User talk:Drmies/Archive 105

Archive 100

←

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

→

Archive 110

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Ciaran olives

Please look at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Ciaran olives. 2602:306:3357:BA0:1856:CD51:E7BC:9F20 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• That was over before I knew it. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Mediterranean cuisine is good for your health, I am told, and also typing it repeatedly enables you to correctly spell the word Mediterranean. MPS1992 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The olive bar at Fred Meyer is great, though a little spendy, or should I even mention that given the hack-and-slash job to that article I recently witnessed? Ahem...I actually looked at the article associated with the SPI mentioned above and couldn't figure out why anyone would say it's worthy of an encyclopedia. As I look at WP:WPSCH/A right this moment, it says there's all of 10 FAs and 48 GAs out of 39,000+ articles, a pitifully low number. Maybe I don't see the blood and guts involved with school articles as much as others do, but it's obvious that their strange practices (to give one example, this apparent attitude that anything with "High School" in the title is inherently notable and anything else is inherently non-notable) and OWN attitude have only gotten in the way of article quality. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vanamonde (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A film festival page you may be interested to revisit...

I saw that you had a few choice words over Jaipur International Film Festival. I want to say more, but I think simply clicking on the article link will accomplish more than words ever could... DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, my! "HOW TO WORK THE MERCHANT." Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I second that emotion! "JIFF IS BRINGING" — uh, peanut butter, maybe? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm thanks. Thank you Yngvadottir for the revert. Content wiped (copyvio), COI editor blocked... Drmies (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Help for an editor of a very visited page

Hello. I have been improving the page for 2016 US presidential election (see here) but I've just made my one revert by day today. There are users which may do disruptive edits like challenging the main sources for the article or expressing that the alt-rights are not alt-rights or they don't have a main label. My questions is with who I should talk to have permission to make more than one revert per day or vote for the consensus in inclusion of content. Thanks for your help. Leo Bonilla (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• No one can give you an exemption from the one revert thing. Discussions are on the talk page, but I'm sure you found that already. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• BTW I'm not sure what the disruption was--please explain on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Oh, I'll explain it. "Rebranded White Nationalism" is not a thing, and if you see the talk page you'll see I'm not the only one concerned. The user who added the term was also warned for vandalism in the past. Also, the Leip Electoral Atlas is statistically basic for the article and the link was just deleted. I'll assume good faith and be confident on administrators to keep things in order. I hope I didn't bothered you. Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Leo Bonilla: AFAIC, until this whole thing is over and done with, all this activity is just a waste of time. That is, unless the objective here is for us to be yet another news site while we keep pretending that we're an encyclopedia (there is a difference). I have no issue with the second part of that edit, but I may have issue with the first, namely that anyone would think of Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections as a more reliable source than The Cook Political Report. I've been reading Cook for decades, whereas I only became aware of Leip as one of these websites that certain Wikipedians appear hellbent on pushing, sort of like AllMusic with music-related articles or certain sports-related websites favored by certain WikiProjects. The last time I brought this up, no one wanted to bite. It appears to me to be akin to The Political Graveyard, where everyone seems to have their own opinion of its reliability, but there's not exactly abundant evidence of consensus on the matter. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• @RadioKAOS: First, are you talking about the same Cook Political Report which failed to predict swing states in the last election? Second, I'm not against of using CPR but IN THIS CASE it should be used without alter the content of the article in question, which did happened. The WP:RS who cite the Leip Atlas as reliable are here, here, here and here: and if you look at Billboard magazine or Entertainment Weekly they're not going to cite Allmusic in the same way. Third, WP:NOTFORUM, you cannot deem which source is more reliable than other based in your opinion or personal experience, there should be consensus about reliability based in facts. Fourth, see MSN news or media outlets' Twitter accounts and you'll see the big number of news people may ignore, and for instance will not consider useful, so your theory that Wikipedia might be a covered news site is out of place, at least for me. And last, I'm not a talk page stalker and I don't want to have them around me, we both have talk pages to discuss these things without messing with other users, but as I said to Drmies before, I'm just done with this, both are now Administrators' issues. Leo Bonilla (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, I forgot the Jaguar thing is for humorous proposes. Leo Bonilla (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'd be wary of someone whose primary concern is who or what is labeled "alt-right". But who am I, anyway?--v/r - TP 05:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• @TParis: Ok, let me clarify it. I'm worried about trolling in those discussions on the 2016 Election talk page, as well as I was worried about that edit which probably wanted to change a main source to cover the deletion of the word alt-right. But nothing to worry about have happened, so I should let it go, I think. Leo Bonilla (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• TP, you are a precious and unique individual, that's what you are. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Samuel Dekker edit

Heh, I was making the exact same edit to the Samuel Dekker page that you made, at the same moment you were doing it. Cheers.

• Were you also flipping back and forth between Hell's Kitchen and ESPN? Drmies (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Manjima Grandhasala

I think the article has been improved!

Anas647 (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm OK--I removed the template. But it's thin--use the references to write more and more relevant content. The article is still likely to be questioned by other editors. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks bro., but not i am a promoter to the org. Only a wikirescuer.Anas647 (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

LOL

LOL what was that XD I had simply copy pasted the exact text from ""NYT"". Anyway, doesn;t matter. Can you have a look at my user page and delete it. Have been trying since 3 hours Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly: it was a copyvio. Does matter. Your slow edit warring is obvious. No, your talk page will not be deleted--it's not yours in the way an article or subpage is. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It was inside double apostrophe "--". Anyway, what do I have to do to completely remove any trace of connection between my gmail account and me and wikipedia? Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Now that is an interesting question. Let's see who's around. Beeblebrox? Writ Keeper? BTW you can blank your talk page, of course; deletion happens only in extreme circumstances. You could look at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing to see if that applies. BTW, the prestigious critics from 2014, that wasn't. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I also want, if possible, my login credentials to be removed from wiki database- such that I am automatically logged out and my login credentials destroyed. Thanks again Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's above my pay grade. It just occurred to me you could do suicide by admin. Say a terrible thing about a living person, say Miles Davis or John Milton, and I can block you indefinitely. But maybe it's best to wait for some smarter person than me to show up; plus, occasionally I have very clever visitors here. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I can do that. But that will still keep me logged in? I don;t want that. I want my username/id and even if possible my IP address to unable to access wiki. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way really appreciate your help on this. It's probably the first time I have help herePppooojjjaaa (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pppooojjjaaa: Hmm, well, if all you want to do is remove your email address from your Wikipedia account, so that you can't receive or send emails from Wikipedia, that's easy enough to do. Just go to the Special:ChangeEmail page (Wikipedia might ask you to log in again, just to be sure of your identity). That should take you to a page that shows your currently-associated email address, and prompts you for a new email address--just leave the new address box blank and hit the "Change Email" button. That will remove the email address from your account.

As for the login thing, that should be pretty straightforward, at least where your user account is concerned: just go to Special:UserLogout, and you'll be logged out; from then on, you'll be signed out of your account. Just don't sign back in, and you're good to go. Nothing we can do about IP address, though. (By the way, Drmies was kidding when he was talking about suicide by admin. Please don't do that.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• I was? Yes I was. Of course. BTW, today is John Milton's birthday: Happy Paradise Lost everyone. Thanks for the advice WK. Pppooojjjaaa, see you later or, if you're successful, not. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I changed my email id. If i delete that email id, will it delete my wiki username? Also, my edits for example on protected pages like Akshay Kumar and Alia Bhatt's nationality are permanent? I do not only want to log out, but remove my username from Wiki's system Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It will not delete your account; Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted. The best you can do is have it renamed, per the advice on courtesy vanishing (instructions on requesting this can be found on that page), but even that will not remove the edits you've already made: it will just attribute the edits to the new username. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

What crap :( Anyway, how do I care. I will log out and do some work. I will download a chrome extension to block wiki. ;) It works well. Thanks bbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppooojjjaaa (talk • contribs) 05:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of warning

Hi, why did you remove the warning? Asilah1981 has stood out not only for his personal attacks, but for his breach of basic cooperative guidelines like edit summary. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Because dropping a warning template about a relatively minor point right below a blocking template seems a bit cold to me. Don't template the regulars, really--unless it's with a block template, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if irregular editing is not reminded to an editor, he will just keep on, and no record remains of the community noticing it (!) Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for protecting Kumhar from persistent vandalism

