User talk:Drmies/Archive 100

Blatantly self-promotional userpage

I'm spacing on where to report this; can someone simply deal with it? → User talk:Aronkamal. Thanks. (By the way, the user is the co-founder of that company.) Softlavender (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a user talk page, I usually just replace the whole content with {{welcome}}. Often the user does not return and the problem is resolved. I have replaced a couple of user pages with a link to WP:User pages. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that will work. The link on their user page isn't a spam link (and thus the page isn't promotional); the soap bit may just be what we usually put in a sandbox. Apparently the editor has a Royal Enfield, which is pretty cool. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama says he would "not drive" an Enfield. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He watched an Indian team ride their bikes while doing headstands- kind of put him off the idea. In other news Jacqueline Trimble has produced Wiki-farce. One editor believes the article contains "lots of WP:OR". Much as I would like to live in a hot and sweaty land where the beer's cheap and the hogs are purty I don't have the opportunity for OR- must have been you , and now the poet herself has weighed in. I live in a Deobandi village according to the BBC- the beer's cheap and good (Polish brands) but the hogs aren't purty- they come bisected à la Damien Hirst. Shouldn't that user page be put in a soapbox? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the AfD page, I think there's something fishy about the nomination. [User:NotAJF] made eleven edits- and reached Autoconfirmed status in doing so- which I assume you need to have before launching an AfD? And hasn't edited since. An SPA created purely in order to delete an article! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, it's not "what we usually put in a sandbox"; it's his own company (see the owners' names), and that is an advertisement for it. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I hadn't even seen that name. Thanks for removing it. You gotta admit, it was a pretty lousy ad. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caps for role descriptions?

Hi D, needed a second opinion re: this. Should School Principal, Police Inspector, and Forensic Examiner be capitalized in these instances? It looks really weird to me. I know you might find roles listed like that in the credits -- "Man #1" and such, but it seems weird to cap something that isn't typically a proper noun. Your feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not an MOS expert; the only titles I deal with professionally are religious ones. :) Maybe RGloucester can cite chapter and verse. In the meantime, I can tell you that in lists of roles I see them with caps all the time. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I have been summoned. They should not be capitalised if one wants to be in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned? Only accidentally, RGloucester. Oops I did it again! BTW, I love your old-fashioned phone. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So ...

"Don't pet the sweaty stuff", sez Ched.
Man, I miss Hafspajen.
Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that when you actually got that Arb label that you doubled up on your efforts to keep the ship upright and on an even keel. Now that you (and others) are finally getting into the meat and potatoes of arbitration - what do you think? You can email if you'd rather not say in public. — Ched : ? 01:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's a bunch of things I can't say. I'll tell you one thing: I have learned a new lesson about how low human beings can go--and I'm not even talking about a Wikipedia editor, haha. I'm also surprised at the animosity toward ArbCom. I mean, I had problems with ArbCom beforehand, which is why I ran (in part), but the metaphors one sees being flung around...sheesh. Moreover, I'm surprised by how picky people get in their wikilawyering, and how much value they attach (I think mostly Americans) to paperwork. Like, I was the first or second to accept the case against Gamaliel, and I stick that apologetic note of his at the bottom, and the whole world explodes. I'm reminded of those little frat boys and girls in the University of Alabama's SGA, who have all taken their class on Robert's Rules of Order and now it's more important than the bible--not important in guiding discussions, but in stifling the spirit. We do that by ourselves often enough already.
Hey, I don't know that I'm doing anything to keep the ship upright. I did my first bit of paperwork today (two bits--an email following up on an old report and Ottava Rima's unblock) and man is it complicated, and so easy to make a mistake. The old hands are much better at it than I am--and Keilana and Opabinia regalis are champs, and GorillaWarfare should be on payroll. Kelapstick was probably born to be manager material too. I feel like I'm barely hanging on, and that others are pulling the weight for me. Thanks for asking, Ched, and for keeping it 100%, haha. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how hard you're trying. Take a step back, step OUT of the bubble. Think what is best for the future of all. Look at it like you do your own life. You are a parent to the project in this role. Be fair. Be firm. Be glad for your support group. Never go to bed worried, and accept that you did the best you could on any given day. We chose you because we believe in you. We're not asking you to be perfect. We ask that you do the best that you can. Don't sweat the petty stuff .... (you know it's coming ... lol) ... but don't pet the sweaty stuff. :-) — Ched : ? 10:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can stay sane on ArbCom. Reading through the case pages for Gamaliel, the profusion of weapons-grade stupidity is almost physically painful. There are entire sections that are devoid of any evidence of rational thought, and which seem to consist mostly of free-floating bile and overwrought allusions to literary and historical totalitarian regimes. The few people who have something genuinely thoughtful and decent to say, like Andreas, are drowned out. Good luck with that... MastCell ^Talk 04:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am supposed to disagree with Andreas on principle since he's a rebel and I'm the man now (one of them anyway). Secretly, while I don't always agree with him, I'm glad we have him around and I usually read what he has to say. Don't tell him I said so. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When the bile floats towards you get cooking! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your purging of the grossly offensive material on the Gamaliel arb page. Not sure what the hell happened there, but I have to say it isn't really a surprise that something did. Otherwise, more or less agree with Ched above, particularly about not trying to be perfect. There are enough other arbs who will probably point out any mistakes you might make, hopefully politely of course. And most of them, including the more senior ones, have themselves probably made at least as big of mistakes themselves. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy yesterday; I should have followed up on it already. I think this is the first time I looked at something Reddit. I've just been teaching Paradise Lost and An Essay on Man; if Milton and Pope knew that this was where creation was going they wouldn't have written such optimistic poems. Really, words fail me. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query

"QuackGuru is topic banned from Vani Hari and its talk page, and is not to discuss the matter elsewhere on Wikipedia, for the next three months. [6] Drmies (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)"

Is it for the next three months at the Vani Hari and its talk page and not to discuss Vani Hari elsewhere? Or is it also all articles related to Pseudoscience? QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vana Hari. Don't discuss her elsewhere, in any way, please. "The matter" means the Vana Hari matter. For the rest, you can pseudo-science all you like, though I wouldn't advise it. Thanks, and again my apologies, Drmies (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by it being dragged out over weeks what could have been resolved in days or less. QuackGuru (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this. That is a draconian number of edits to achieve very little; as someone said on the talk page, "It seems to me that this has been an awful lot of discussion over something that, frankly, is a rather small matter." Drmies (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. The proposal did not accurately represent any source which makes it a BLP violation. I asked for verification. No editor provided verification. QuackGuru (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't explain--it would be a topic ban violation. Besides, what you're saying doesn't make a lot of sense. You tried for almost two weeks to get something in the article, to no avail, and wouldn't give up. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. I was not thinking about my proposals when I commented here. That was not my concern. My concern was the BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern does not appear to be shared. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the sources or are your replies based on what others have said and done?
Editors did oppose the proposals I had concerns with on the talk page and editors reverted the concerns and editors supported one of my proposals. But there was no consensus for any of the proposals. QuackGuru (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time to worry, I guess...

Relevant link van Wikipedia aangeboden (Relevant link from Wikipedia on offer)
Wikipedia link | Extreem hoge SEO waarde (Wikipedia link |Extreme high SEO-value)

To me, this sounds like a nasty spammer who has to be stopped as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue if this guy is already active on Wikipedia.

Any ideas how to identify this guy (or where to go to with this info)? The Banner talk 20:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ik ken die site niet; als er een mogelijkheid is om met de webredactie in contact te komen, kan je ze zeggen dat dit fraudulent is: die lul kan natuurlijk helemaal niks garanderen. Nee, wat we hier aan kunnen doen, niet zo veel. Ik weet niet wie het is, er zit geen account aan vast... When you start seeing articles that look suspicious, let me know and we'll figure it out. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For starters, I have informed the website about this - potential - fraud. The Banner talk 09:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's a great idea. I don't know if we have a Wikiproject or whatever for this, and this doesn't seem to rise to Orangemoody levels, but yeah, this kind of stuff needs to be stomped out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Karmasin has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Drmies. Franz Karmasin, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 00:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalism

You just deleted an entire article without argumenting. Stop it. It's called vandalism. I wrote an article about the subject MGM and well, I only used scientific papers (like the British Medical Journal). Only peer-reviewed sources. You don't like it? Well, start a deletion discussion then. --Momo Monitor (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Talk:Circumcision and stop reinstating that article before you get blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that circumcision is just ONE of many different arts of genital mutilation and modification. But you would know that if you had a) read my article and b) you had read the 10 articles and books all peer-reviewed. But you just don't like the topic, so you delete everything. Please stop it, or you will be banned. If you think that the page should be redirected, start a discussion on the topic. If you think what I wrote is purely, just improve it. --Momo Monitor (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This calls for a drink. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... are we sure that's not a secret Cosmopolitan? Drmies (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was keeping gender out of this discussion, but you may be right. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Shannon (artist)

Hi Drmies and his talk page stalkers: this is one of several problematic Milwaukee arts-based pieces I came across yesterday, and for which I'd appreciate help. The subject is pretty notable, but as I've mentioned at the article talk page, it is dreadfully sourced. I've already removed some of the career text, and could eviscerate personal life, painting, etc., but would prefer not to have it be a solo enterprise. More eyes would be nice. Best regards as always, Dr., from 99. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes. That "Shannon's sculptures are strongly idea driven" paragraph, so typical of visual arts articles, needs sourcing or it needs to go. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can do you one better, ole 99: The Kid (artist). Drmies (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if "strongly idea driven" was sourced, it's still drivel. Unless Shannon has made the world's first telekinetic sculptures. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~God save us from artists who double as writers.~~ 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know Vonnegut's race of aliens who communicate by farting and tapdancing? That's how artists think. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doktoro: meet Jgmikulay (talk · contribs) another doktoro, Wikipedia:WikiProject Public art/Milwaukee, and a lot of student accounts. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Palatschinken...I remember those...should make them again... What are you signaling, Uncle? Drmies (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment company navboxes

I remember you removing these templates from artists' pages before. You may be interested in the deletion discussions here and here. Random86 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to have a look but yes, I have serious problems with those templates which give undue importance to the company that owns the contracts, and that in many cases just add to the bewildering amount of articles and templates that get created for all those bands. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I didn't know you had dealt with similar subject matter before. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here…

… to this.Right. I don't give characters like that a block template (i.e., I avoid using Twinkle) because I don't want to dignify them and also because I don't want their crap pagename adorning my contributions list. (Which is also why I'm posting to you here, instead of there.) Bishonen | talk 21:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, that's fine--the way I feel is that DENY has some value, but I also want to make it clear that they don't own their talk page, that in fact they don't own shit. As I'm getting older I'm getting worse with names; I've no doubt Dr.K. (Dr.L.?) remembers, though. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Vgleer? That's who I suspected it was. Random86 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed

For some reason Checkingfax is repeatedly violating WP:TPO on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince. Could someone put a stop to this and explain to him why he is not allowed to do this, before this spins absurdly out of control? Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already on it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. Guess what I'm watching on TV. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but is the precipitation in Alabama purple at the moment? Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! A compilation of the Prince performances on SNL. Hell of a guitar player. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you start listing all the charitable work he's done you'll be up for a while. And if you just watched the Let's Go Crazy performance from the SNL 40 year anniversary party, you saw how generous he was on stage as well. I'm liking him more and more--I was never a big fan (and I don't care for the color purple...), though I always appreciated his artistry. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This vid [1] (group cover of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame when he was inducted in 2004) seems to be a general favorite among his guitar performances -- he comes in two-thirds of the way through for a two-minute solo and it is quite a show! I hear you about charitable stuff -- it really needs expansion but I don't have the time to research; just took those things from that one ref. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just heard a brief news report that said that Prince made many completely anonymous charitable contributions over the years. That is the highest and purest form of philanthropy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I had added more info to that effect in the article -- about his frequent anonymous help to individuals in need. Now we need more info added about the more documented major philanthropic works (even though he never spoke publicly of those, either, but they are mentioned in various places.) Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now John has removed that info, so I've started a talk-page thread to gain consensus about it. He's also been repeatedly removing other cited info from the article, without observing BRD. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the gifts were completely anonymous then how do we know about them? MPS1992 (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous giving means the recipient and/or the public did not know about it. Close associates/friends/spouses often get wind of even anonymous giving. Softlavender (talk)

…the recipient doesn't know the identity of the donor. Anonymous giving where the recipient doesn't know about it is what I declare on my tax return

Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bernstein talk page topic ban question

The language and template use by The Wordsmith on the topic ban is, AFACT, straight from the standard topic ban in the GamerGate Arbitration case and is identical to the wording in all other Gamergate topic bans. As it is a standard topic ban as proscribed by ARBCOM for use in the GG area, it is probably more in the wheelhouse of ARBCOM what the "broadly construed" and "people associated with" ultimately mean if for no other reason than consistency across the large numbers of editors that are thus affected by the ban. Aaronspink (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help with summary being deleted

Hi Drmies. I saw that you deleted the summary I wrote for The Establishment: And How They Get Away With It and I wanted to ask for some feedback on that. It took me quite a while to write the summary, and I thought I was improving the article. Could you please add your thoughts to the talk page on that article? I started a new section there for discussion of that. Thanks Mcgrubso (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that the lurkers know …

… there is a list of sources to turn an article from a straight reprint to something with historical and socioeconomic analysis at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Forbes list of Indian billionaires. Uncle G (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption on Council of Europe

Hi @Drmies:, we ran across some time ago in an unrelated case. Since you're an experienced admin, I thought I would seek your advice regarding a new editing conflict.

