'd appreciate any guidance or help you can provide. Anwegmann (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hi. I don't know what to tell you. This is decent, but I see there's still problems in other articles, sourcing issues, a clear lack of competence, and a lack of communication. What's an example of a really bad one? Drmies (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response. Perhaps I'm overreacting—hence my reaching out to someone else to take a look, I suppose. Here's an example[44] of one that required a lot of rewriting. Here are a few more examples (I've linked the last versions before I made any edits): [45], [46], and [47]. I suppose the issue I'm having is that nearly every edit they make requires at least some degree of important grammatical revision, and I'm not sure how to bring that up with the editor on their talk page...or even if I should. Anwegmann (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    • No, I hear you--I brought it up and I pinged some other editors. A lack of competence can lead to a block. Thanks, and thanks for cleaning things up. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding blocked users, can I agree with admins' comments?

I admit I was rude, but I figured I'd say this. Thank you so much for warning me - I didn't realize I was fueling the fire. As much as I don't think users shouldn't deny evidence of misbehaving or twist others' words, I wonder if it's okay with agreeing with admin comments. Side note: but I've left User talk:Ki999. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I made my thousandth edit on the person's talk page (which is surreal) but frankly, I'm gonna hold back from responding. As much as I don't trust Ki999, I was immature. I'm only relying on what other people perceive the user, as I do not trust users who deny evidence of their behavior. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize for my barrage of replies on my own talk page. Frankly, the fact I can't remove notifications is bugging me, because I do not want to get reminded of users I do not trust, but that's another topic for another time. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The question I usually ask myself in a discussion that I am late to is: "will my comment add anything to this discussion?" There's nothing wrong with agreeing with an administrator's comment(s), but if you're doing so on a blocked user's talk page purely for the sake of agreeing with that admin, it's probably best to leave well enough alone. Obviously, if it's something like an ANI discussion where more opinions are a good thing, then by all means agree with them (within reason of course). Primefac (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Primefac I see! Thank you. I won't post about blocked users' behavior over minor things in ANI, by the way. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, obviously I like it when people agree with me--but in this case, on that user's talk page, it's piling on, and the situation is not likely to improve. What I would like to see happen is that the editor sees that their behavior, from the perspective of other editors, is not productive, and that they adjust it. Hearing that from others, who may not have been involved with the original matter(s) at all, is not likely to make them think that--they're more likely to feel like they're being persecuted. That's why I asked you to refrain, which you did, and which I appreciate. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies I feel like as if I never considered that perspective. I'm glad you warned me - maybe some people really do need to reconsider themselves.

If their behavior improves, I'll apologize to them on their talk page. For now, I suppose we'll have to wait. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)