Hi Drmies, hope you are doing great. Honestly speaking, I try to avoid disturbing admins with requests, and possibly I am knocking you after a long time. I would request you to check the article on Kumhar, and protect the same. This has been a subject of persistent vandalism for quite some time now, which is evident from its Revision history. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Applied a combination of 1 week semi to chase off the disruptive editors, and 1 year of PC protection to make sure they stay away. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Great.. Thanks, Vanamonde. Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Vanamonde93! Drmies (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• You are most welcome, Dr. As an aside, acting on advice from SpacemanSpiff, I've modified the protection to a year of semi. Vanamonde (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• What Spiffy says I usually do immediately. I hate pending changes anyway. I wish I was on ArbCom and could just do away with it, without community discussion or democratic nonsense like that. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting, because I'm actually somewhat a fan: I've used it often where disruption is infrequent. I'd be curious to hear your views, if you have the time/inclination to explain them. No rush. Vanamonde (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

In a nutshell, those changes have to be looked at and judged, and in the meantime they're in article space. That's a real small nutshell... Drmies (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:GS/Caste was formulated based on the kind of disruption in these articles. It doesn't make sense to waste good editor time in just cleaning up messes. Of course when this still doesn't work, we also have the ARBIPA 500/30 that can be used, though those of us that admin in that area have been very conservative with applying that. —SpacemanSpiff 05:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Every time we invent something new, we have to rewrite the manual, enlarge the various drop-down menus and other options, etc. By now I can see the advantage of 500/30, but I'm still not a big fan, and PC--yeah, not for me. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Posting this here since I don't want to undermine your block but am legitimately curious

Technically, if I say to someone that their comment looks like it was written by an eight-year-old, isn't that an attack on the comment itself and not the person making it, hence a violation of CIVIL rather than NPA? It would be a personal attack if the user actually was eight years old and they were being attacked for that.

That said, if you know WCM is not a racist/imperialist, then I guess their other comments were out-of-line and meriting of at least a short block. Personally I'm inclined to take accusations of racism very seriously these days, given some of the shit that's shown up on ANI over the past few months, which is why I was saying AGF on the accusations themselves until some evidence is presented that they are unmerited.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusations without evidence are not OK. The burden of proof is on the accuser. MPS1992 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think that's not the same thing as saying "your comment was racist". One can make a racist comment without being a racist (out of ignorance, for instance), but this is not the same thing. That comment, if made to an 8-yr old, would be an accurate observation. To anyone else it's an insult. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The whole "it was an attack on the comment, not the person" excuse has just been a lame way to get around being a dick. If you want to be a dick and call someone an 8 yr old, have the courage to own it.--v/r - TP 02:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please protect Lars Kruse?

Lars Kruse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Another IP adding "Derp" to the article. Probably same person. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• What a loser. Already handled by Materialscientist--thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Jim1138 (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Martin Trackers

Martin Trackers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be a dead ringer for the last one My name is Justin Anthony Knapp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Much appreciated! Jim1138 (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked by Widr. Jim1138 (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

ME???? Soft and cuddly??!!??

RROOOOOAAAAARRRRRR! --Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• That is one ugly cat. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Now you're getting really personal!! --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart

If you reject Breitbart as a news source, tens of millions everyday would disagree with you and see you as politically partisan. I find your edit unfair and your threat aggressive.

She caused further controversy in April 2014 by claiming on NBC's Meet The Press that the Arkansas accent lacks sophistication and therefore was inappropriate for an Americans For Prosperity advertisement about Obamacare

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2014/04/06/washington-posts-kathleen-parker-attacks-people-with-southern-accents-as-not-smart-or-sophisticated/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpafitzpatrick (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rpafitzpatrick: Community consensus on reliable sourcing is that Breitbart is too partisan to be considered a reliable source by itself (if at all). Biographies of living persons require the highest quality sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ian here. There are a lot of other sources that "millions of people" would disagree with us about regarding matters of policies and guidelines, but that is one of the reasons we have policies and guidelines. We aim at using the best, most reliable sources, not necessarily the most popular. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• If it matters, I also agree that Breitbart shouldn't be used as a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of the alt-right.--v/r - TP 02:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks TParis. I'm used to disagreeing with you, but here, yeah. User:Rpafitzpatrick, it doesn't take a liberal to see that Breitbart is over the top and unreliable. And besides, but I suspect this is not interesting to you, we need to be very careful with "controversy" stuff in the first place, and personally I need a lot more than one comment, one source to get something into a BLP. As for Breitbart, but maybe you're also not interested in this, I don't look at it very much since they got too much video and too many ads; one is reminded of those sites where you get the Twenty Funniest Tweets by Fathers, with a huge picture and a short sometimes funny caption. Not news.

  In this particular case, it's actually not a caption, it's a completely misleading observation: it's false, deceptive, and damning. She is obviously, obviously, directing her criticism at the makers of the ad who, in her opinion, seem to have taken a guy with a Southern accent to play on a stereotype about Southerners. She is criticizing that stereotype, and if you can't see that then you can't see much. (So your version of that in our article is also completely wrong.) Finally, it may be that "millions" may disagree with me; I can live with that. I also think that AC/DC without Bon Scott is just totally mediocre, and millions disagree. I can live with that too. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Not gonna link the Dilbert strip again...

...but how about a Hanks/Ryan movie from a time before the internet was as mainstream as it is now? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm waiting on Mrs. Drmies to have a night off from grading so we can watch the latest Jason Bourne. And I can't watch a Hanks/Ryan movie twice cause I just cry and cry. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Respect

Well while you're no longer on my list of wonderful wikipedians, you still have my respect (but no, I don't luv ya like a brother). I still voted for you when you stood for arbcom. WCM_email 12:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well thanks for getting me in that mess, WCM! Mind you, I was speaking somewhat hyperbolically (really, hypobolically). Thanks for the note, and take care of yourself. Is the matter finished? Drmies (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• I see that the topic ban discussion is ongoing. I'll let my colleagues know about the DS matter. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Update: no news yet. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's complicated, there is more to this but it's difficult to explain. WCM_email 08:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Thank you. I wanted that the insults stop and thats is the case. The solution is OK for me. Best regards. --Ms10vc (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sure thing. One more thing: what Floquenbeam says is gospel truth here: we live and die by Floq's words. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I want to that Wikihounding would be stopped. Ms10vc purshase me in Commons and en wiki and came here just to continue te fightenning against me. For the word "trolling", it was not against this acts here but about his acts in Commons, who is clearly a trolling because he used a very loaded argument but the action didn't occure here so you couldn't take a decision. Enough is enough. Could you tell Ms10vc to stop his actions against me ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Update : A deal was reached in Commons and now there are no problem. And I recognize that I have commited errors like Ms10vc. Best regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I'm not fast enough, I wrote a comment about Pannam2014 probably meaning to write the English equivalent to "perseguir" (i.e. chase, follow, harass, in this case on Commons), and not "purchase" as they wrote (= which means comprar in Spanish), but when I was about to post it, Pannam2014 had already posted their update. But I guess being too slow and too late is the 2016 version of me in a nutshell... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• You and me both, Thomas. And can I just point out that it's been 3 1/2 years since Wikipedia:ANI 2.0 was deleted? And lo and behold, what do we have here? Pannam, one more time: this is the English wiki. You exported a problem from another wiki onto this one, by way of Jean-Jacques Georges' talk page. That's not OK, and it's certainly not OK to do so by way of insults. Whether you call someone a troll over something on Commons or something here is of no concern to me; what matters is that you made a personal attack here. Please don't do that again. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's okay, but the action of Ms10vc which consists of coming back here just to hunt me down is to be deplored. How could a contributor who was absent for a year find a message where he was not even notified and knowing that the message in question dates from November? This shows that his general attitude is to harass me. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pannam2014: Look, I don't know how to be clearer: do not ever mention Ms10vc on en.wiki again, on any page, or I will block you indefinitely with no further warning. If you understand, signify it by not mentioning Ms10vc anymore --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: It is clear, I understand, I will not quote him anywhere but why threaten me? I was just saying that it is impossible to believe that the "administrator noticeboard" posted yesterday is the result of an innocent action. But suddenly, if I am harassed again, what do I have? I go back to my work and do something else. I wish you a good day. Greeting. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Pamman2014, Floquenbeam, whose word is gospel truth (it bears repeating), used the words they did--I assume--because it seems you didn't hear us the first three four times--twice here and twice in the ANI thread. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