There is a brand new user, Some1asks, who operates on a mobile device and who has been engaging in disruptive behavior on the Council of Europe (CoE) page. Long story short, the user does not want to accept the fact that Flag of Europe belongs to both the Council of Europe and the European Union. I've tried discussing it on the article page and the user's own talk page, but to no avail - he deleted my notice, renamed the flag on CoE page as the "EU Flag" and went on to purge any mention of CoE from the Flag of Europe page to make it appear like the flag solely belongs to the EU. He is also spamming the articles with out-of-place URLs just to make a point, even though the repetitive URLs serve no useful purpose and mess up the format.

The user has already broken the 3 revert rule on Council of Europe by overriding my and three other user's edits with attack summaries like "Remove stubborn persons misinformation" and "Remove confusion caused by deliberate misinformation, to influence politically naive persons". His edits on other articles seem similarly heavy handed. Could you please take a look?--Damianmx (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This editor continues to make these disruptive edits (often with deceptive summaries), despite being reverted by numerous others ([2]). At one point he added the same unnecessary link in seven places, and has also changed quotes. The editor has been asked to discuss but has declined. By now we have 3RR, DE, and NotHere, at the least. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the content Laszlo, it's almost like fighting a spam bot. Your comment reminded me something I forgot to mention above - Some1asks's edit summaries are indeed deliberately deceptive. For instance, he claimed to have "Fixed typo" but in reality deleted an entire sentence about the flag, along with two supporting references. This is just plain vandalism.--Damianmx (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't been able to look at it, and I have to run to class now. Perhaps later. You two have exciting user names, though, with all those consonants. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. Yes, this is problematic, but you don't necessarily need admin intervention--edits and behavior etc. could have been flagged on the user talk page, and that user could have been at AIV by now. I think y'all were trying to be nice, and I appreciate that, but I think now the time for niceties is over. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, thanks for cleaning up the mess but looks like your warning wasn't effective - Link spam is back, and again, and again, and again...Your warning has been deleted and replaced with more argumentative rants and then all constructive discussion by Laszlo Panaflex purged entirely to "save space"...I would say the user is still NOTHERE.--Damianmx (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think the issue is competence. The link he keeps adding was already on the page before he ever edited the article, added by Damianmx on April 18th. Even now that I have pointed that out to Some1asks, he still does not see the link, and has re-added it yet again. Perhaps he needs a mentor. One with immense patience. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Important Email

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

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ruckman

Hello Drmies. You may or may not recall your posting a year ago at the bottom of this thread here, where you cautioned an editor that adding this material back in again might result in a block. Moving forward to the present, apparently Peter Ruckman died the other day on 21 April 2016 and the editor immediately added the material back within hours of his death. His position is that BLP no longer applies since the subject is dead; however, this does not change the fact that it's still poorly sourced cherry picked content intended to present the subject in a particularly negative light. Would you have any suggestions on how to handle this resurgent problem? I was about to revert the material again, but decided to check with you first. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--thanks. Yes, BLP also applies to the recently deceased, and a quick glance tells me that the sourcing of at least part of it is sub-par. That last paragraph, for instance (what revolting material, BTW) lacks reliable secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Meanness

On 26 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Meanness, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that meanness is a personal quality whose classical form, discussed by many from Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas, characterizes it as a vice of "lowness", but whose modern form deals more with cruelty? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Meanness. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, I can't believe you let me bask in your glory. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore ignore ignore?

Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, you may have seen it as TFA on Easter Sunday. Look again, and at the talk. I am told that when some measurements change we have to call a piece no longer as it is published, even if it was like that for 10 5 years, but as Amazon and some majority calls it (presenting the correct title page right next to it). I am confused. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gerda--all I've been seeing is ArbCom emails, and this project my ten-year old has due. I don't know how to answer your questions, but I know that Casliber, who has just here, knows exactly what to to. :) Drmies (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doktoro and gobby Australian companions, it is time to cast your votes in:

Votes for German
Todes Banden	Todesbanden
Baerenreiter Verlag Daniel Kunert David Erler Carus Verlag Belwin Mills Hawthorns Music	Breitkopf & Härtel Jürgen Knuth G. Schirmer Grossmont College Novato Music Press Musicalion Breitkopf und Härtel Unknown (kantate.info)

Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle, I need to retake that class in allegory, clearly. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the above table: many of the entries are not about Bach's work BWV 4: left: 2 3 4 5 6, right: 1 2 4 6 7 8. The first left - critical edition - has Todes Banden. But people still argue ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: can you find out that a source actually means the cantata, not the hymn or some other setting, organ, or different composers? I asked the web master of Bach-Cantatas to change it to Todes Banden, and he did, - things could be so easy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More samples on the article talk. It just strikes me as odd that while the published work shows "Todes Banden" (pictured, which is better German, - there's no word "Todesband" in dictionaries, and the second complete edition knew what they were doing when changing) but some still use the old version, and it seems even odder that we should follow those, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I'm sorry, but this goes over my head. Good thing Uncle G is around. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three moar to ignore 1 2 3 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far I managed but don't know if it's the best approach, leaving Thoughtfortheday alone with it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I still don't understand what you're asking me. Besides, I think you know I do rock and roll... Drmies (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked very simple self-explanatory things (I thought): should I ignore

... the move of an article (twice) that was stable for five years, on the grounds of some popularity diagram? ... that is: let English sources decide about German meaning or lack thereof?
... the unbolding of commonly used redirect BWV 4, replacing it by a link to the third-longest article BWV (as if that link wasn't supplied in the don't-mention-that-or-no-supper)? ... claiming the acronym BWV has to be linked, really?
... the removal of a chunk of the article, a table into which much thought went, putting it elsewhere?
... (1) closing a discussion with mostly two contributors, one of them the closer? ... because I "canvassed" on Classical music, the relevant project, - canvassed?
... (2) same, in other words ("disruption")
... (3) filing FAR for an article which became FA on 11 March (day of death of my mother, so I remember) supported by (you will know the names)?

I couldn't care less if that article is labeled FA or not, but perhaps Thoughtfortheday does whose first it was. It's an old article with many authors and many old sources, but I believe that improvements could have been suggested on the talk. - All this after I said that I have no time, - or perhaps because I said that? - I worked on a cantata for Pentecost today, eternal fire, source of love ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rock and roll, Voceditenore took over, see my talk, - eternal fire found a reviewer, and the Reger festivities started, climax 11 May ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have exactly zero opinion about Todesbanden versus Todes Banden, but I now want to listen to it, and can't because I'm on a public desk (for now). LadyofShalott 14:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We reached a new level: three reverts on my talk, - we obviously have a different understanding of PA. I am tired of it and archived the whole thing. Happy Ascension Day or whatever you celebrate! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion (redacted) was copied to the cantata article, don't ask me why. We discussed here only if it could be ignored, see. Please discuss there if the difference Todesbanden vs. Todesbanden in general has any impact on the naming of the specific cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am on vacation and try to follow this good advice. Thanks for the congrats for eternal love ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am back. The thing is now on ANI, so the chance to ignore it all is over ;) - Today, the last Bach cantata in my yearly cycle (one GA for every occasion of the liturgical year) was made GA, welcome feast of joy is actually the title! ~~(hint hint to the watchers of this page: it needs a DYK review fast to appear on Sunday)~~ --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you don't get many of these

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I'm not feeling very diplomatic of late, but I do appreciate your good efforts. Cheers, as always, from 99, or 2601, or whatever. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sure don't! Thanks, and happy editing, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please, would you raise internally a better way to address the Arbpol off wiki thing. I believe, all you all, and I have no prior opinion one way or the other on the account banned but if you all would have sent him an e-mail in the vein of: 'We have reviewed your e-mail allegations, and it appears your actions run afoul of wp:harass, please don't publicize your allegations and would you respond to the ctte by e-mail regarding potential ban under wp:harass , given the prior warning to you in the ___ case.' Such an e-mail would have avoided almost all this going on now, would not raise the threat of harass any more than the later ban itself, and would protect the ctte's ability to do its very important off-wiki work. Thanks.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, I'm not trying to blow you off, but I have to figure out what I can and cannot say specifically. Generally speaking, of course you are right, but that's easy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do not expect (or even want) a personal response, I just advise that given arbpol, you should as a group have a frank internal discussion of lessons learned, and perhaps consider coming out with a group lessons learned statement - perhaps doing so, seprately at the same time or in conjunction with a formal consideration of the user's recent appeal and good faith others recent public statements and whether they change or reaffirm the ctte's mind on the substance (as opposed to the process) of the case. (also, to the extent possible wp:deny any trolls) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC) (If you discover, for example, that no one was sensitively focused on arbpol, a possible reform is to appoint, say, two of your number (an arbpol subcom)to comb through arbpol and advise the ctte in relation to all future off-wiki actions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Well, we did discuss all kinds of things; we did not go over one night's ice, as the Dutch might say. Whether we would get in contact, what we would say, what we wouldn't say, all this was discussed at length. As for learning experience, sure--but let us not forget that we got at least one thing right: someone who was already skating on thin ice violated out harassment policy in a pretty serious way and was banned. The committee sees harassment as a very serious matter and is determined to do what we can about it; this is not easy, it's not fun, and frequently we can't even talk about it. If we could, it'd be easy. As for that appeal--I didn't see an appeal except for "they got it wrong", and I don't see that going anywhere. But given the nature of the violation, this is not something we'll be discussing in the open, and I'll reiterate that one of the involved articles was a BLP, whose subject had been the target of online harassment--yes, in our article space. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck to you. As I suggested, I am willing to go almost all the way there with you (as it is hard) but not to the extreme of dispensing with Arbpol. Arbpol is not only reasonable - and the contrary unreasonable, but Arbpol is based in consensus and just the right thing to do, precisely when things are to be kept off wiki. (As an aside, a defense is an argument that a judgement is wrong). At any rate, this albatross for the ctte looks to continue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Rubiales

Hi there man,

think you and User:Mattythewhite can concoct a wiki-solution for this utter piece of horse manure that has been reeking for a long long time? Guy (who edits solely in this article!) left piece be for one year or so, but now returns, with the same M.O. (Google Translate the Spanish entry to the English one, removal of ALL refs in storyline).

I come to you because you protected the page for one year and were the last admin to do so, but maybe Matty has another approach (note that I have also messaged him). Attentively --Be Quiet AL (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Situation solved by Matty, sorry to bother you. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No bother. Yes, that was some poor resume writing. Good to see you. Take care, Drmies (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding?

Hello. I do not know you, so I'm befuddled you claim something "smacks of harassment". I remain cordial to all users even when having minor disagreements. Obviously the Nightly Show's viewerbase is in USA.. Jeh4u (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I watch the Nightly Show daily. I cannot understand why in this rather inconsiderate and hostile comment you felt the need to call out someone's gender. And in this one you were just being condescending, perhaps prompted by the fact that you thought you were directing your comment at a woman. And who are you talking to in this edit summary? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Cruijffiaans

Hello! Your submission of Cruijffiaans at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Intelligentsium 00:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Want admin thread eval

What I'd like is an *administrator* to review the *quality* of arguments in discussion at Talk:Donald Trump#Is Trump a politician? in conjunction w/ related discussion thread in archive 9 [3], and render an assessment. (I don't know how to request that, WP:RFC requests add'l views, I think the views are sufficient in those threads. [Floq hasn't come around to defend his WP dictionary definition argument, others have used it repeatedly since then in IDHT fashion, so I'm a bit made sick of the repetition and that's why I'm asking for admin assistance to evaluate the discussion on basis of merit of argument not numbers of contenders per side.] Is there a venue I'm missing to request same?) Thx, IHTS (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd be happy to, but you won't like it I think. Right now, with that earlier thread undecided, it's 6-2 (correct me if I'm wrong) for "politician". The arguments on both sides are decent--it's basically "politician for all practical purposes as someone who seeks office" (following the definition cited by Floq and others) versus "he hasn't held office" (which is what I think you are saying--but I'm synthesizing from your comment that Carson and Fiorina aren't called "politicians" in their articles). You're arguing that he shouldn't be called that because there is not enough positive evidence that he is, but your opponents argue that a. he's done things pertaining to running for office and b. someone who runs for office can be called politician. Later on you say politicians "have represented people thru election and pulled a paycheck" and he hasn't--so sure, but that would make the current Alabama governor not a politician since he hasn't drawn a paycheck in his two terms. So I'd close this as "yes politician", and at the very least this discussion, IMO, is consensus that he is. BTW, starting an RfC is not difficult; the advantage for you is that it will run longer and attract more interest and thus you may have a better shot at getting your way. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I ask for an eval based on merit of argument not numbers of editors per side (like RfAs are supposed to be evaluated, like AfDs are supposed to be evaluated), and what do you do off the top? Count heads. ¶ I think you have successfully synthesized what the basic argument is on each side. But I didn't say or suggest what you say I did ("not enough positive evidence"), and I wouldn't ever say that, when I'm not agreeing with "dictionary definition" as a measure for the issue, and I made my own definition clear (been elected to an office at least once, pulling a paycheck). About your Alabama governor who hasn't pulled a paycheck, I don't know the details, but I presume that was his option or decision, whatever. But your point of using that as a dividing point is ridiculous since you're interpreting my "paycheck" shorthand literally, and now that you've made it a point, I'll clarify to say "elected to an office position that typically/normally/traditionally pulls a paycheck". (The idea of paycheck is that it isn't charity or volunteer work it's official government office work. Again, you've apparently deliberately interpreted me in an extreme way to make your counterpoint. How disappointing.) ¶ BTW Softlavender is right, Ralph Nader has run for president more than once, and one of the Talk:Donald Trump thread debaters has justified label "politican" on that fact. (So that standard fails.) Also, Ross Perot entered presidential politics, running more than once also if memory serves, but neither does his article anywhere label him "politician" (just like neither do Carly Fiorina nor Ben Carson articles). ¶ This is not the first time Dr, that you've let me down, not because of not "agreeing w/ me", but because of sloppy thinking/reading and processing of what I've put on the table in the clearest manner possible for your assist, and it ends up in a twisted unfair small pile of dung. (I'll stop now before I say something worse.) IHTS (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you an evaluation based on merit. You're welcome. Your word choice is why I really don't want to deal with you: you can't go a sentence without rubbing someone the wrong way. What I overlooked in my evaluation is your constant badgering of your opponents, badgering of a kind and to a degree that shows you can't work on a collaborative project. I'm terribly sorry I blew it with you yet again--I'll go put on my hairshirt and try to be more like you, though I don't think I'll make many more friends that way. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Haven't looked at thread and have no time to, but couldn't some compromise term/phrase be put forth like "political candidate" or "political hopeful" or "Presidential candidate", etc.? What did we do with people like Ralph Nader, etc. (although that might not be the best comparison, since he was always an activist, and a political activist before he ran I think)? Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the great "Is Michael Jackson a businessman" debate of aught-nine. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to revisit Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't think it's that bad yet. As far as I'm concerned he's a businessman who's running for prez, but in that discussion, I think the "politician"s are clearly winning the day. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hear you on that, but that's just a rambling unofficial round-robin, without any kind of organized survey or poll. I think an organized RfC might turn up quite a different result (especially since I'm guessing that the majority of the editors who edit/watch the Trump article may be Trump supporters). (BTW, if an RfC occurs, ping me as I'd probably like to !vote and I'm not watching the page.) Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: See the RfC at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#RfC: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"?. General Ization ^Talk 20:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to discussions evaluated/weighed by merit/quality of argument, rather than head-count? IHTS (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFCOURSE NE Ent 13:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A penny for them

Care to give your thoughts(as in closing thoughts :D ) at the AE request with my name at the top? I have had my say and other people have had theirs. I would like to get back to editing (with or without a sanction, depending on u). FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just looking at that today. No, sorry, I have no intention of deciding in that case one way or another. :) I prefer standing on the sidelines. But I saw that Writ Keeper was around, and it's about time he wrote another writ. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- DYK...that I have never actually edited AE? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem

You don't approve of lowly non-arbs doing the same thing? How goes it? I have wasted far too much time on here over the past week, probably time to take another break I think. —SpacemanSpiff 05:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I saw that you had already done it after I did it. Lowly, meh. Thanks. CU had nothing exciting to say. I am glad to see you around. Oh, in class the other day I asked my students if they knew of a game where the rules kept changing arbitrarily. They couldn't come up with it--pathetic. It made me think of you. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Bonadea seems to attract a fair share of the flies with her work in the Indian film and TV space, an area filled with fanboys and PR hacks. Luckily, as my talk page shows, I don't seem to tackle the extreme agents. Rather than think about me, you may want to offer 99 some pancakes as he seems to think that editing Wikipedia is a lost cause (not that he's wrong on that, just maybe he shouldn't act on it.) —SpacemanSpiff 05:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, both, for looking out for my userspace - this all unfolded while I was still asleep... (Oh, and if I attract flies surely that implies I'm as sweet as honey? *bats eyelids*) I removed a bunch of Indian movies related pages from my watchlist some time ago, which was good for my stress levels. It does bother me that articles on those subjects are so hard - impossible, even - to keep more or less readable and free from cruft. Ah well. --bonadea contributions talk 06:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Dear Drmies, thank you for being so kind and putting a smile on my

face.--Mona778 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lovely. I can do with one. Thank you! Drmies (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected attempt at WP:OUTING

at User talk:Iryna Harpy? Completely unsure what to do. Maybe i'm reading the guidelines wrong..Irondome (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fixed. Apologies for spilling your tea ;) Irondome (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best approach is to email Special:EmailUser/Oversight NE Ent 22:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very quickly sorted by Mike V. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V, you are much kinder than I am, seriously. Irondome, when in doubt, revert and blank, then call the cavalry. Sorry, I was out making dinner. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. Glad I at least am identifying more complex issues now correctly. Irondome (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done. Remember, TParis is also an admin, and he's on call 24/7. If you want real complexity, have Hijiri88 ask you a question. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing an emergency block tool, you just go to https://blockthisjerk.wmflabs.org/ and type in the name of ~~your enemy~~ the vandal and it'll automatically log in to my account and POOF they're gone.--v/r - T P 01:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. That's fucking awesome. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I'm copying that to my userpage. Great work TP Irondome (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psst. It's colonel TP. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and for a small donation to the WMF, you can block your...vandals...for any length of time at a rate of $1/day. You see, it's all about fundraising.--v/r - T P 01:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief, there is no ArbCom slush fund. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me a LMFAO gents Irondome (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've always felt reverting just attracts more notice ... best just to quietly whisper in the Cavalry's ear ... NE Ent 03:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry? Drmies (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tempting, but this cavalry is purely ceremonial these days ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 18:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Cavalry. Do you think you'll ever run again? Drmies (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't mind the admin tools back. Not sure I really "believe" in ArbCom anymore, after going through the receiving end. OTRS folks and the Ombudsman are both great, and it definitely felt like I was being listened to by them, but ArbCom... I don't want to say "Kafkaesque" but it's not dissimilar. You're expected to just give them access to your emails and phone records and let them both investigate the issue AND make a judgement, which sort of makes it a foregone conclusion. And if you complain about it, you can only complain to Arbcom, so you just get them angry at you. I feel quite bad for the people on the other end of my vote when I was on the Committee! I will say it's definitely worth being on both sides of the system, though, as a learning experience. So, running again? Not till it's reformed or abolished, no. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cruijffiaans

On 30 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cruijffiaans, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "If I wanted you to understand it, I'd explain it better" is a favorite expression in Cruijffiaans, the idiolect of Dutch soccer coach Johan Cruyff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cruijffiaans. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cruijffiaans), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection for Clinton Foundation

Hi Drmies,

Given the recent level of POV pushing at Clinton Foundation, likely due to the presidential campaign, like here, here, etc., do you think it's time to semi-protect the page against IPs and new accts? X4n6 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. There's not much in the recent history; at RFPP this would likely be turned down. Scjessey, I saw you reverted an IP sock (pertaining to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mouse001) last month; what do you think? And, by the way, do we really need to have a list of donors in that article?? Drmies (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely think the current level of activity is well within the ability of current editors to monitor, without the need for semi-protection. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I agree the list of donors is unnecessary. I've just created a section on the article talk page, calling for its removal. Feel free to chime in there. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suppose we can just continue to monitor it. But as the election season progresses, I won't be surprised to see a spike in vandalism or pov pushing here. And yes, I agree we don't really need the list of contributors and all those redlinks. X4n6 (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falsettos

Did you know that you don't have to be a tenor to sing in falsetto and that you don't have to be a teenager to act like one? You too can edit-war. Don't forget to count.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connie: Yes, I have a falsetto voice.

Baravelli: That's-a funny; my last pupil she had-a false set-a teeth.

Thank you Marx Brothers....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ALL YE TP STALKERS

Having seen that I have not been flattering the doc enough these days I have nominated him for a Wiki T shirt here. Anyone who wants to get on Doc's good side can give his/her support there. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we nominate a separate one for his naughty sense of humour? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I can do with a new t-shirt. Freeatlast, you must not have been blocked after your recent AE adventure--congratulations! Drmies (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:It was easter, after all; there's a precedent for miracles. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Providence (religious movement)

Hi - I noticed that you dealt with User:Macauthor and User:MrTownCar. I suspect that User:CollinsBK is the same person and they and their changes should be be removed. User:CollinsBK has done almost nothing but make mass changes to Providence (religious movement) and might be the person reported in the Australian media ( http://www.crikey.com.au/2016/05/02/wikipedia-page-rapist-cult-whitewashed-inside-ato/ ) as admitting personal bias.

As a mere contributor I can't see (or don't know where to find) the IP logs, but User:CollinsBK looks dodgy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpixie (talk • contribs) 10:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you couldn't get the logs--part of the advantage of having a registered account. I'll have a look. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drpixie, there is not much I can see right now that confirms your suspicion; it needs a much closer look than I can afford right now. The information on those two old accounts is, well, old, so I couldn't compare the newer with the older even if I had sufficient reason to do so right now. The best thing to do is to consider adding that account to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Macauthor, but if you do that, you'll have to provide some specific evidence of how their behavior strikes you as similar. BTW, there are other accounts active there who do little else: SugarvilleMom (talk · contribs) and GIOSCali (talk · contribs). Perhaps other longtime editors of that article, such as Jim1138, Kiyoweap, and Sam Sailor can offer advice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to look into this within the next couple of hours or three. "Happy days are here again, ehrm". --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI for recent vandal

Mind giving me a hand on this one? I can find a few accounts, however I know there have been a number of accounts and pages created that have already been deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked two more and pinged you. The oldest one I know is Fiasposj. If you can't remember an older one, I'd start it on that account, but maybe AllyD or Favonian know more. Favonian probably also needs to fjuck off, haha. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- SPI created right yonder: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fiasposj RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright. Now, I just heard you're a "Twinkle junkie". You need to look into that. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - (tps) I left some comments in the SPI. —DoRD (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced BLP: Jacques Cohen (computer scientist)

Hi Dr, I swear I'm retiring. Still, what to do when one comes across a virtually unsourced bio of an academic, issues a polite advisory to the primary account concerned, and watches while another swatch of unsourced content is almost immediately dropped in? I'm tempted to remove everything that's not sourced, but hope that cooler and wiser heads will prevail if I bring it here. Thanks from 99. And I hope you're well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E94C:A472:C0DB:68EA (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courtneypinamiller, please read WP:BLP et cetera. No doubt your scientist is notable, but this is not an encyclopedic article, it's practically a hagiography for a living person. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dr. 2601:188:0:ABE6:8C9B:740D:AABA:EC6B (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they'll find your ping when they most likely haven't found their own talkpage, Dr. See [4]. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request

As you summoned me a while ago, I thought I'd call upon you in my time of need. I wonder if you know whether this edit is worthy of revision deletion. If so, I'd ask that you dispose of it. It is of the most distasteful variety, and I do not care to engage with such stuff. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service, RGloucester. My apologies on behalf of mankind. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drdaviddukesucks

May wish to remove talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's the child known as "Hypocritepedia". Drmies (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Cheryl Fernandez-Versini without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Linguist 111^talk 17:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, thanks. Linguist, thank you for the nice template. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linguist--is this what we do here? Seriously?