As an uninvolved admin, could you have a look at this? I'm already close to 3RR territory, although I think that's justified because of BLP concerns. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• I see another editor came by. That is one puffy article, Randykitty. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed it is. I already had applied my machete, but you're right that more could go. Thanks for having a look. Perhaps it'll need protecting at some point, as that "controversies" section keeps getting added (looks like somebody didn't get the award they coveted and now is disgruntled...) I don't really feel "involved", but having edited there, I rather err on the side of caution. --Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• That was certainly a strangely and provocatively worded lede. MPS1992 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, just another example of an article being written (likely) by an involved editor who is not aware of Wikipedia's guidelines. It happens, esp. with organizations. BTW, it can be hard to write up notable organizations, like trade associations for instance, since they frequently don't get a lot of coverage in mainstream sources. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mousanonyy

I'm involved because I edit India (not just related topics) and have engaged with the sock on the article. If the socking disruption was just at Alia Bhatt then I'd have gone ahead with the blocks, but the major portion of the socking was at India where I've spoken against the sock edits. From the teahouse post that I'd linked to I assumed there were more, definitely evidence of IPs doing the same, guess no other accounts that's all. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ah OK. Didn't know you had engaged. Nice to see you around, by the way. One day we need to get together and cook. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Student Initiative Rahel

Hello Drmies! Why you have placed the Template:Primary sources in the article. I'm not a member of the project I didn't use use sources from the project but also other sources like from the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper.--Urmelbeauftragter 16:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Urmelbeauftragter--the template says "This article relies too much on references to primary sources"--too much, not exclusively. But I see only one single secondary source in there. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Hello Drmies. There are more:
  :
• "Bekämpfung von Fluchtursachen (=Fight against becoming a refugee)" (in German). Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (=Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development). Retrieved 12 December 2016.
• Jonas Göcke (28 August 2016). "Stadtkirchenfest Frankfurt - Mit dem Schiff zum Gottesdienst (=City Church Festival - With a ship to the church service)" (in German). FR-Online. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
• Editorial department of Frankfurter Neue Presse (15 June 2013). "Hochschule St. Georgen öffnet zum Sommerfest die Türen (=St. Georgen University opens the doors to the summer festival)" (in German). Frankfurter Neue Presse. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
• Doris Wiese-Gutheil. "Netzwerk Frankfurter Eine-Welt-Gruppen (=Network of Frankfurt One world groups)" (in German). Kath.

Stadtkirche Frankfurt of the Diocese of Limburg. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

• Internationale Christliche Rundfunkgemeinschaft (ICR) e.V. (7 December 2014). "Radio Horeb Tagesprogramm (=Radio Horeb Program of the day)" (in German). Radio Horeb. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
• Judith Breunig. "Rahel – Ein Bildungsprojekt für Adigrat (=Rahel - An educational project for Adigrat), on website of the Initiative Teilen im Cusanuswerk e.V." (in German). Cusanuswerk. Retrieved 12 December 2016.--Urmelbeauftragter 17:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

{{re|Urmelbeauftragter]] how many of these are independent of the Catholic Church? I see Radio Horeb, the Cusanuswerk, a Diocese, a network of One World groups. None of those are independent. ""Hochschule St. Georgen öffnet zum Sommerfest die Türen" is simply promotional, inviting people to an event, and even though you say "editorial department" it says "The Philosophical Theological College Sankt Georgen, Offenbacher Landstraße 224, invites you to the Sommmerfest" and is written in a promotional tone. I'm guessing the Stadtkirchenfest piece is the same. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Urmelbeauftragter: pinging correctly this time. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you really mean local newspapers in Frankfurt have only promotional articles? Are you really sure? If the haeadline would be "President Obama invites to a economic conference" it would be promotional, too?--Urmelbeauftragter 21:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• The Neue Press article is from a secondary source. The rest are from organizations (from what I can tell) which are not news organizations, let alone books etc. BTW, the citations are quite lengthy. I encourage you to condense them a bit. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The Frankfurter Rundschau (Online version = FR-online) is a social-democratic newspaper. What is the diffrence to a news organisation?--Urmelbeauftragter 22:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, whatever--you are totally missing the point, which is obviously about ALL THE OTHER sources. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank Cthulhu that's over! prmcd16 👽 (u)•(t) 02:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Au contraire. If people like that don't understand the enormity of their error, this nightmare will only get worse. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • My experience has been that that kind of editor is incapable of such an understanding either through bigotry or ideology or both, and that trying to confront them with the awful reality of history is a waste of time. But you get credit for trying. On that note, is a visit to the Anne Frank house a standard Dutch student field trip, and does it make an impression on, say, 12-year-olds? I took the tour 35 years ago when I was 22 and studying for a year in Europe - it was profoundly sobering, and I was glad I did it. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Nope--I've never been, though I lived across the street for a while. Tell you the truth, I never even read her book--I don't know why. I don't think we had booklists, or mandatory readings. Mrs. Drmies went there a couple of years ago and was impressed. Anyway, the editor upped the game to complete Holocaust denial so I removed TPA, after a ping by a colleague. Today, I saw a whole bunch of comments in that vein in, of all places, the comments on an Amnesty International post on Facebook, where commenters denied everything that came out of the mainstream media, and instead cited all kinds of weird cites--and RT. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Ignoring the MSM is what all the cool kids are doing nowadays. Contrafactual history is all the rage, which makes for puzzled or outraged "skeptics" or "investigators" appearing here to muddle things even more. Bah. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
        • I wonder if Wiktionary has an entry for "self-investigation", which is--I believe--a fetishistic, masturbatory exercise fueled by conspiracy theories. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
          • It's a way to feel intelligent and knowledgeable and special without putting in the grunt work to achieve - for example - a PhD in a specific area of expertise in which one has made a distinct contribution to knowledge through rigorous study and documentation. It's way easier to just make shit up. Acroterion (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm.

Allen Frantzen. Allen J. Frantzen. <looks around for a volunteer>. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Grab your balls! Drmies (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • My ben-was, you mean? <smiles innocently>. No but really, this is covering up the references I'd need. Where's a queer studies person to cut through the fog? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • There's no fog. There's just bafflement. Frantzen was our god for a while (Beowulf and Angels in America and the closet...), and then he got all MRM, gay and all. Very strange. The ripples have died down a bit but still. Fun fact: I occupied Eileen Joy's desk chair for a little while. Anyway, he's as notable as a scholar can be, and the recent...eh...stuff shouldn't outweigh his scholarly accomplishments, though I'm still not sure how his critique of Boswell should be valued. BTW this is how it goes--write him up and you'll find that our material on penitentials may need updating, and the next thing you need to do is write up Rob Meens. Oh, I already did. How about Marco Mostert? Drmies (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I may or may not know a bit about Bēowulf, and I see a shit-ton of usable JSTOR reviews, but the birthdate Google gives must be drawn from his now-vanished Loyola faculty page (I can find only the Literacy Center one) or something else I'm not seeing. And I obviously can't write about penitentials, and am also not exactly a lit theory person. And I was supposed to spend today translating. Ah well. Maybe someone else will write him up while I sleep :-) I assume you've seen his self-published book this year. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Barf. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
          • I guess you hadn't. Article now exists, off to bed soon. Please, please feel free to correct the characterizations of what he says, and add any books I left out. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
            • I think you did an excellent job. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Block Evasion?

[1] From what Asilah1981 has repeatedly stated he believes the "UN position" to be, I would say that its a pretty definite case of block evasion. What do you think? WCM_email 08:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Salad talk

Hello Boss,

I saw that you were wandering around in my sandbox for some reason, so I just wanted to let you know that I have expanded the previously mediocre Salade niçoise by about eight times. My swelled head tells me that this article is now by far the best online resource about this topic and is also much better than the French Wikipedia version. But I could be wrong. What do you think? Sorry, it contains neither cheese nor bacon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• …or "rock-hard salad tomatoes" the key ingredient of Salaud anglais. ? whether more could be added to Cailletier (niçoise olives) as the article is focused more on the oil than the cured olive. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: if it is 8x expanded, could you consider nominating it at Wikipedia:Did you know? I believe the Main Page is greatly in need of articles on dishes that are not haram. MPS1992 (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well, that's a mighty fine article. Good work Cullen. Way superior to the French one, whose image--pshaw!--has some boiled, sliced potato on the plate. BTW I'll take mine with seared tuna. And in a pinch, leave out the salad and just give me the tuna. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Apartheid Museum

Hey Drmies and friends,

Apartheid Museum needs attention from an administrator, since some heavy axe-grinding is going on there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw this at the Teahouse as well, posted a message at the Teahouse and again at Talk:Apartheid Museum#CORRECTIONS - LEGAL AND VERIFIABLE. I also asked about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Apartheid Museum. The edits were made by a new editor who probably doesn't understand what Wikipedia is about. I think there probably should be a revert back to the last stable version before the editing began, but wasn't sure if that would be appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Drmies: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Mona778 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Christmas is near, enjoy to the fullest my dear! Best wishes for this holiday season. Mona778 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you Mona--and happy holidays to you too. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Procedural issue regarding potential academic COI

I am throwing this out there for you and your TPS-arazzi; I've observed a situation that is new for me and I'm not 100 percent sure how to handle it. I am suspicious that an academic user is engaging in WP:REFSPAM by adding very detailed "Further reading" and "external links" blurbs to academic articles and book chapters that all seem to have been written by the same author. I reverted one of these instances and left the user a note asking him to discuss on the talk page why there should be an exception to the usual "Further reading" model of a link to a particular resource, rather than a couple of sentences regarding the noble academic intentions of the author of the linked book chapter. Before I finished my note, the user reverted my reversion and has gone on to expand the "Further reading" blurb even more.