Makeovers

Anita: Cut to the collarbone and fringes added
Anne: Dyed ice blonde
Emma G.: Extra shine with lighter highlights
Jennifer: Black mowhawk
Kellie: Jet black bob cut with fringes
Letitia: Dyed honey blonde, later redyed brown
Lisa: Dark pixie cut
Madeleine: New weave sewn in
Penelope: Light blonde hair extensions
Rissikat: Halle Berry inspired short hair
Roxanne: Dyed bright orange, later dyed back to brown
Tasmin: Shoulder length cut and fringes added

The content you removed seemed pretty valid, and the edits summaries "Chit chat" and "trivia" didn't seem very informative to me. I restored the content in good faith. I'm quite new to editing biographies of living persons, so please assume good faith and don't get enraged with any mistakes I make. Linguist 111^talk 18:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How you do get "enraged"? I'm not enraged, though I wish you would assume good faith and not jump to reverts and templated warnings immediately. Try words first. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume you were operating in good faith here, but I didn't see the necessity of removing the content. I don't see how the removed content was "chit chat", and again, the edit summaries seemed quite vague. Linguist 111^talk 18:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I think anytime you have a minor celebrity with 100+k worth of article, you have excessive content. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Hope all is well Doc :),

Linguist - To put it bluntly it was all crap that should never have been added,

"Many celebrities have spoken about Fernandez-Versini's fashion style and looks" - Many celebs comment on each others styles etc ... doesn't mean we should include it all,

"On 3 July 2010, Fernandez-Versini was admitted to hospital with suspected acute malaria" - Again obviously celebs get diseases etc all the time.... Should we list every time she has the flu as well ? .... Somethings don't need mentioning and these are those "somethings". –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Linguist 111^talk 19:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. It's naptime. Let me get this straight. You template me for nonsense and then get righteously offended when I call you on it. Help, I'm being oppressed. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Youre-In-Big-Trouble-Mister-Quote-By-Michelle-Tanner-On-Full-House.gif Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, I may have underestimated you. Thanks for that--that's funny. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I will unoppress your oppression! TJH2018 talk 19:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And my nap? Drmies (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're too nice.--v/r - T P 19:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, TParis. At our age, we deserve one. Or maybe we don't deserve one, but we need one. Right now I'm sipping a Jai-Alai, which is awesome (Sitush, didn't you ask me one time about good American beers? this certainly is one), listening to some seriously Midwestern music, so I think I'm doing my patriotic bit for today. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelapstick, Florida brewery. Guess who started the article. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, although I hate when people put ® in articles. -kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's gone, and so is the recent marketing push that article witnessed. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And after I took the time to learn how to fix those referencing errors. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That IPA is strong! Just noticed my grandparents are featured at the head of this page - the bike is still going strong. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello. I bet that you will be removing some content from Achewood because it offends your sense of what an encyclopedic article should be. In the future, the far distant future, the article will stretch from here to the line that divides the sea and the sky, with an infinite number of edit summaries, some of which will be accurate. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's all you. You did a nice job on the EL section! It's fully loaded! Drmies (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. "Onstad said that he always enjoyed eating food". I'm glad that's reliably sourced. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G**, that's funnier than the comic. Good job those stuffed animals aren't alive, or it'ld have more BLP violations than a GOP candidate's stump speech. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stumpf? You'll notice that I'm leaving that article alone, just to defy expectations. I want to be less...what's the word...predictable. More exciting. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cassist

Hey my name is Drm310 and I'm from Canada.

Hello, I wanted to let you know that in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cassist, the suspected sock master confessed to using multiple accounts, but she claims that she did not know that was against policy. I will let you handle it from here. CLCStudent (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CLCStudent, I think you were looking for Drm310, who is not a real doctor and looks like a monkey. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? User:L235 was the one who last responded at the SPI case. He suspended a CU to give the two suspected accounts to offer any kind of defense. All I did was leave {{tb}} messages for them, as they hadn't yet responded.

Oh, and I'm not a monkey. I just play one on Wikipedia. --Drm310 (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

72bikers (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Trosko

Sorry David Trosko is still not eligible for BLP prod-as there are refs, even if they are not reliable. Take it to afd if you must. Wgolf (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of AfD, not seeing any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Seriously, one citation is a tweet [5]? -- Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wgolf, "the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." Twitter, Anime News Network, Funimation, Dragonar Academy (a "light novel") are not reliable (secondary) sources. Softlavender, thanks--you'd be surprised (or maybe not) to know how many of such voice actor resumes there are, another indication of our fansite status. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also says, "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form". Adam9007 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I often disagree with Adam9007's application of the deletion criteria, but in this case I agree with him. When I patrol BLP-PROD nominations, if I find something like this nominated, I remove the tag with the comment "Declining BLP-PROD; article has references. Other deletion avenues remain available." --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The instructions at WP:BLPPROD may appear to be contradictory (do the sources have to be reliable, or not?) but here is how I read it: the tag may only be applied if there are "no sources in any form." But once that tag is properly applied, i.e., the article contains no sources whatsoever, it can only be removed if one or more RELIABLE sources are added. "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag." --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm going with the more restrictive reading; I think that's in keeping with the spirit of that PROD. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network would generally be considered 'reliable' within its remit as it has an editorial staff. While it also hosts blogs by staff members, it publishes articles under its own banner (which absent evidence to the contrary) can be assumed to have been fact-checked by its editorial staff appropriately. I wouldnt trust it to comment on world politics. It can be assumed to be reliable for Anime-based content (including BLP's). This does not mean that anything sourced solely or primarily to ANN passes the GNG, it just means it rules articles out for deletion except by an AFD. The reason the requirement for a 'reliable' source is there in BLPPROD is that any information not sourced to a reliable source is subject to removal in a BLP. There is no point saying 'it can only be removed with any source' if whoever BLPprodded it has leeway to just remove any non-reliably sourced info that gets put in.

I would also add that BLPPROD does not require a secondary source. Just one that is reliable for the information it is providing. It can be primary, secondary or tertiary, and while secondary is preferred, it is not required. A primary source is often reliable for information about itself - in this context a funimation link on what its own employee is credited on, is neither contentious or unreliable. Again this does not mean an article would pass GNG (primary sources hold almost no weight in an AFD discussion), but again it would prevent BLPPROD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have my doubts about reliability for these cases, despite ANN's slogan, for instance. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, their editorial board page looks pretty decent. But I was disappointed in this just parroting Funimation. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well to digress - Funimation would also be reliable for which of its in-house staff (or contracted) voice actors are starring in one of their own upcoming productions. With very few exceptions would this be a contentious issue. It wouldnt make them notable but it would be reliable for sourcing. Media BLP's of notable subjects are often littered with primary sources for that reason - the most easily verifiable and reliable source for someone credited would be the credits themselves. It may be entirely un-notable and not inclusion-worthy in an article, but that is not a reliability issue. Can it be used vs should it be included. [otherstuff] This is not limited to outfits like ANN however, Variety often regurgitates studio press releases for casting info, and god forbid anyone should remove a variety sourced tidbit... [/otherstuff]

I would say from looking at the above BLP it appears to be sourced from the enclopedia section of ANN rather than news, which I gather takes user submissions? As I am not a member I dont know if this is classed as user-generated, or merely along the lines of 'Spot an error or missing info? Email us!' which is subsequently vetted by staff. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move or delete?

Just confused since this is one of the Neelix ones. Did you mean to have something moved here or was that just a misclick? —SpacemanSpiff 12:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spiffy, G6 was designated also as a Neelix catchall ("housekeeping", I suppose). Please see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G6, "special note"--I used Twinkle, which doesn't include his name. I quickly quit doing that because it looks weird, yes. I suppose {{Db-g6|rationale=Neelix redirect}} is more clear. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, since there was a dabmove thingy on it, I was wondering if some particular dab had to be moved there. And yes, I've seen some very colorful rationales accompanying the G6 tags! —SpacemanSpiff 14:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Someone had that plugin on and edited your comment. I have struck mine and (boldly) reverted yours back to Trump. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for what? Oh, you called me out somewhere? Don't worry about it--this is pretty funny. I mean stupid, but also funny. Thanks for the note! Drmies (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another note

Sorry for the misstep. I originally tried to add what I felt would be a useful citation for the article and then found out that, apparently, I don't know how to add (edit) citations. The citation I attempted to add is from a book that I own (and one I use on the wikipedia article I intend to submit) so the next best solution seemed to be adding the web site where the book may be viewed via external links. Charles Bowersoxx (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I figured there was something going on. Either way, have a look at WP:RS. I didn't click on the link, but it didn't look like the kind of thing we cite here. Thanks for the note, and happy editing--and if you ever need any help, drop me a note here and someone else will no doubt step right up. I think User:Timothyjosephwood owes me a solid, haha. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yelp

If you happen to be around, do you mind taking a look at this edit? CorporateM (Talk) 20:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM, it's been reverted and it's the IP's only edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz. 68.117.177.180 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it was reverted shortly after I posted here. CorporateM (Talk) 02:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

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

72bikers (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

72bikers, I know--my email program indicates "New messages" by printing them in bold. Keep it secret from now on, since Dennis Bratland already thinks that you traded Nyttend in for me, the younger (and better-looking) model. I don't mind being a trophy admin, but let's not advertise it to the world yet. As for the trouble, it's no trouble. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beemster cheese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oudendijk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear, there has been a cheese-related mishap here in England as well, but fortunately that mishap has also ended happily. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-36235721 MPS1992 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is one hell of a stack of cheese. Glad the man got out. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am too. Do you think this 2016 Shropshire cheese incident might be notable, or perhaps as 2016 Hinstock cheese incident? It has wide news coverage, and also is perhaps the first time that drones have been used in a cheese mishap of this type. Or of any type. MPS1992 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI DRAMA(Take 2)

this ANI thread is going to turn into the same Can of Worms you closed 2 months ago. As before every Tom, Dick and Harry who has a beef with me is going to bring their so called "issues" and pile it on here. I feel quite satisfied that this time I am not even a teeny tiny bit guilty (no bad language aimed at editors, no warring, not even a midge of bad faith editing). Please be kind enough to close the thread (Yes you can ban/block me ofc if I have been behaving badly, but this time the complaint is just frivulous). The thread has already gained like 5 editors and about a thousand words and counting. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now another editor has joined in FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A ferret for you!

An animal for you

This is a ferret. Here to bring you joy in the surreal realm that is the Wikiverse. It’s smaller than a beech marten but equally entertaining. You may want to introduce it to the tapir and the cutie that is still watching over the history of my fallen comrade’s user page. Yup, I miss that feller, his smart and well-researched content contributions, heartfelt BLP advocacy and anarchic sense of humor. There is such a thing as reverse sexism, and I fear that Arbcom fell prey to it in his case. Like you, dear Doc, I wouldn’t want to be part of a project that puts political correctness over common sense just to score a few sympathy points with the “gender” warriors. So, yeah, this is a thank-you note with an added plea to do right and unblock Cla68 already. Bite me. ;) Draco^E 09:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Emiel van Heurck

On 9 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emiel van Heurck, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Belgian folklorist Emiel van Heurck never graduated, but wrote books on religious popular culture and translated Multatuli into French? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emiel van Heurck. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Emiel van Heurck), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

…he was born a French speaker? That's some kind of Belgian thing, right? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's interesting given his (Dutch/Flemish) name and the place he was born in. He was good friends with Pée because the latter admired his French greatly. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of his book (three images). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Born a French speaker? That's impressive, I didn't learn to speak until way after I was born. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someday soon you'll pick up writing too, no doubt. Now go the fuck to sleep! K-stick, I got a problem. I'm trying to move-protect IKon (South Korean band). I have no idea what I'm doing wrong--but I keep getting "Expiration time is invalid". I'm attempting indefinite move protection, admins only, "move warring. move requires talk page consensus".Drmies (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Xantetc. for the link. The book I want, however, is Les images de dévotion anversoises du XVle au XIXe siècle. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, it worked for me, but I just went the old way, not using Twinkle (if that's what you were doing, PP on Twinkle sometimes gives issues on IE, or maybe that is blocking, or both). Not quite 1:00pm yet, so still too early for bed, should be on a plane to Bali tomorrow at this time. Not a moment too soon. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting--there's an old way? Thanks K. Bali tomorrow, and then back home? Where half the world is on fire? I hope you have a good trip and a nice homecoming. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just "protect page", not using Twinkle (where it adds the lock automatically). Yeah I am in Bali for about eight hours I think, but I have to drop off some company swag to one of our former managers while I am there, so maybe I will get out for a bit, but not likely. Then back home, but the fire is on the other side of the country, and I am flying direct from London to Halifax, so I won't be affected. Hoping weather is nice so the choppers fly tomorrow morning, I really don't like the bus ride down. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppets on IKon (South Korean band)

There is a group of editors on IKon (South Korean band) who keep moving the page, undoing a successful requested move. One of them mentioned being part of a group on my talk page. I'm not sure what to do now; I think I've already reverted too many times. Random86 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Storm in a ☕

"Storm in a tea cup" means "exaggeration". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know--thanks though. :) Drmies (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that, whereas the anglophone world speaks of teacups and teapots, many languages use some form of "storm in a glass of water"? Dem Brits 'n tea... - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016 on IKon (South Korean band)

With all due respect, I was sent a warning for editing and moving a page IKon (South Korean band) and was said to have participated in disruptive editing. I would like to clarify that I have only edited the IKon (South Korean band) at one particular time this year before my recent edit.

I have been an avid follower of this band and this wikipedia page, and it was originally titled iKON (South Korean band) (ie. the correct stylized format and this can be confirmed through their official company's website [[6]] and incorrectly changed to 'iKon' recently by Random86 (the account that reported the move, edits to you).

Under naming conventions, it says that title of a page is 'what indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.' Just like how the electronic device iPod is distinguished from cytosolic protein inclusion bodies IPOD, I believe that the iKON page should be distinguished and stylized to match how the group is referred to by their official company and how they are referred to in various news outlets.

I just wanted to express my concerns and if you see my points as valid, could you please revert it back to the original page title: "IKON (South Korean band)"

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Songgook321 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songgook321, thank you for your message, but your concerns should be expressed on the article talk page, where you will find a wonderful discussion leading to a consensual move. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik

My God, what is happening??? Can we help him somehow? E Eng 10:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:EEng, fill me in, please. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_block_of_User:Caseeart. He always seemed so steady and sensible, but these last few months -- !!!! E Eng 15:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not sure what to say here. Maybe you can ask him--he has email enabled. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Franz Karmasin

On 10 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Franz Karmasin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two deputies of the German Party were elected in the 1938 Slovak parliamentary election, former Carpathian German Party chief and member of the Czechoslovak parliament from the 10th district Franz Karmasin, and the priest Josef Steinhübl? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Franz Karmasin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Franz Karmasin), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Carpathian German Party

On 10 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carpathian German Party, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two deputies of the German Party were elected in the 1938 Slovak parliamentary election, former Carpathian German Party chief and member of the Czechoslovak parliament from the 10th district Franz Karmasin, and the priest Josef Steinhübl? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Carpathian German Party), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: [7]

I remember dealing with OZ (of whom Bladesmulti was eventually revealed as a sock). Before I knew OZ was sockfarming is one of the few times I actually let some Wiki-shitstorm get to me and raged hard on AN ([8] [9]) because I didn't realize I was being tag-teamed by multiple socks defending each other (the idea that someone could be so disgusting didn't even cross my mind at the time). I was even told on IRC that "Drmies would be proud". :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the SPI needs to be updated then. Did I see that Blades actually got an ArbCom block? (That's before my time, but "my time" really is only a 36-hour window, at best.) Yeah, this is why socking is so offensive. So Drmies has a bad reputation on IRC too? That's exciting. I hear I'm making the rounds elsewhere, and I apologize to all my detractors for not paying them enough attention. Thanks for the note; I think your "rage" was relatively mild. BTW, re: "fuck off"--good old Beeblebrox is taking a break but should be back in the fall. He's probably out drinking beer and exercising, if the sun has come out this year already where he lives. I'm pinging him just to tirritate him. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tirritate? Honestly, if that's not already a word it ought to be. Let's make up a meaning for it, something just for us Wikipedia cognoscenti. E Eng 16:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's already been invented--it's in the Dutch translation of Karlsson-on-the-Roof's speech. It's like "irritate", only worse, cause it has the "t" of "terror". Drmies (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot. I was hoping to work in titillate somehow. E Eng 19:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bladesmulti's user page is tagged as a sock of OZ, and OZ is tagged as ArbCom-banned and confirmed sockmaster. In re-reading that AN discussion, I was basically fighting against phantoms... OZ, Delibzr, SamuelDay1, all the same fucking guy. No wonder it drove me fucking mad. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Running a CU with just that IP might catch a lot of his socks as he left me a message on my talk the other day saying he has five active, that despite me never dealing with him, and i don't think he was bluffing considering his socking history which i checked after an abusive account was created mentioning him and targeting me, see (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwingfastKitkat) but i bluffed in return that i know all of them, i only have suspicions on some accounts but no solid evidence. The abusive account was created after these two (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnightWarrior25 & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor), so it seems either there is a sock nexus or these two individuals and their socks are OZ as well especially KnightWarrior25. If we can run a CU like i proposed, it would save me a lot of time collecting evidence because some of them might get caught just like that. We can add User:Sheriff is Free in that CU. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh--there's nothing there. They're on their little cell phone or something. Just Revert, Block, Ignore. Ha, I was looking at OccultZone's "work" here, and must have looked at over 3000 edits. What was their job? Adding parameters to templates on a kazillion talk pages? No wonder they got bored. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and Salvidrim: If Bladesmulti aka OZ is still socking, why is AmritasyaPutra still unblocked on his BASC appeal? After looking further into this, I found out AmritasyaPutra was his original account. How come his original account is not blocked if you think that the IP is him? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, BASC concluded that AmritsyaPutra was not the same editor was OZ/Bladesmulti. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did he show up in CU as confirmed? That is strange! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies may be able to answer, and Doug Weller definitely is, but I suppose they are unlikely to transparently explain the contents of the private BASC appeal, especially as it probably involves the user independently confirming their identity in order to contradict the initial CU result. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't answer that, and I am not familiar with AmritasyaPutra. Those who worked on the SPI are more likely to be able to give more insight, and I see now that Doug Weller indeed did the unblock. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, the CU result was unconvincing. That's a general problem with India. We simply decided that there wasn't enough evidence that they were the same and that there was some evidence suggesting they were different. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why No Timeline?

Why was there no need for a band member timeline in the band Alastis?

Eh, they're unwieldy, excessively detailed, hard to read, their colors and lines seem to violate WP:COLOR... If you want to improve an article like that, rewrite it and add reliable sources. I know colorful timelines are your thing, but they are unnecessary and unhelpful. All that information is already there in the text, without the need for a legend and for scrolling from left to right--and without taking up 3 to 8k extra per article. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, 'tis true I have gone here and there, And made myself a motley to the view. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't try that on a smartphone. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, please note

If I wanted you to understand it, I'd explain it better.
— Johan Cruijff, Kleis, Constanze (2011). Vrouwen houden van mannen, mannen houden van voetbal. Meulenhoff. p. 111. ISBN 9789460230196.

People are looking to sanction me from this archived ANI.I have to be able to respond somewhere, right? Please leave the edits in place, or advise, there, regarding proper procedure. If it looks that I have not responded, at least one editor will push for sanctions. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm serious. If you are this clueless you deserve to be blocked. I have to go and manually undo your edits, again. Last warning. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how my being clueless in responding to an ANI discussion, which though archived, is still active insofar as I am still being threatened with sanctions (that is, my inexperience with the ANI apparatus and process), is grounds for being blocked. Is it that I am inexperienced? An annoyance? That I asked you to help, and cannot figure this out on my own? How am I supposed to handle this?

Specifically, my questions are, (i) can I be sanctioned from an archived ANI (the comments at my Talk page seem to imply that I can), and (ii) if so, where—in what context—I am expected to defend myself. Guidance? Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: The answer is that you didn't respond. The thread was filed over 2 weeks ago, you were appropriately notified and you continued to edit during that time. There is nothing else to say. You chose not to respond. You didn't respond. Period dot. Now the thread is archived. You no longer have an opportunity.--v/r - T P 02:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TParis--but actually, I guess it means the editor is getting away with it. I could have blocked him for those edits to the archive but reverting in a 700k page took up all my memory. Leprof, seriously. You're going to edit something that's been archived, without notifying the people who criticized your behavior--after you had two weeks to respond. And I wasted almost half an hour on those boneheaded edits, and came within a half an inch of blocking you. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'm not disappointing you, I'd not doing it right.--v/r - T P 02:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to anything you did, but if you read me correctly, I said it wrong. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these explanations, I simply have no experience with ANIs and their archiving. And yes, I acknowledge, I do not frequently look at my User Talk, and so caught only saw the last call to respond. I now better understand how things work, and apologize for having annoyed, Drmies, in wasting your time to maintain the archive. I simply did no know any better… My focus is generally on content generation, and this is perhaps my second, or third ANI over the years (others closing quickly). Cheers, thanks/apologies again. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leprof 7272, apology gladly accepted. Yes, please look at your user talk. This is a collaborative project, and these things are essential to keep things going. You will see, for instance, this "TParis" character coming by and harangue me. Keeps me honest. Also, and I mentioned this before, please make sure you're logged in.

As for that ANI, what happened was, simply, nothing. In other words, there was no need to respond since nothing was going to come of it--because it was archived. That doesn't mean it goes away completely; next time someone has a problem with you they can point back to it. On the other hand, as Liz and Katie indicated, I think, on your user talk page, the thread can be de-archived if you like, but then a. the other participants have to be notified and b. you could end up getting blocked if an admin (or another admin) looks at it and decides you're disruptive enough. I doubt it, also since those edits were a few weeks ago, but still.

What's more important, I believe, is this: editors have problems with your edits. They may be utterly wrong and you utterly wright, but if there's a couple of them and admins agree, you're in trouble. Plus, it's not very likely that all of them are equally utterly wrong. In other words, it is well worth your time reading their complaints and taking them seriously, even if you don't like their criticism. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for God's sake, next time take the advice of your wise Uncle EEng. [10] E Eng 12:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^[FBDB] I agree--EEng can't be wrong all the time! Thanks EEng, Drmies (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of adding ^[FBDB] to the above -- if Drmies gets blocked we're sunk. E Eng 16:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I, for one, would like to thank Drmies for his immense contribution. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Musiceditor123456 and Special:Contributions/Musicloverforev1234's new account

Hi, Drmies. Special:Contributions/Kfliffer11 is Musiceditor123456 and Musicloverforev1234's new account. He/she involved same Beyonce song articles. 115.164.90.194 (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. But they've already been taken care of. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatums and ownership behavior

Hi Drmies. You've been very helpful to me in the past, so I am wondering if you wouldn't mind doing so again with another bit of potential unpleasantness. User:Ronald Galope Barniso has been posting "ultimatums" on various talk pages such as User talk:Marchjuly#About 5th CEAP MINDANAO GAMES, Talk:FSUU Gym#ULTIMATUM and Talk:ADFiL Corporation#Notice to the non-Filipino people with Ultimatum. I think that "What we've got here is failure to communicate": a new editor whose intentions are probably good, but who might just not quite understand what Wikipedia is about. Right now, it looks as if he is charting himself a direct course to ANI. Do you have any suggestions on how to nip things in the bud before he ends up there? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user removed their ultimatums so perhaps things have been resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I was just looking at a related AfD. I don't like ultimatums much myself. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon some recent posts on their user talk page, I think I was probably a little too optimistic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit to Guy1890

Hi Drmies, if you have time, I'm kind of curious why you reverted the edit to that user's page. The editor Guy1890 is going against wikipedia policies by being uncivil and unwelcoming, so I added links to wikipedia pages so he could learn how to be less uncivil. Thanks for leaving the information on my talk page. Note: I wasn't sure whether to continue discussion on my talk page or your talk page, so I left this reply on both. Kswikiaccount (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I linked WP:OWNTALK, which should explain why I reverted you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read the pages you linked before asking the question. He reverted the page and added an edit summary which was both uncivil, and implying he was not being uncivil. He reverted my edit and in his summary stated "You can run along as well brand new editor with little to no prior Wikipedia edits - go push your POV on another website."

I'm open to any suggestions by you on how to proceed, but, in my opinion, this editor clearly rejected my suggestion, continued to be uncivil, and he would benefit from someone encouraging him to read the page on welcoming new users and being civil. Kswikiaccount (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you already encouraged him to read that page. So that task is complete. Now it is time to walk away. In my opinion! MPS1992 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy1890, please look over this conversation and your own edits on that talk page. Kswiki, I encourage you to consider neutrality; some of your edits seemed a bit tendentious. If I recall correctly. Thank you both, Drmies (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my gods...