I am very concerned about treading appropriately to avoid WP:OUTING but the obvious question has got to be, "Dude, what is your relationship with this academic author?" What is my appropriate course of action here? I guess it'll be a moot point if he responds to my note on his talk page, but if he doesn't, what then? At what point do inquiries regarding a potential COI cross the bounds into Wikihounding and threatened outing? I appreciate any advice; I'm not one to flail blindly into the void before asking for suggestions. Bedankt! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't perceive any risk of outing. Any editor who appears to be systematically adding reference to the work of a single author across a variety of articles would be in the same boat. I assume you are referring to Special:Contributions/Vertigo737. So far three articles seems to be affected (at least in 2016). He could be warned for edit warring if he persists in restoring his material whenever others remove it. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Spam is spam, and obvious spam is obvious spam. Who adds it and where it originated is immaterial, unless the spam starts to infiltrate the actual text of the articles, in which case a COI warning notice does need to be given. (I've just now removed the spam from Something Evil.) Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• And we have a sockpuppet ... how charming: Lostboyaus. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• That's a tough one. I'm usually inclined to let the edit stand if the edit is valid and the source reliable, even if it looks very much like a COI edit. Some of the edits are just not OK--this is not doing what "Further Reading" should do--it's actually giving detail/judgment about the movie and should go into the main text. I don't like Further Reading sections anyway, since they invite such PR. You don't have to worry about outing, because you don't have to name names in any accusation. Ed is right about the edit warring, of course--and the socking seems to clear as well. But there's a year in between the edits, and I'm guessing it's a lost password or something. By the same token, it would be a good idea for Vertigo737 to start talking here. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's clear COI spam, from both accounts; the non-notable author of the works the user is spamming lives in "Aus", just like Lostboyaus. The user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but only to spam links and mentions of Adrian Schober. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

But spam is an intent; spammy content need not be irredeemable. Wasn't one of those books published by Palgrave? Drmies (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely zero patience for spam (especially spammers who add spam all around the site), as it's obviously completely non-objective and willfully chosen without perspective, good faith, or common sense. The author is utterly non-notable (I Googled him). I have once seen a spammer write some good content (a biographical article they created on a Greek person they had some knowledge of), but outside of that I have never seen someone spamming the works of a non-notable author and wannabe film expert do any good to the encyclopedia (unless they refrain entirely from that author's works). Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• DGG, Randykitty, what do you think about all this? I'm looking at this right now. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Lexington Books seems to be a legitimate academic publisher. I have no opinion at this point on the notability of its author, but, of course, the book can be a reliable source, even if the author is not notable. As for adding the links, I think this should be judged on a case by case basis. That something was added by a (possible) COI editor does not make it automatically inadmissible. If the link is helpful, it should stay. (BTW, I agree with your opinion of "further reading", Drmies). --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Heaven of Sin article

Hello, I don't mean to be rude, I respect your work in keeping a high quality of this site. However, I don't understand why my article about Keep of Kalessin's EP Heaven of Sin was removed on the basis of providing no sources of notability (which I can understand, even though my personal opinion is that any work, even self-published, by a notable artist is inherently notable), but the article Introspection (EP) was allowed to stay despite not citing any sources. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slampisko (talk • contribs) 07:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Slampisko, it is entirely possible that many, many other articles also don't meet these requirements, but that's the way it is. My go-to example is Buckethead discography, and I just nominated one--Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Elephant Man's Alarm Clock. I have not looked at the Introspection article, but if it's similar it should meet a similar fate. I'm not gonna go and mess with it, that would be a bit low, but please do look at WP:NALBUM--we need secondary sources (think reviews from real magazines etc.--not Discogs listing of stuff like that). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Hey, if you're interested in sticking around and you have metallic questions, we can see if good old Blackmetalbaz is still here... Drmies (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm still vaguely here... what's up? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, new hardrocker, writes up EP that in my opinion is not notable, seems like an OK editor. Good to see you Baz; I did see that you were sort of vaguely around still. Making Christmas cookies today? Is it true that Saxon is reuniting for a Christmas album? We got a 747 pulled by reindeer coming down in the night? Drmies (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think that wish will be torn up and blown about by the winds, but I appreciate the thought and wish you the same. Thank you Ealdgyth; you are one of our finest editors and I thank you for sticking it out so long. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hiya

Hope you don't mind that I'll ignore his attempt to create drama for now. Merry Christmas in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Same to you, potato fan. Don't overeat. What was that potato article again? Drmies (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

We potatoes are potato-shaped anyway, no-one notices if we overeat! Shetland Black (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Right. I enjoy quixotic topics. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas, Drmies! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge can be disruptive

Some popular tripe.
Note: not powered by fusion

You don't appear to be sorry, you appear to be just censoring information because you don't like it; there are highly reliable sources in the content I added with provable physics experiments that match both theory and what is being observed. Do you have definitive proof of a fusion powered sun? From the original article, clearly the people that believe in the popular theories are completely at a loss for an explanation. Please direct me to reliable sources on the Red Square Nebula and how it formed... the article says that the Nebula shouldn't exist: "How did all this beautiful, crisp structure form?" asks Peter Tuthill of the University of Sydney in Australia. "This is the million dollar question." Why is a quote from Peter Tuthill acceptable, when it says nothing and adds nothing to the article? Plasma theory explains the Red Square Nebula rather simply and provably. I am truly sorry, but please explain your position, or I will have to block you for continuing to edit an article with information that is unreliable and misleading; we are trying to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, not popular tripe or conjecture, but provable theories that match physical experiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhowardroark (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) You are blocked, and not a moderator. Drmies is a moderator. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually he is merely a sysop, although he could perhaps be this sort of moderator? MPS1992 (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually actually he is a fusion powered ostrich. I have definitive proof, and if you do not believe me then I will have to block you and Jimbo. But yeah, I know, moderator is a bad way to describe it, he is basically a janitor. Sysops have root. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Moderator" suggests I'm moderating. Sometimes I do that, but I don't claim to be good at it. "Sysops" is awesome--I have no idea what it means (and please don't explain) but it sounds very powerful and robotic. Intergalactic planetary, even. Hhowardroark, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for you. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, wikipedia is clearly not he place for me as I am seeking and sharing real provable science that makes sense, not indoctrinated regurgitated nonsense. I have made other options; have fun maintaining your non-sense on the Red Square Nebula; I had already heard through numerous different sources of the censoring and flaws in Wikipedia, long before I tried to post something factual, and it is even more clear to me now, how untrustworthy Wikipedia is.. congratulations, on make an encyclopedia that prevents people from learning new thing! Wikipedia will become extinct very soon, if it continues on this course. Hhowardroark (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well. I have also heard from numerous sources that a million illegals voted in California--in a pizzeria, of all places. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Eutaw riot

Hello Drmies,

Eutaw riot mentions Grant's win in the 1869 presidential election. There was no presidential election that year. Grant won in 1868 and 1872. I suspect from the context that you meant 1868 but will let you make the correction since I do not have access to the source you cited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Gotcha--thanks Cullen. Strange that I made it and didn't subsequently catch it--and neither did the other (careful) editors. Strange, huh--but thanks for setting it straight. (Pity you can't read the source: it's an interesting book. When I'm done with Their Eyes Were Watching God, I'm starting on Bryan Stevenson's Just Mercy.) Drmies (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of Stevenson, I heard a story about The Memorial to Peace and Justice on NPR yesterday. Fascinating and worthwhile, though also unsettling in a good way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

aaaaand, I just looked at the edit history and was not surprised at who started that article. Warm holiday greetings to you and your delightful family. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know, we got some making up to do down here. And I did not start Azalea Trail Maids, haha, who caused quite an uproar (again) cause they welcomed our president-elect in Mobile last week--I'm shocked, shocked! to see no liberal has yet added that controversy to the article. Did you read about the tree they cut down to use as a prop for the Mobile show? I haven't met Stevenson yet, BTW, but I'd love to shake his hand. Some members of my supposably lovely family helped fill some of those urns in the monument with dirt from the places where people were lynched, and yesterday's paper reported that some business brothers had donated $10 million to the memorial. Hey Cullen, old friend, my best to you&wife&child&diminutive dog--keep warm in those cold days, and may all your countertops remain straight and true. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Marion Coutts.
Message added 02:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