Talk: Lawrence Booth ... and of course an associated ANI report also. WTF. I ask for a reliable source and I get .. I don't know what. Sources that don't support the information and now I'm bullying and harassing someone. Gods above, it makes me want to tear my hair out. (This leaves aside the whole earlier today issue at John Blund where someone tried to say that Blund, who died in 1248, was tied to the Scholastic Corporation, the American kid's publishing house founded in the 20th century. I'm about to start screaming "Calgon, take me away!". Ealdgyth - Talk 01:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the edit warring continues. I don't know how much plainer I can possibly explain this. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does this look like, Ealdgyth? ANI 2.0? (Patience is a virtue...) Drmies (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't help taking a look at Blund. Since you're in the neighborhood, Drmies, Special:Contributions/Floppo-Sloppo needs a NOTHERE block. E Eng 02:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, EEng. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to whack arbs? Surely its a reward for some number of DYKs, or GAs or FAs? PLEASE????? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm untouchable. Let me know if your honorable friend makes that or another disruptive edit again. :) You may not have looked at the ANI thread recently, where HighinBC just committed a comma splice in his close. Tsk, tsk. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm utterly dependent on Word to keep my grammar in line. I couldn't tell you what a comma slice was if it bit me on the ass. But I can diagram sentences! There's a useful skill. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Thank you, Ealdgyth, I'm not the only one.--v/r - T P 02:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth and Drmies: welcome to ANI 2.0. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ealdgyth, GAs, FAs, admin bits, mainspace edits are liabilities when it comes to arb whacking, as the late, great Janis Joplin sung freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. NE Ent 10:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it... what do I have to do to get to arb whack (outside of election season when I get to write an election guide?)... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you live in Illinois, they just only passed conceal carry so I gather it will be quite a few more years until they pass Arb whacking. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So today ... Ralph Neville got visited ... problems included way overlinking, a lot of capitals against the MOS, linking things like "royal clerk" to herald. This is after I was asked on my talk page for examples of good archbishop articles to use as examples, and in an act of good faith, I pointed a bunch out. Sure feels like I'm being singled out for something here... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, yeah. Have you considered a mean and old-fashioned level 2 or 3 template for disruptive editing? And do you consider "the way I read History at university is different from how Wiki wishes to represent it" to be an attack on you and maybe some fellow editors? I see this headed toward AN, not ANI, for a topic ban--for not getting it, for edit warring, and for disruption including insinuation and personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have the least freaking clue what template to use for that sort of thing. I don't generally DEAL with this sort of stuff - most people in my little areas are actually quite nice and helpful. (flails) Someone able to drop one on him? (I generally go running to .. oh, the admins.. .on the few occasions I've run into major issues.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know... I'm wondering if I'm not being visited by a previously banned user who often times went after FA writers and feigned the "new user" ... just a thought. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have edited previously on French wiki as Mabelina (native English, adds heraldry). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they are indeed Mabelina, then they are indeffed. ghytred talk 10:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe Mattisse. I get the vibe of either. Not savvy enough to figure out SPI, but something seems out of kilter to me. Mabelina did try to work on the Booth bishops and archbishops though...Ealdgyth - Talk 11:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's wearily familiar with Mattisse, I'll be absolutely shocked if this is her; it's not her style at all. Her game is invariably to lie low and do good work to try to build up a circle of friends and supporters, and only then to make intentionally weird edits in the hope that her newly-acquired friends will defend her and thus start fights and end up getting themselves blocked or blocking other people. Wading into an argument fists-flying isn't her style at all. (If I were assuming bad faith, I'd say the sockfarm which infests Duke of Manchester is a likelier bet.) ‑ Iridescent 15:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, I never really knew Matisse, I think. Cassianto, HighInBC, this may be of some interest to you. I'm pretty sure that Mabelina is L'honorable, but there's no CU evidence anymore. I'd like for Bishonen to compare their behavior; I found an idiosyncrasy or two, besides that awful semi-fancy abominable prose intended only to obfuscate and anger. High, if this is indeed confirmed by Bish or others, then I think that should at least be a mitigating factor in the Cassianto block. Cassianto had harsh words for you, and they were not deserved, but if he was indeed up against this troll then it is easily argued that his edit warring (still haven't looked at that and won't be able to right now, with three screaming kids upstairs and a house that needs cleaning) was brought on by being baited. In other words, please reconsider--and Bish, I know you're active cause you and I were revdelling in that terrorist group at the same time!, please have a look at these two. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings about this block. It was the result of the edit war being brought to my attention by one of the blocked users. I only ask that if you do decide to take any action to look into the edit war and the discussion on the talk page. I read through it all and it seems the accusations of sock puppetry did not come about until after the blocks. As for baiting, well I would argue that most people who get drawn into an edit war feel baited. Edit warring almost always has an emotional component. I feel the block was correct but am open to outside review. HighInBC 15:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not only edit warring, but stupid edit warring -- with Hchc2009, TJH2018 , Cassianto , myself, Drmies, Ealdgyth all reverting unsourced whatever back to the stable version, there was no need for any one editor to go three in a row. So a block was fine. The heated post block drama on the talk page, not so much. NE Ent 15:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'll worry too much about stuff that doesn't need to be worried about, and I've always found the concept that every misbehavin' editor is a special snowflake so that any editor behaving the same way must be a sock fairly ridiculous. With 942 million English speakers, even if a Matisse or Mabelina was one in a million; there'd be 942 of them. What's fairly obvious is L'honorable is either fairly clueless or trolling, so if the behavior continues post block expiration, block them longer for WP:DE rather doing more Ouija board SPI/Duck guessing. NE Ent 15:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it's worth knowing if someone is a sock; a blocked editor who comes back once tends to come back again, so it puts one on ones guard for the next attack on whatever the editor in question likes to target. Incidentally, there's a virtually perfect match between the two accounts on the ABF-O-Matic, including some very distinctive quirks (a mini-peak 12 hours opposite the main peak, and drastically lower edit rates on Mondays). ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all (NE Ent, HighInBC, Iridescent), I can't really look deeper into it right now; if there had been a CU match I would have blocked the honorable one already. Ent, there is more to it than just snow, and Iridescent, I hope you have the time and the inclination to pursue this. Bish placed the first block, and she may have some input as well. Chillum, I wasn't going to do anything without looking carefully at the edit war; I know that the honorable person was guilty of it, but hadn't looked at Cassianto so for now I have no opinion, only that if you and Ent agree, well, you two are not idiots. Again, I do believe that allowances should be made if someone goes up against a troll, even if one doesn't know yet if it's a socking troll or not. Honorable was clearly editing against consensus (last I looked anyway, which was yesterday), and reverting such an edit should fall under WP:3RRNO. But I'm just a joke administrator with double standards, so what do I know. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I, reportedly, "epitomise all that is wrong with Wikipedia". So, I figure you can either grow a thick skin or retire or go nuts with the banhammer. I expect the first option is the best. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are a joke, and I while I sometime disagree with you I find you to take great efforts to be fair with people. Don't take it too hard. HighInBC 16:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do this by the book

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mabelina. ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - this is L'honorable (from work computer) - I see that I have been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia on account of being a sock puppet - I had never heard of such a thing previously. I am not Mabelina - full stop. So isn't it more than unjust to issue me with a block? Anyway you have caught me on the most awkward and delicate of matters - that account has been used for the most part by and belongs to my ex-wife so you have me stymied since I am not inclined to be drawn into a dispute - it is not worth it for fear of involving her. I repeat I am not Mabelina, so what to do now? L'honorable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.51.41 (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. don't you think that if I were a "sockpuppet" I would have done things a bit more cleverly than this? I am not Mabelina & have no intention of associating with her again for that matter! Please advise how to remedy this farcical situation. Many thanks.

Your ex-wife (who self-identifies as a male in his 40s) has exactly the same interests as you, exactly the same very distinctive writing style as you, exactly the same editing times as you, and was blocked immediately before you registered your account? Just how stupid do you think we are? ‑ Iridescent 13:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring other users' comments – need an opinion

Hello Drmies. If you have the time, could you take a look at my comments on Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 re yet more refactoring of an editor's comment(s) (this time taken out of context from another page with no source diffs provided) by a user whom you have recently warned about this. I'm thinking of simply removing the material myself, but need a second opinion as to whether that's appropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. He removed the offending material himself after my warning. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, sorry, I only just got to look at it. I think editors should be very, very careful with quoting others' material, and I don't think this was a good or acceptable way. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relu Fenechiu

Good day, Drmies - I'd hate to start an ANI thread over something so trivial, so could you perhaps talk some sense into this guy? Much appreciated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait--am I your muscle now? Drmies (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I didn't mean to have it taken that way at all. It's just that I did threaten to seek administrative intervention, and short of going to ANI, my other option was to ask an active administrator I knew would give things an impartial look. Apologies if this seemed like anything else. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, traffic at ANI would be cut 30% if more people would exercise the common sense shown by Biruitorul here viz. asking someone privately for help instead of sounding the ANI tocsin. E Eng 16:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe. But what would we do for fun? Drmies (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can always do what some people do, block me for a bit and see what happens. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bread and circuses, eh...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, I'm working on a presentation and don't have time to figure out what to block you for. I can do it quickly, if you supply a properly formatted reason, and tell me for how long. Glad to be of service, Drmies (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to interrupt your busy work, but since when do admins and let alone a high and mighty Arb need a reason to help people learn the folly of their ways? Url:http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/ea/25/7f/ea257f0d2c250bba79bf6991acd096c4.jpg (I am waiting for that warning notice from some talk page stalker....) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, if I may, it might be a good idea to change the template at ANI/ANN, etc. to point people to the IRC channel first to see if a live admin can be of service. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can also open the system-wide block log to find a recently-active admin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I didn't think of that last time I needed a live admin and my work was blocking IRC. I had to email an admin and wait for a response. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant point. I was needing that kind of info this morning and ended up giving up, cheers _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed--I typically browse through Recent changes if I need one (when I'm slumming), but this is much quicker. BTW, IRC, I don't really know what that is or how it works, and I've never heard of a good thing coming out of it. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still in all seriousness, the template at ANI really should be modified to urge people toward such alternatives. There are 1400 active watchers at ANI, and if 1/2 of those spends even 30 seconds glancing a new thread, that's 5 editor hours down the drain right off, right out of the gate. Much of what happens at ANI could and should be handled by the intervention of a single other editor -- not even an admin, usually. The way it is now it's as if Parliament debated every disputed slip-and-fall case from all over Britain.

I'd take a bold stab at adding such advice but as I recall the template's either protected, or hidden so deep in a maze of transclusions I couldn't find where to actually change the text. E Eng 17:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Counsel for Yassin Kadi now editing in article space

Dear Dr Mies,

Post this diff the User:Dom at Carter-Ruck (self declared) legal counsel for Yassin Kadi is now making controversial / Bold edits in article space, which I have reverted. For the reason that this is a grey area despite the amended WMF terms of use policies, request guidance / intervention. Luridaxiom (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is interesting. I wish both of you would write more conversational English. I don't rightly know what to say except that a. that article is way too long and way too detailed and b. it's probably best to post at WP:BLPN and maybe at WP:COIN. I don't know what's grey here, necessarily, but it's complicated, of course, and requires careful reading of the sources. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a new account name

"When BMK starts using bold and italics, you know he's all worked up." Sheesh, you know me too well - but didn't you mean to write "bold and italics"? BMK (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, congrats, you seem to be handling being an Arb pretty darn well, as far as I can tell. BMK (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BMK, but I don't know--I'm surrounded by people who know shit so much better than me, and I discover that everything is even more complicated than it seemed. If those who voted me in knew what a total ignoramus I was... Plus, I've seen some pretty bad stuff spouted by some awful people. Thanks for dropping by--see you later, Drmies (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you undersell yourself. Best, BMK (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mateothehistorian

Re: Madridejos. That editor continues his nonsense. Please do something. 213.205.252.17 (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good day Sir the user of IP 213.205.252.17 and IP 213.205.252.158 I believe was used as sock by user User:Mary McAllen also identified as sock of User:Unbuttered Parsnip who was blocked for vandalism and of using multiple accounts please see Talk:Lazaro Mangubat article he deleted references and removed cited content, and after doing so nominated the article for deletion but the result of the admin invistigation was to keepthe article and the sockpuppet was blocked please see discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazaro Mangubat thank you Mateothehistorian (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hadn't noticed you'd got in there between Bish, thanks for revdelin' -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds often think alike, and I appreciate her help. If you see her, tell her to look up a section or two on this same here talk page. I need her again. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help required

Drmies, could you be so kind and intervene at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2016#Voting order & full spokespersons. There is an IP user accusing myself and others of bullying, and they are casting attacks towards myself, refactoring my comments, and going around to other user talk pages and hounding myself and another user called Pickette. Thanks my friend. Hope all is well with yourself. Wes Mouse ✒ 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley, I think you did a pretty decent job keeping your cool. I wish I had time to watch--apparently Douwe Bob had a chance. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Uploading

Well I'm back to the well again with a question regarding image uploads. I'm trying to get it right the first time now. I have specific written permissions from two different entities to use 5 different images. The permissions I have received are specific to my writing and publishing an article on Wikipedia. Two of the images are commercial in nature and three are compliments of a non-profit. They are a couple of pictures of test instrumentation, a graph, a picture of test media and a certification logo. When I first started to upload one of them I was asked a question as to the nature of the image permissions which then spawned additional questions which, in some cases, I didn't think any of the options fit well or at all. All of the photos I have received from the two entities are also available in numerous places on the internet so I'm not even certain I needed the permissions but I got them anyway. To summarize - I have 5 image files for which I have specific written permissions (via email) to use in the formation of and publishing of an article on Wikipedia. What, hopefully simple, image upload path should I go down? Help appreciated.Charles Bowersoxx (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles Bowersoxx, it seems to me that Commons:OTRS is the way to go, but maybe a helpful talk page watcher has a better idea. You reminded me, BTW, that I need to get my knives sharpened as well. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Drmies for the reply and yes, sharp knives are indicative of a keen intellect, steely nerve and stainless character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Bowersoxx (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a helpful talk page watcher, but sometimes I play one on TV. Before we go any further, we need to get clear about something you said, to wit, "The permissions I have received are specific to my writing and publishing an article on Wikipedia." If the permission says anything like, "For use only on Wikipedia" or anything like that, you're dead right there. With very narrow exceptions, Wikipedia/Creative Commons accepts only content that is licensed by its owner for free use, reuse, and modification -- even commercial use. Somewhere there's a great explanation of why this is, but I haven't been able to find it for years. So is that the case? E Eng 17:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict Hi Charles, I agree that OTRS may be the way to go if the copyright owner is willing to license the work for use on Wikipedia. Take a look at Commons:Licensing for a description of how licensing on Wikipedia works. You can also continue the discussion on my Talk page, where you had posted the same request. Or here, as there are more watchers for the "Drmies Traveling Circus." Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EENG and thank you. Yes you've hit it on the head. My request for images and permissions stated my purpose in asking and they replied something like " Yes, here are the images you requested and yes you have our permission to use these images for your Wikipedia article". I think it may be smart for me to just go back to these two organizations and ask for cart blanche concerning the images. My problem is I'm not a copyright attorney so don't know exactly what I'd be asking them to give up from a legal perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Bowersoxx (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry for forgetting to signCharles Bowersoxx (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See commons:COM:CAL. You might point out that, while the license allows anyone to use these works, it also requires that every use acknowledge the source/copyright holder, so there's some "publicity value". I notice, however, on rereading the above, that one image is a certification logo. I would be very surprised if the owner of that logo were to license it in that way, since control of the logo is part of what gives the logo meaning e.g. "Only products which have passed our strict testing standards display the Foobar Certification Logo". It might qualify for Fair Use, however, but I'm not sure abd I recommend you defer that question until you've developed the article, with the other images. E Eng 19:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread archived without resolution

Hello, Drmies. I noticed that this ANI thread about some behavior problems at Obergefell v. Hodges was archived without any resolution, and I'd like to know if that was intentional. The conflict shows no signs of ending: Antinoos continues to sneak in changes to punctuation style (diff) that violate our clear consensus to follow the style guidelines (which, by the way, are not supposed to be mere suggestions that require a local decision on whether or not they're valid). Antinoos has characterized other editors' protests about this as "intimidation and harassment" and suggested that we "would do well to get over it."

I'm coming to you because you commented in the thread; I apologize if I should have brought this up elsewhere. Also, if I should just drop this and accept Antinoos' behavior, please say so: it's not clear to me what the social expectations are about such things, and I have no desire to be difficult. Thank you. (Also, killer edit notice.) Rebb ing 16:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, no apology necessary. Yes, I commented, after a brief look. Threads frequently get archived if they don't gain traction; it seems no one else was interested in it. As for that edit. On the talk page, I counted a 4-1 consensus against Antinoos' punctuation. The diff you pointed at (while the phrasing was better without "with"), yes, it reintroduced their punctuation in what could be considered a sneaky way. I see nothing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style or on the article talk page that would make this article an "occasional exception", and thus such edits are disruptive and, in the end, blockable if persistent. Now, I met my quota of blocks already today, and I'm not going to block over that one diff, nor pursuant to an ANI thread that had so few participants--sorry.
What you can do is unarchive the thread, or start a new one. I assume you're interested in more than punctuation; you could ask (on AN, for instance) for a topic ban from the article, though that's a real drastic measure--but it is likely to force the editor's hand, so to speak, to participate in the discussion. I'm sorry; this is the kind of behavioral issue that's a bit difficult to police with a simple administrative gesture and will fare better in a community discussion--if it gains traction, of course. I'll state, for the record, that these punctuation diffs (and the talk page discussion) provide some evidence of disruption; but the (minor) edit warring here, for instance, I can't see why Antinoos's edit had to be reverted (I didn't see talk page discussion on that). In other words, it may not be easy to prove you're dealing with a totally obviously clearly disruptive editor, if that's the intent. But then, I only know part of the story; I understand there was a GA review that went awry? Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your advice and insight. I wasn't asking you for a block, and I'm not even sure a block is warranted from ANI: Antinoos can be a productive editor and, as I understand, was instrumental at improving the article; I don't think he's being disruptive for disruption's sake. Also, I don't doubt that Antinoos was the only one guilty of some contentious editing. The GA review was before my involvement, but Antinoos opposed out of hand most of the reviewer's suggestions and edit warred during the duration, which looks to me more like a content dispute with ownership undertones than flagrant disruption, but it's part of a pattern of uncooperative editing that I'm hoping the now-revived ANI thread might resolve—if it gains traction. Rebb ing 17:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of ANI archiving, I and a few others routinely archive ANI when the page gets too large and the item is resolved. I recently archived a few, including Kill the Jews and other closed items. My action was then reverted with what I see as a slight NPA violation, maybe not, but regardless, is there something wrong with archiving? I guarantee you no admin is reading the AN/I, 1)It's not AN, and 2)If they cared, they would have commented or already read it while it was active. Here's the diff of the revert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=720567986&oldid=720566348 Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Guy Macon was correct in saying that one of the threads was only a few hours old, and I don't know if that thread was already closed or not. If a thread is "officially" closed, I don't see why it shouldn't be archived; the board is big enough. And yes, that edit summary, Guy, there was really no need for that, and "deciding what the administrators should and should not read" smells a lot like that old "censorship!" accusation. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This admin disagrees, and will block you if you continue trying to second-guess the bot and early-archiving threads from the noticeboards; they intentionally stay live for a certain time, so that those who are interested in the results can see them. Early archiving isn't helpful, it's actively disruptive; you are not the chief censor of Wikipedia. If you want to do this formally, I'm more than happy to stick a template with a nice Big Red Triangle on your talkpage if I see you disrupting AN/ANI again. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Way to not AGF. If me and quite a few other users didn't archive, the page would be extremely difficult to read, load and edit. There is no reason "some" sections need to be up for days. I don't remove sections willy-nilly and I certainly don't appreciate your tone. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Iridescent, we disagree again! I have frequently closed old threads and archived them in order to lighten the load of that huge page. I certainly wouldn't call that censorship, BTW--unless it's a clear instance of someone sweeping something under the rug. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, but I haven't "cleaned up" ANI in this way in a while, what I typically close and archive are threads that have become stale, or little reports that were answered immediately, like vandals getting called out and stuff. But yeah, I have archived such threads (again, usually older, staler threads) quickly after I closed them. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not in any way against early archiving of ANI threads. I just think that Sir Joseph has not shown that he is competent in the area of deciding what to archive and what to leave up for a while longer. See AN discussion listed below. Perhaps we should my the discussion there? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question posted 12:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[11],
Answered 12:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC),[12]
Closed 12:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC),[13]
Archived by Sir Joseph 17:40, 16 May 2016[14]

Total time from question asked to archiving: five hours and fifteen minutes. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Premature archiving of collapsed ANI discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a section called "kill the Jews" which had immediate admin action and a user ban, doesn't need to wait around for a bot. Sir Joseph, who recently came off a block and is topic banned. (Yes, I find that in poor taste that you continuously bring that up.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is where your inexperience shows itself. Yes, that was an objectionable section title, but our usual practice at ANI is to redact the title, not archive the discussion after five hours. Which is exactly what I did,[15] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I read the section you linked, and I see the point in some of your arguments, though in this case I really wouldn't have a problem with the archiving (what about you, Iridescent?). And also, I see a bit of a discrepancy between you saying that it's a good-faith effort and the mention of the block/topic ban, a topic ban which had little to do with this incident. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is my considered opinion that just about everything Sir Joseph does is in good faith and that he really does wish to improve the encyclopedia. That being said, meaning well only goes so far when your every interaction with other editors ends up with them telling you that you appear to not be reading what they write to you. Just read what Bishonen wrote[16] at User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 5#May 2016 ("You read some of my post, I guess — maybe every other word — did you read the ANI in question at all? — because you answered with stunning irrelevance") and Sir Josephs failure to show any indication that he read and understood why he was blocked.[17] This isn't me bringing up now-resolved issues. This is me pointing to an ongoing pattern of behavior,

Getting back to the archiving, If I post a question an AN, I don't want to check back six hours later to see if it was answered only to find that the question is gone. Did I screw up and not hit the save button? Did someone nuke it thinking I was a sock of a banned user? It would never occur to me that someone sent it to the archives when it was only five hours old. That's disruptive. Full disclosure: I am preparing an Arbcom case to deal with the ongoing disruption, but I really hope that this gets resolved without me having to do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that ArbCom is going to accept that case... Drmies (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I'm usually a cool-cat editing online, but I am really finding it hard not to think of all this as harassment, I would ask an admin to please do something about this, and especially about Guy constantly using my ban or block log as fodder. If he has something to discuss against me at the admin board, it might be best for him to speak to an admin first to see if it's a real thing or just him trying to get me banned as I expect his ultimate end game is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you won't believe this, but my "ultimate end game" is to get you to stop violating Wikipedia policies and to become a productive editor. It isn't just me. A large number of editors, some of them administrators, have told you what behavior is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Let me be clear: I do not believe that your present behavior warrants a ban or even a block, and if one is proposed without some significant new behavior I will strongly oppose it. I think that instead you should be told by an administrator what is and is not acceptable behavior. Part of that might involve what you are doing here: taking what should be a simple "I don't think Sir Joseph should be early-archiving ANI threads, here are my reasons" discussion and turning it into a battlefield. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't bring a simple "I don't think Sir Joseph should be early-archiving ANI threads, here are my reasons" thread. You brought a "I don't think Sir Joseph, who is topic banned and recently came off a block, should be early-archiving ANI threads because he knows better and wants to censor what admins read, here are my reasons" I'm not making this into a battleground at all. I just have no good faith in your claim. If policy is that archiving should be done by bots, then so be it, but your proof that I archived a Kill the Jews thread after only 5 hours and using that, is telling more about why you brought it and not about me. If you feel that there should be a policy regarding archiving, then go to VPP and ask, without mentioning me or my blocks or bans. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor shows that he understands why he was blocked and topic banned and makes a commitment to not do it again, it is reasonable to treat it as water under the bridge. You have done neither. You have repeatedly claimed that you were blocked for reasons other than what is clearly written in the block notice and the three declined unblock requests. The last time I checked you were still alternating between saying that the blocking admin gave out a bad block and calling for other editors to be blocked. Until we see an understanding of why you were blocked and a commitment to not do it again, your case is one of an ongoing and unresolved behavioral problem, and you have no reasonable expectation that your block and ban not be mentioned.

You can do this now. Explain in your own words why you were topic banned and why you were blocked. Then make a public commitment to not do that again. Start by reading -- really reading and trying to understand the words written in your block notice at User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 5#May 2016. Show us that you have achieved a basic understanding between the concepts of "please drop the stick" and "I recommend that this be closed as no action required because Sir Joseph seems to have dropped the stick". Show us that you now understand that you were not blocked for posting a request for citations on the Hillary Clinton page.[18] (Actually, you cut and pasted one of my requests[19][20]). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

...here; he isn't (and probably shouldn't). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea why this user is canvassing you over Jeni Couzyn and he won't respond to enquiries. Are you in fact expert in 20th century women's poetry?