PM

I, uh, think he's back at it again, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parsley Man/Archive. He's admitted to "70.95.186.49" being a sockpuppet of his. Uncannily similar interests as well [2]. I do have a question, as I did interact with PM regularly, what was the smoking gun connection that you saw at User talk:A1b2C3d4. Blanking the page is all I see as happening, how does that draw the link to PM? or did you refer to IP information - CU's can see that as I recall - ? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly I don't remember, but CU confirmed it. Maybe it was something that I saw EvergreenFir do. Much of what I do these days is prompted by what I see go by on Recent changes. Now, a problem is that some of their edits ([3]) are just solid. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• And seriously, I can't figure out what the hell they thought they were doing, and why on earth they thought that socking would do anything useful for them. I suppose you think I should block the IP? *le sigh* Drmies (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you should do whatever you think is appropriate. Dont have to do anything, theyre not being disruptive. Socking yeah probably. Thats cause enough on its own. I can keep my eyes on the IP and see what they do. Personally id block, and I see you did. If they come back after ill keep my eye on them. Thanks though, Mr rnddude (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I left them a note but I doubt it'll do much good. Thanks for the note, BTW. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Real shame. PM's edits were majority constructive and enforcing policy/guidelines. Sad they decided to sock and continue to pick edit wars. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

86.180.7.217

• 86.180.7.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Could you take a look at this IP's edits again? They have continued to be disruptive after the block that you previously performed. Thanks. 73.96.113.46 (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like Oshwah already took care of it... 2601:1C0:101:235F:3E77:E6FF:FE9F:46BF (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

And the holidays are upon us!!!

Atsme📞📧 03:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

stalking

Since you've warned this user recently, I'm gonna bring it up here. Apparantly four days ago they decided to become a WP:SPA dedicated to following my edits around and reverting them on sight. They're last 26 edits (out of 27) involve exactly that. They've been making these reverts with edit summaries which repeat my past edit summaries word for word, for example here [4] (compare [5] - I'm assuming that's the edit that prompted them to launch their little stalking/harassment campaign). Trying to discuss issues with this user does not work. They seem to have become "I'm just gonna go around and undo what VM does single purpose account". He's basically going around just making revenge reverts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup

See also WP:UGLY Mdrnpndr (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't have time for puzzles today. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Quviahugvik

Hello Drmies: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer Solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}

• Thank you CambridgeBayWeather: this is much appreciated. Keep warm, or cold, whichever one you prefer, and all the best in the new year. As a conservative traditionalist and an obedient and happily married person, I celebrate Christmas. Cheers! Drmies (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Good Yule!

Good Yule!

Looking to the sunrise. Wishing you twelve nights and days of warmth, happiness and conviviality this Midwinter, and success in the new year. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You get this a little early, Doc, not just because I value your friendship but also because I wonder whether you have anything to add to Midwinter horn. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oh I'm sorry I missed this lovely card--thank you so much! As you may know, the academic period is over, and that severely cuts into my wiki time, haha--but I will follow on your suggestion. Still, has there ever been a time when I could do more than you in a given article? I don't think so. All the best, Yngvadottir, and I hope you had a thrilling solstice. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Drmies!!
	Hi Drmies, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I made a "friend" today

Also pinging @Black Kite:, who protected the article. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#SPLC and User_talk:The_Quixotic_Potato#Strange_comment_at_SPLC_talk_page. A raid channel is an IRC channel used to coordinate troll raids. Unfortunately there is not much we can do as far as I am aware. Meatpuppets (with or without socks) coordinating their actions offwiki is not something we are equipped to deal with, especially not if they are CPUSHing SPA's. I am not a CU, and asking a CU to take a look would probably considered fishing. I thought someone should know this, even though I don't expect you to take action. See also Black Kite's talkpage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Ho Ho Ho! You've been visited by the Christmas Trout. Don't panic! Someone is just wishing you a happy holiday season and a wonderful New Year!

AlexEng^(TALK) 05:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Drmies: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 (Merry Christmas!) 22:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas

to you and yours, Doug. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Doug, thank you--I've known you for so long now that I probably owe you a pair of pajamas or something like that. I hope you like the Craig Sager-themed tie I sent you. Anyway, yeah, I got a few nice gifts, and on top of top my brother in law forgot to take this huge mason jar full of Puerto Rican egg nog back home after we drank the first one. I forgot what it's called, but it's wicked. Also, we're in Alabama, and we got the fans on: two more degrees and the AC cuts on. Happy holidays Doug! Drmies (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

George Micheal actually died

On your raise in protection, George Micheal actually died. It would be nice if you could just raise it to autoconfirmed so the pending changes don't get spammed. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Please look at the amount of unconstructive edits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Happy

Very best wishes to you and yours, from 99 and his assorted avatars. Now, where did I leave that glass of Balvenie? 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Heartfelt thoughts

	Merry Chrismukkah Drmies!!
	Hi Drmies, only once in a lifetime do Christmas and Hanukkah fall on the same day. This is the year you will experience that blessed occasion in your life. I pray that yours is filled with light, love, and a buttload of gifts. Thoughts and prayers, Softlavender (talk)

• How our holy day was born: [6]. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hehehe I hope so too. Thanks for the card, Softlavender, and may your days be merry and bright. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Actually the first gift is in already--Volunteer Marek, what is going on? You bribing me? Drmies (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Whoa! I have nothing to do with that. Somebody's playing jokes on you. Sort of... creepy jokes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• (If it was really from me it wouldn't be in crimson and white wrapping paper, that's for sure).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• OK I'll admit it, it was a gift from me to me--but it was a Bruno Schulz book, which I wouldn't have wanted had it not been for you. I do wonder, though, if you are in fact the one who gave me a pair of mom jeans? Drmies (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, great! Hope you enjoy it and Merry Christmas and all the other holidays.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sad that I'm having to buy my own presents. On the bright side, I get it right--The Street of Crocodiles is an excellent book. And the new Dinosaur Jr. album worth the 9 bucks. Also, marzipan! Drmies (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings! Drmies

	Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
	Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

NPA

Since we're on the subject, I would like to hear your thoughts on whether you think VM telling me my "math skills could use some work" and whether it warrants a warning, or whether you also think this is within the bounds of WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Athenean (talk)

And I'm pretty sure there nothing actually wrong with my math skills. VM is using an article in the KRG-owned-and-operated ARA news [7] to write in the Battle of Aleppo article (using wikipedia's voice) that "Syria's Kurds also protested against the Syrian Army's disregard for civilians in its attack on the city. " As you can see, the article literally shows 4 people standing around with signs - in Iraq, not Syria. Athenean (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not going to judge your math skills, but I'll ask you to look up "false equivalence", and also consider whether you think "he did it too" is an adult response or not, esp. considering that I was kind enough to leave a friendly, non-template warning: an apology and a promise of better behavior would have been more appropriate. As for Marek, I think he knows exactly what I think about past outbursts, as his block log shows. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

He's back

Remember my worries that JuanRiley was back, well now it's official. JuanRiley left a message for Boing! said Zebedee in his own talk page here. (N0n3up (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC))

• Yeah, that seems pretty clear. Note the Albuquerque location. Well, there's not much point in blocking this IP, I'm afraid. If you see them tirritating other people, let me know... Drmies (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Ola: shouldn't have said "other"--tirritating you is a foul too. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol, no problem. Although this could probable become problematic to say the least. (N0n3up (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC))

College of Letters

I thought you might enjoy learning that anagrams of Arbitration Committee include Tame moronic tit-baiter (there's that word again); Trite, tame, a bit moronic; and Motto: recriminate a bit. (Thanks to Iridescent for setting me on this noble path.) EEng 04:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• A bit? Sure--we can say "a bit", since you'll never know the actual amount. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season! Too bad there's no snow in Alabama... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Our house.jpg

Our house. Note the clearly marked "Cooking room", bottom right.

• Dude. I'm about to turn the air on. It's probably in the 80s in my cooking room. Hey! Merry Christmas, or happy whatever you're celebrating! Drmies (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I see, the usual whining from you. ;-) Same to you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Come on man, I'm Dutch. Can't teach an old dog a new trick. Also, had to turn on the fan last night. Did I tell you I got an awesome t-shirt? I also found marzipan in my stocking, which was less surprising since I put it there myself. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: In Engish we call it a kitchen. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not in our house, Softlavender. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Does this mean you're the "chief cook" in your family? Doug Weller talk 17:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah pretty much. Wish the kids ate more better... I don't even remember what I like eating anymore. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Professor Watchlist

Just heard of this today - at first I thought it wasn't notable enough but it obviously is.[8][9]. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Haven't checked to see if I'm on it. Yes, it's a big deal--but then again, it may all be over in a week or two. The power of the internet, Doug--with smartphone technology thrown in for good measure to bust the professor you don't like. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• You seem not to be on it, Drmies. Looking at the website, it claims only to include individuals based on reports in third party media -- this claim does not currently seem to be in the Wikipedia article. I haven't clicked any of the names to see what sort of reports are involved, though. MPS1992 (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

AFD Discussion - List of most discussed YouTube videos (2nd nomination)

Seeing that you have participated in the First Discussion, I have created another discussion since the article has been recreated. The discussion in question is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most discussed YouTube videos (2nd nomination). Yoshiman6464 (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marsoulas Cave

The article Marsoulas Cave has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The page has not be edited by its creator since Sept. '15, and not much has happened since then. No references. Includes one picture of a cave painting from this cave, taken by the author.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Xanthomelanoussprog, Kelapstick, Doug Weller, thanks. Guess I had lost track of this stub. It's a pity that Biochemistry&Love didn't just Google this a bit, though I suppose it's a good thing they brought it back to attention. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! I'll do that next time. (: Biochemistry&Love (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And thank you. It's true that without this I wouldn't have improved the article, and for some reason bumped into something at the same time which allowed me to make some key updates/corrections to Nan Madol and a related article. Of course I've got journal articles I've obtained, books I've bought, etc to work on other articles that I'm still neglecting. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, and thanks Biochemistry. I have always found it more useful to work on things than tag them. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Outright Violation of DS, what to do?

Hi Drmies, I hope your holiday season is going well. I do have a question though about an edit that violates DS of ARBPIA. [10] is an outright violation. I know that bringing AE actions is a last resort but it is also an outright violation, one that I've been blocked for, for something similar. I don't want to let this stand because it is against policy and should be discussed but I also don't want to clutter AE for something. Thanks! 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, based on my courtesy notice, (which incidentally I think should be mandatory before filing an AE action), the user has self-reverted. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• OK--I just followed the links a bit. Glad I don't have to do anything, haha. Yes, I think we should always talk before taking action--thanks. Listen, for next time, not all admins know everything, and this admin knows very little. Including a link to the topic ban diff is helpful, and sometimes an explanation is helpful too (though in this case it was pretty clear, sure). Also, I wonder--if Russia also voted "for", what's Trump's problem with the US vote? Or does it now appear that *gasp* international diplomacy is actually complicated? Drmies (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, and it's not just Trump in the US who has a problem with the US action. Both sides of Congress have reacted negatively, even incoming Minority Leader Schumer has called the US vote a disappointment . I can bet that one of the first actions of the new Congress will be similar to what was done in years past, talk of UN funding restrictions. The last time this happened ended up resulting in the Helms-Biden Amendment, after years of refusal from the US to pay dues, based on the UN corruption and mismanagement. It will be very interesting to see what happens comes January. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• It's a good thing corruption and mismanagement is not happening in US governments present and future! Drmies (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well, it's our corruption and mismanagement, no reason we need to pay for the UN's mismanagement. It's sad to think that how the UN operates now is considered an improvement from the 80's and 90's before the UN (I think it was Kofi Annan) instituted mass reforms. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

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!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Revdel request

[11]

Could I make another revdel request as Asilah1981 is again using my real name. WCM_email 09:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• WCM, Boing! said Zebedee took care of the matter, in the exact same way I was going to. Thanks, and I'm sorry they chose to go that route again. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about INVOLVED

Hi -- I figured you'd be a good person to ask this, since you have a lot of admin experience, and I tend not to edit in areas that end up in disputes. Some of the editors at this move review are arguing, as far as I can see, that the closer's previously expressed opinions here are disqualifying per WP:INVOLVED. Has INVOLVED historically been interpreted to mean that an admin with known opinions on an issue, but who has not specifically been part of a debate that concerns that issues, is necessarily involved and should not close the related discussion? I was under the impression that INVOLVED only addressed cases where the admin could be considered to be directly involved, either because they had participated in the discussion, or because they had a history of specific conflicts with individuals in the discussion that would make it difficult for them to be impartial. However, if the actual practice has been to interpret it broadly then I could understand the argument. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Mike, I gotta be quick since I need to do my exercises (you know how it goes, old age), but yes, you got the strict reading right, and yes also, in my experience you frequently hear that slightly expanded version. Many people are saying (TM) that it should be read more broadly, and I strongly disagree, but frequently you run into situations where it's better to be safe than sorry and just get someone else to do it, esp. if it's contentious. I think I was accused of being involved in the Tenedos naming/moving dispute, but nothing ever really came of that. Gotta go, but I'll try to look at the discussion later--though that may be two days from now; we're traveling. Which reminds me: happy new year, Mike: you are a gem of an editor and I'm proud of having worked with you a bit. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Both for the answer and the compliment. Happy New Year and safe travels, and I'll watch this page in case you or a TPS adds anything to your comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sanction against ED

Sanction against ED

ARBEE (sing.), ARBY's (pl.)

@Drmies: sanctioning Etienne Dolet for believing that Russia-related edits apply to WP:ARBEE would be highly inappropriate for several reasons. The first is that even if one disputes ARBEE's applicability, ED's belief is totally understandable and certainly defensible, considering Russia's longstanding place in EE-related disputes. The second is that VM's editing sphere is so Russia-related (including history you're certainly familiar with) that Russia-related edits in the Syrian Civil War are easily understood in that framework - in fact it's a reasonable null hypothesis. Lastly, ED's whole complaint and the evidence therein have been ignored - on procedural grounds that are pretty shaky. -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't really have any standing to argue for sanction against VM on the other hand, since I've clashed with them more than I have with any other editor. -Darouet (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I sort of agree with the first part of that. It took me awhile to think of this, but had I been an admin I might have tried to hat the thread and directed ED to seek clarification from the ARBs as to the applicability of ARBEE to the locus and context of the dispute. I seem to recall something similar involving the Tea Party and/or Gun Control a few years ago, and the gist of the outcome was that rulings apply to both articles that are obviously related to the rulings' topics, but also to small bits of topical text that appear in otherwise unrelated articles. So whatever other weaknesses might exist in ED's complaint, I too think it is ambiguous whether ARBEE applies to the specific content dispute and without clarification from the ARBs that specific point should have been controlled by applying WP:Assume good faith in ED's favor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

PS I keep saying ARBEE but that's WRONG. Yes, ED cited ARBEE but that case by its explicit terms is about Russia-Estonia conflict. However, there is a 2008 ARB ruling on Eastern Europe, which is very murky about its scope and it does not have a shortcut that I can see. That case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. As the political power in Russia is mainly Eastern European and it's involvement in Syria is so closely tied to the geopolitics of the region not to mention the refugee crisis overwhelming so many Eastern European countries, a case can be made for specific text edits being within an "Eastern Europe" scope. Just wanted to point out its the OTHER Arb case that is sufficiently ambiguous to maybe apply here, and not the ARBEE that we keep talking about on the board. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: mmMMMMMMM "pigfection" sounds like something you find in AE postings, too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Amusingly, the Urban Dictionary's definition of pigfection ("The process of roasting a whole pig through perfection") includes an illustrative dialogue that begins, "Guest: Wow, how many hours did you roast that pig man?" (punctuation given here exactly as in the original). Reads like something out of a sci-fi–horror story. EEng 19:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 20:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Now don't get upset...