He doesn't have to be. He fulfills three of the five exemplar reasons for notifying an editor over a relevant issue. BTW I note your trolling of my talk page on this matter and responded accordingly. While you're here, perhaps you would like to tell the community exactly who you really are? Many thanks. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna, this is a sock of Coat of Many Colours, a particularly disturbed piece of work. His edits are the Wikipedia equivalent of revenge rape. Drmies (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bye bye sock. Poof.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both.... can't remember what I was saying, but something like, does / would this have any implications for the J.Trimble AfD? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. If it was ongoing, yes. Practically speaking, no. I believe notability per GNG was marginal already (sorry Xanty--and I really appreciate your effort), and the contributions there were made in good faith, so I won't bring it up at DRV. If Xanty wants to do that they have my blessing. It's this kind of stuff (well, besides a whole bunch of other stuff) that makes dealing with longterm abusers and socks so tirritating. Mind you, they claim to have a legitimate case, that they're improving the project. They could--but they chose to harass, disrupt, and intimidate along the way. Sad. We could have written up a ton of good articles with them. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Fortuna? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, no, Fortuna is alright. Drmies (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant… (cough, cough) it's Fortuna's efforts that are appreciated. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm 'alright' and you're 'appreciated.' It's nice to be wanted, said Ned Kelly! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:UAA

For your efforts in clearing up the mess at the above page. I actually didn't notice that myself, as I, happily, don't have to deal with such messes, but I think this is the least we can do for those who do deal with such, um, stuff. Thanks. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. I think I might just have one, after thirty-something username blocks. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

30?!! OK, so, maybe, one might not be enough. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

37, to be precise, haha. Time to do something else. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you might be overdoing the beer a little here. In terms of "something else to do," I heard they hired Gigi to work in the admin lounge again. I don't know what happened to get her fired in the first place, of course, but it is nice to see her back (and other areas).
I mention this as a blatant attempt to maybe get someone familiar with UAA to maybe check the discussion at WP:AN#Topic ban requested regarding User Robertinventor, whose username is maybe problematic, as it is also according to him the name of his business. You might be in the best position to determine if anything needs to be done there. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Hadn't looked at that discussion in a while. Good luck finding an admin to close that--looks like a matter for TParis, who loves reading. Yes, that user name is really a violation of sorts, but I'm not going to block him for having taken the name of his own website. Sure, it's promotional, but very minorly so. Maybe Bishonen and JohnCD feel more strongly. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I don't think it matters if someone uses the name of his one-man business/website as an account name, as long as he's not here only to write about it. It's names implying shared use that are problematic. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- cf. the oft-cited "'Mark at Alcoa' exception": user names that are clearly associated with a business are okay, as long as they clearly identify that they belong to a single person only; that is, they're personal accounts, not role accounts. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost artists

Regarding your comments here, if you fancy taking on an actual attempt to use Wikipedia to monetize art sales, you can take a stab at Artist trading cards. The reference section looks impressive, but when one discounts the heavily-referenced "Historical context" section (which is just a random list of small flat things) one is left with a piece of pure puffery, sourced to such notable art history journals as The Gelderlander and Broken Pencil - The guide to alternative culture in Canada. At one point I tried to clean out the worst of the spam, but it's a losing battle as the SPA who WP:OWNs it is impressively indefatigable. ‑ Iridescent 21:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De Gelderlander used to be a reputable local daily, I think. Yeah, I've seen such articles before. You know, if you add up all my edits, what I added and what I removed, I will probably prove to be a net negative. I'll have a look. BTW, are you a collector of anything? I'm always interested in holy cards... Drmies (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ATCs. Less wasteful on materials, easier to pulp. I've got a collection of "spiritual healer" cards- they get put through my letterbox so I don't even have to go buy them. Professor Baabu is the man you can trust with his gifted power and knowledge, and "will solve your problems in a faster way than you may expect", but Sheikh Sajit is a "Spiritual Healer of International Fame- Let me destroy your problems before it destroys you!!!!! Speaks English and French". I think Sajit's the one to deal with C***- the sheikh probably knows some djinns with really bad attitude problems. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had "How does God want you to vote in the EU referendum?" through my door only this morning. (Needless to say, one has to attend whichever cult it was to find out the answer.)
I have no issue with De Gelderlander which I'm sure is a splendid newspaper, but on the history of contemporary artistic movements it has no more credibility than Archie and Jughead. Except in very limited circumstances, such as when used to illustrate the range of reviews something received or to illustrate that something received mainstream attention, or in pieces written by genuinely significant academics in the popular press, newspapers are pretty much worthless as a source on Wikipedia when it comes to arts and literature. If something has been covered in academic journals, museum books, exhibition catalogs or university presses these will pretty much by definition be higher-quality sources than newspapers, and if something hasn't been covered in academic journals, museum books, exhibition catalogs or university presses that's pretty much a 15m flashing "this is not notable" neon sign. (Unless it's documenting a current event where the books haven't had the chance to be written yet, "sourced only to newspapers and websites" is usually at least a 95% accurate guide to whether any article longer than a stub is serving any useful function.)
My life isn't really conducive to collecting, as it involves an awful lot of travelling and irregular hours. I used to be a fairly serious collector of obscure late-70s indie albums but the advent of the internet destroyed a lot of the fun of that. (The fun in record collecting wasn't so much the whole "build a complete set" thing, as crate-surfing in tiny stores and coming across things you never even knew existed. "Type the artist's name into Amazon and buy everything they ever recorded with a couple of clicks" just isn't the same.) ‑ Iridescent 15:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I dig where you're coming from. My friends want me to start streaming music; I only get the Amazon MP3s after I buy the actual CD. As for those sources--I pruned the article a bit, and I agree that such sources are not good sources for this topic. I looked at some of the more solid sources, but they're cited in a totally synthesized section. It's all promotion/inflation of some type or another. Feel free to cut further or, if need be, go to AfD. Your sourcing requirement would, of course, take rassling and Meghan Traynor out of our encyclopedia, which would be a yuge loss. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "when it comes to arts and literature", although it shouldn't actually lose us either sports or Meghan Traynor* — both sports and music have their own specialist magazines which will again be more reliable than newspapers except in the specific area of how something was received by the general public. Regarding the trading cards, some fights aren't worth fighting—a new SPA will pop up at some point to respammify it, and it probably wouldn't be deleted at AFD as the "keep, it exists" contingent would turn up en masse. Besides, I've moved on to new battles; the latest one is the stupidity at Talk:Jennie V. Cannon, in which one editor appears to have got the notion that this article about an obscure Californian artist who died in the 1950s is somehow spam and is trying every tactic in the playbook to try to get rid of it. (If this continues, I'm more than half tempted to sic the GGTF onto him, since the subtext of the deletion requests and tag-bombing has a strong whiff of "delete, women can't be important".) ‑ Iridescent 17:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*I actually have no idea who Meghan Traynor is, other than some kind of musician over whom at least four editors who should know better have found themselves blocked. AFAIK her appeal hasn't crossed the Atlantic.

Unblock request on hold

I have just been looking at an unblock request at User talk:Willibs. You asked teh editor about use of two accounts, and when there was no answer you said "I ... will block your account until you come up with a satisfactory answer for the socking question", and when there was no answer to that you blocked. While the editor has used two accounts, I can see no sign of abuse of them, and he or she has now come up with what seems to me to be a perfectly possible explanation. I am therefore inclined to unblock, but do you have anything to say about it?

(By the way, the editor has also asked "What does socking mean?" When I first started editing Wikipedia, I would have had no idea what "socking" meant. While shorthand like that is OK for communicating among experienced editors, when addressing new editors it's probably better to take the small amount of extra trouble to write something more explicit, such as "use of multiple accounts.") The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JamesBWatson, feel free to go ahead and unblock; the explanation seems fine, though as you know there are a few more strings attached to the multiple accounts thing. I had hoped that the blue link in the template would have been enough, but you have a point. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a blue link in "Our policy on multiple accounts...", and then in a completely separate post you refer to "the socking question". There's no obvious reason why a new editor should realise the two are connected, and since there are altogether 20 blue links in the page before your mention of "socking", it isn't realistic to just assume that the editor has read everything that is linked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) JamesBWatson, can you support this proposal as well? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished CfD

I notice that you put a CfD tag on Category:Pages created by UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ, but you didn't list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 18. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy changes

Lately there seem to be a lot of changes to core policies by very stubborn editors. The latest of these changes has permitted me to issue a warning about edit-warring at WP:EW. The last change to the policy by this editor was a backhanded way of reinserting the same article. Instead of citing the Forbes piece, they cited the underlying "paper" Forbes relied on. Not only disruptive but sneaky, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I have made no changes to core policies; the rest of your comment is contemptible. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so; there is a long list of editors who have a bone to pick with Bbb23--or, as some people say, "an apple to peel". At any rate you should not be edit warring anymore. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Page in question is WP:Edit Warring; a page to which I have made one revert; Why do you say I am edit warring? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a revert too, as far as I'm concerned--you're merely citing what was cited in the Forbes article. But I will gladly cite you for simply being disruptive, sticking stuff into policy pages that has no business whatsoever being in there. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are conflating reverts with revisions. WP:Revert states "The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article" Bosley John Bosley (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can think what you like, dear Bosley; the article was not improved. Just stay away from that page, and seek ironclad consensus on the talk page for your prospective edits. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fundo Mamacona

Seems like Fundo Mamacona has been recreated-might want to salt it. Wgolf (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC) The guy also made Hacienda Mamacona, not sure what to tag this-db-test? Wgolf (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's deleted now. Thanks Wgolf. And the editor is blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

welcome, I put it on the RPP btw. Wgolf (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) It looks like the user requested an unblock. 172.56.42.194 (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes needed

For some reason, George Ho is engaging in a very longterm edit war over a file he uploaded and wants used for the infobox of Brideshead Revisited (TV serial) See [21], [22], [23], [24]. Since he was unable to attain consensus on the article's talk page, he is now resuming the edit war, and also blatantly WP:FORUMSHOPPING: [25], [26]. Could people please keep an eye on this mess and revert the VHS image? George Ho has been warned on his talk page and asked to self-revert, but as yet he has not. *sigh*. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The talk was two years ago. I believe that consensus can change. I couldn't add it as replacement to DVD as long as she's in charge. Also, I was threatened to be reported for not doing what she wants me to do. One person who preferred the DVD is gone; the other person thinks I should have followed the "consensus", which is not as strong as FFD consensus would be, right? --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus hasn't changed, and you know that. That's the point. And WP:FfD is not for choosing between two images for an infobox -- that's what article talkpages are for, and the discussion was was concluded on that subject two years ago. If you want to enact a wider discussion, start an WP:RfC on the article talkpage. WP:FfD is "for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns" -- none of which apply here. And WP:RFPP is not to be abused to evade consensus and WP:BRD. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not limited to individual files. FFD can extend to media disputes. Never mind, you got what you want; the VHS image is removed. Are you happy now? I won't be able to add it for I'd be blocked by the likes of administrators here. If you can reinsert the VHS image for me, Softlavender or The Rambling Man, I'll try to be soft to either of you more. Fair? George Ho (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, discuss first. Plus I don't really need you to be "soft" on me, that will make difference to any outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, TRM; I invite you all to FFD right away just in case... unless you're gonna speedy close it? George Ho (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Error on pinging him. George Ho (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an Admin

And therefore one well versed in process, understandably one better versed than non-Admins, I would ask that in any future case, you advise me on proper process, rather than threaten me with sanction. Ignorance is not stupidity, and untaught does not imply unteachable. Cheers, and thanks, otherwise, for the service you provide to the encyclopedia. (I am guessing I pushed a button too oft pushed by others, or otherwise caught you on a bad day.) Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm having a great day, thanks. I'm in a town where they have distilleries, where they serve folks generously. 50.75.67.210 (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, I'm sorry, but I'm at a professional conference and am therefore obliged to point out your dangling modifier. I'm sorry--I blame the lilac-infused gin. 50.75.67.210 (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese language help and a great piece of vandalism

Do you guys know of anybody who reads Chinese. Cantonese would be better?

This is a great piece of vandalism. I haven't reverted it yet, because the vandalism is probably more appropriate. Bgwhite (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can remember, the script is the same for both. You should have got an expert opinion before you got that tattoo… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True dat. I'll always be known as "Dragon that picks nose". Drmies (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt fingers? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]