...because I'm an old guy who's only getting older by the second, and whose memory ain't what it used to be, which means I have to ask the burning question:

Are you an Auburn fan or an Alabama fan?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• OMG BMK I don't know how you'd ever think I'd be an Auburn fan. Dude. Tuscaloosa. Culture, not agriculture. Are you feeling the excitement today??? Drmies (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am, but I didn't want to say anything untoward if you weren't a 'Bama fan. Strangely, I've only seen one game from them on TV this year, which was a blow out, so I'm anxious to see them today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Interesting game. From what I had heard, I thought Alabama would dominate Washington, but although they won handily, it certainly wasn't as overwhelming a win as Clemson had over Ohio State (which was actually a pretty boring game). I'm very much looking forward to Alabama vs. Clemson on the 9th. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a 'Bama fan too, but I don't think the Affordable Care Act went far enough. EEng 03:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 20:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Now don't get upset...

...because I'm an old guy who's only getting older by the second, and whose memory ain't what it used to be, which means I have to ask the burning question:

Are you an Auburn fan or an Alabama fan?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• OMG BMK I don't know how you'd ever think I'd be an Auburn fan. Dude. Tuscaloosa. Culture, not agriculture. Are you feeling the excitement today??? Drmies (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am, but I didn't want to say anything untoward if you weren't a 'Bama fan. Strangely, I've only seen one game from them on TV this year, which was a blow out, so I'm anxious to see them today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Interesting game. From what I had heard, I thought Alabama would dominate Washington, but although they won handily, it certainly wasn't as overwhelming a win as Clemson had over Ohio State (which was actually a pretty boring game). I'm very much looking forward to Alabama vs. Clemson on the 9th. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a 'Bama fan too, but I don't think the Affordable Care Act went far enough. EEng 03:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hi Drmies - I hope you had a very merry holiday season. May your new year be happy and prosperous! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy Hogmanay!

		Happy Hogmanay!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Hogmanay. May the year ahead be productive and harmonious. --John (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• John, you too, and thanks. One of mine is playing with his Sports Wheel Van, which he just named thusly, and seems unaffected by the rain and the generally depressing atmosphere of January. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Marion Coutts

Drmies, will you be returning to this review now that the nominator has responded to your requests, or should I call for a new reviewer? Please let me know if the latter. Many thanks, and Happy New Year. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Was I pinged? Sorry if I missed it. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• BlueMoonset, I checked--that attempted ping apparently never made it into my notifications... Sorry... Drmies (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• OK I see why. User:Morganfitzp, these pings only work if you do the name and your signature in the same edit, so when that happens to me, I always delete my signature and type the four tildes again. Later, and congrats on a fine little article, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would have preferred a hook highlighting the fact that one of her artworks features dogmatic cats. EEng 16:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and propose it, EEng--this is a democracy! Drmies (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

What??? EEng 16:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

EEng, that's just a policy, not something to concern yourself with. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

And now that it's been proposed, Drmies, it's something you might want to concern yourself with... review-wise, that is. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Drmies for the info. Happy New Year! Morganfitzp (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

One of the things mentioned about me is "unblocking my own bot". These things expand to 6-7 years back. In the evidence phase who has to prove what? I recall that unblocking did not imply resuming the same task. Would I have to prove this or is this the other way round? (i.e. The persons who mention this have to prove this implies some deeper). -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I suppose those who brought those charges will know what to do, and when they do you'll know how to defend yourself. In general, but I don't want to judge anything prematurely, if Yobot is blocked and you unblock it saying "problem solved", it seems to me that there has to be a. some evidence and b. some consensus that the problem was indeed solved. One way or another you have to prove there was no violation of WP:ADMINACCOUNT, and they have to prove there was. That this goes back years--well, I suppose that's why we are where we are. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • To be honest, only the fact that the blocking admin did not react at that time means I was in communication with them. Let's see. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I don't rightly know what you mean. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I mean that the unblock did not imply I ignored the blocker. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
        • OK, that would be something to explain if the particular block/unblock came up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

deletion still leaves IP address revealed

That IP address is still visible in an edit comment: ("Signing comment by XXX.XX.XX.XXX - "") Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Dammit, thanks. Stupid SineBot--all these different revdels for one single IP edit. 'Preciate it. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy 2017!

Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Rosiestep, thanks, and the same to you. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop the harassment

Stop harassing me with the bogus "warnings". If you feel the need to ban me, initiate the appropriate proceedings -- or just dial 911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanBK (talk • contribs) 15:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, that wasn't harassment. It wasn't even condescending. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for bringing back my archived ANI. It was properly closed out moments ago and the outcome was an unblock with a 12 month topic ban. Progress. Happy editing!--Satt 2 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, good for you--and thanks to whoever closed it. I haven't looked at the close or any new comments yet, but I think that's a fair assessment. Take care--and no socking or edit warring please. I have money riding on you staying out of trouble. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Apology on ANI involving User:Thomas Turner

I'm very sorry I jumped to false conclusions involving User:Thomas Turner and Woody Allen. Please accept my apology. I will deliver an apology to said user as well. Do you have any advice on how to become a better Wikipedian? If not, should I take a little break from Wikipedia? Classicalfan626 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm also very sorry I was unaware of the administrators' noticeboard being a last resort for reporting the actions of other Wikipedians. Please accept this apology as well. Classicalfan626 (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Classicalfan626, it's all good. If you leave a note for the other editor and they accept, the matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. (BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but there were dozens of vandal edits just after you two edited the article! I suppose he hit the news, or maybe 4chan decided it was time to fuck with him.) That you weren't aware of ANI's function--I think it says that on the top of the page, but it's probably true that it says a lot on that page. In general, it's a good idea to talk to the editor (I think you did but maybe just in an edit summary, I don't recall) and to count to ten. That's advice many of us, including me, need to take. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) Thanks Drmies- I had seen his remarks here, and thought, in that case, we could close the ANI- it's not as if we were going to demand a public abasement or anything. Or, at least, not just yet  ;) Belated Happy New Year to you and yours. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The People's Cube

Hi Drmies! Thanks for performing the revision deletion on The People's Cube. I'm here because I think you missed a number of diffs that still contain the copyright infringing content from here to here. Do you think you could take a second look? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks--I see what happened; there was an intermediate page of 50 edits that I skipped. It's done now, but please double-check and see if I got it right. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Excellent. I just double-checked, and everything appears resolved now. Thanks for your help! Mz7 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you?

Could you take a look at the history on List of current champions in WWE? User:The Ruler Of All Water has been edit warring with several users over an image they continue to add that they were asked several times to take it to the talk page since 12/28/16 as others feel the older image is better quality than the image they continue to try and add. Not sure where to go from here, so figured I'd seek your input. They are not responding on their own talk page to warnings that have been issued to them for edit warring and judging by the history of their talk they don't respond to anyone and they still won't go to the talk of the article and instead revert and add summaries like this . Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sure. I left a note confirming your warning (or "harassment", as some users prefer to call it). If they do it again, it's block time. And can I just take this opportunity to say OMG how much server space we dedicate to a kind of entertainment treated as if it were a sport... The worst is those interminable lists of ridiculous "finishing moves" in those biographies. Cut those and you'll do nature a service. Thanks, and let me know (or better, report at AIV or ANEW) if they do it again. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, lol yeah there is alot in those articles I'd like to remove from them and have tried to cut them down but there is to many users who want it in there. So I kinda have up.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

User still trying to add the pic, refuses to take to talk page and has now taken to name calling on my talk page Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sure. Hey, I just saw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curse of Fenric/Archive. Next time, please do the work for the admin--provide a couple of diffs and an explanation of why you think this edit is exactly like that edit and this this editor is also that editor. Working SPI is a tedious task, and while GaryColemanFan's assessment is not accurate at all, it asks more of those filing one than you may think. Word to the wise! Drmies (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I was told by another user because the Contributions for both were the same just to use them for the diffs, because that would be the easiest. I had never done an SPI. I didn't know. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but a bit more detail is always good. It's best to explain a small number of diffs exhaustively. If you want to know how deep it gets, check this. Your IP was a bit rude, wasn't he. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Lol he's nothing compared to the IP of TAWT I had to deal with for almost 6 months, it's why my talk is on indefinite protect. The current IPs attitude is what gave it away it was the confirmed IP and Fenric. Battleground mentality is hard to hide. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Medienkompetenz

It's sad to see, that you are missing any Medienkompetenz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerElektriker (talk • contribs) 07:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The internet suggests this is a topic-area. Selected books by de:Dieter Baacke / Dieter Baacke (1934-1999), cf de:Medienkompetenz / Medienkompetenz.

• 515 cites, de:Medienpädagogik / Medienpädagogik, 1997
• 830 cites, de:Jugend und Jugendkulturen / Jugend und Jugendkulturen, 2004
• 484 cites, de:Kommunikation und Kompetenz / Kommunikation und Kompetenz, 1973

Suggest interpreting the previous somewhat-ambiguous message, as a request-for-an-article on Medienkompetenz, mayhap? Or, looking at user-talkpage, perhaps not. But if deWiki has it, then the competitive enWiki team-spirit ought to motivate somebody to WP:BEBOLD.... 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is this my uncle? DerElektriker, your "you" is ambiguous. If that you is me, yes, I lack that completely. If it's us, then the path is clear. (In general I have no idea what you're talking about.) Drmies (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I see now who you are. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I see now why the talk page of the user in question was on my watchlist. Drmies, do you think my slightly chiding welcome that includes "Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:", is ever slightly effective? Actually I did find the assertion that you had no Medienkompetenz to be rather amusing, but perhaps that is just because I have little expertise with Germanic languages. I even find humorous British imitations of them amusing, which may not be a good thing. MPS1992 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• If one can't take boring old papers like the FAZ serious, then one probably questions everything, unless it's obviously fake (and thus must be true). And in what then turns out to be a shell game, it's best to train oneself to be immune to iocane. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• keep living in your own reality :) And ban me, I can get new accounts and proxys. DerElektriker (talk)

• "You are everything I despise about wikipedia"--everything? That's high praise. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes I praise your incompetence. DerElektriker (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion re: Asilah1981

Hello,

I appreciate that this is in a live ANI case, and I hope if you think this is WP:FORUMSHOPPING you'll accept my apologies and carry on.

The issue at the ANI was that User:Asilah1981 came straight back off his week-long block for calling people racist, and started calling people terrorist apologists. There's motion at ANI towards arranging some kind of mentoring, which I have supported. The details are here, but that's the background. I'm not asking or expecting you to look into that - or even read it (it's very longwinded) - if you don't want to.

Asilah1981 just posted this.

I wanted to ask for some advice on how to react to this? I mean, we've been going round the houses for months on these articles. Asilah has, to my memory, never assumed my good faith and he's now declaring that he never will. My hope was that the mentoring would teach him the things the block clearly didn't, but is that realistic given his current attitude?

Is there anything else I can do in order to improve the atmosphere at those articles? WP:IPAT is of limited use when an editor is refusing to make any compromise from a position you find unacceptable (e.g. that gives too much WP:WEIGHT to a given POV) because they're assuming you're editing in bad faith.

Thanks, Kahastok talk 18:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok, it's nothing we can't fix over time. I have interacted with you, and WCM and I think Asilah especially in my early days here, and I occasionally swap pleasantries with Wee when our paths meet. That's a good start if I was to mentor. I believe I have the GF of all parties and hopefully other trusts will build. I have not commented formally at the ANI at this stage. Irondome (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I remember our interactions well, and they leave me with absolute confidence that you will do the best job you can. But after I saw that comment - which left me no sense that Asilah thought there was even a problem with any of his behaviour (including the behaviour that's got him blocked in the past) - I was just left wondering whether we weren't asking you to work miracles?

I was typing out a response to the comment at ANI, but figured as I was typing that there wasn't anything to say that would help anything. But there is a good chance that Asilah will be back to Gibraltar at some point. If the mentoring works, there won't be a problem. But in my mind that's a big "if" - I just don't really want to keep on heading to ANI with the egregious PAs that he's basically already told me are coming. What to do? Hence coming here. If you think mentoring is worth the effort, fine - it's the best option realistically on the table from the ANI at this stage - but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't and I'd like to find a way of avoiding some of the drama in that case. Kahastok talk 23:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I hear you on the points you make Kahastok, but one can but try. If it crashes and burns, hey at least we gave it a civilized shot. Maybe Asilah having more than one person occupying his/her echo-chamber (we all have them) may help. Another voice, if you will. Appreciate your concern for my mental health though ;) Irondome (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok Can we not reactivate this now, please? In the holiday season? I just offered to have a personal discussion with you see if we can iron out our differences and yet again you try to use it against me. If you are not interested in finding common ground just leave it.

Yes I will be ensuring you / WCM are not editing Gibraltar-related articles in the same way as for which you were both long-term topic banned. If edits are reasonable, balanced, according to sources and not part of an eight year long effort to twist reality then you will not have any issue with me. Your latest attempt to unilaterally rewrite the entire article by yourselves with an RfC was ludicrous and I don't know if the aim was to really do so or to elicit an aggressive response which you could then re post somewhere, as seems to be the typical pattern.

Btw, I have not been compelled into mentoring, I just thought it was a good idea. Don't treat it as being on some kind of probation whereby all will be fine as long as I give you a free hand.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I really would like to see some bridge-building here gentlemen, not bridge blowing :) Seriously, this is part of the problem. I don't mean singing kumbaya but at least so that parties can communicate and actually, you know collaborate on articles constructively again. Irondome (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I can't look into this right now--I haven't even showered yet and need more coffee. Perhaps later, I hope. Let me just say real quick that I think bridge-building is always a good thing. Sayonara, Drmies (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Kahastok, I can't help but think that Asilah is a bit of a hothead. (If they're reading this: I call em as I see em, sometimes.) That's fine, and one of the things many of us have to learn is that it's easy to type something mean impulsively, and it's much harder to undo the damage caused by an all-too quick remark. I bet you this person is relatively young (good for them, by the way). I hope that mentoring and the advice of other editors in that interminable ANI thread are helpful, and that's really all I can say right now. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, he's gone, and little of value has been lost imo (including the mentoring), but the stated reason for the block seems completely invalid. I fail to understand how mentioning a username change that is on open public display can possibly come under WP:OUTING. That is not personal information. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

But you don't know everything, Tiptoe; that was not the issue. Now can I ask you to stop dropping old names? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Under "Blocked", Boing! said Zebedee wrote "You have once again referred to another Wikipedia editor by their previous identity, a name that you know they do not want publicized (and which I explained to you can have real-life repercussions), and that is a violation of WP:OUTING". Referring to an editor's previous user name is not a violation of WP:OUTING. Is Boing! said Zebedee perhaps doing a bit of a Drmies: making things up as they go along, justified by a self belief that they are morally and intellectually invariably right and unquestionably always fair minded even if technically wrong? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Haha "a bit of Drmies". Priceless. Look, you don't have special admin glasses so you don't know what you're talking about. Which means that, certainly in this case, you simply don't know your ass from your elbow, and both Boing and myself are, until proven otherwise, Cleared Of Erroneous Self Belief (whatever "self belief" may be). Drmies (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying that an editor was blocked for what some admins claim to secretly know, and that what admins secretly know allows said admins to bypass Wikipedia's accepted public policies and guidelines, the very policies and guidelines that most mere non-admin mortals assume admins are there to both enforce and defend. Were those standpoints articulated in your administrator application? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that admins are privy to knowledge that non-admins are not. That's pretty basic. If you don't understand that, and if you don't understand that there are things we revdelete because a. they need to not be public and b. we are given the community's trust to make that judgment, then I can't help you. What makes your clamoring even more ridiculous is that there are two administrators who exercised the same judgment, and the blocked editor doesn't even disagree. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

SPI questions

Ok so I read the SPI you linked me to earlier, WOW! That really shows how much I was told wrong compared to mine, but I'm confused. I was told by an admin on the SPI I did that "We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts." Which was why it was declined as I'm sure you saw. I tried getting it explained to me but it seemed to irritate him that I even questioned him about it on his talk and the Convo turned unpleasant like how dare I question him about it. I just didn't understand his explanation and I was trying to. So my question to you How would I SPI IPs if I'm not supposed to disclose them publicly even with all the diffs done correctly? When I went through 5 months of harrassment from TAWT via IPs they were SPId by CU I thought. I'm really confused. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• The basic rule is that on Wikipedia IPs should never be linked to an account. That is, you can say "hey I think IP xxxx.xxxx.xx is editor JackBlack", but a CheckUser should not confirm that this is indeed the case. That's why on SPIs you sometimes see "CU does not link to IPs" or words to that effect. It doesn't mean that CUs don't look at IPs--the very essence of CU is looking at IPs, but the results, if there are any, should not be disclosed, for privacy reasons. Remember, the benefit of getting an account is your IP address is not out in the open; when a CU explicitly states "this IP is that editor", they undermine that. Does that help? So by all means, include the IP in the SPI, and explain carefully how those edits prove this or that, but don't expect the SPI clerk or CU to publicize their own findings. Moreover, if the argument is not good (the diffs not well explained, etc.) the CU can deny the CU request, and behavior will be the only deciding factor. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes that does explain it and in a way that I understand, thank you. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User warned by myself and another user

User DaveA2424 was warned by myself and another user InFlamester20 lastnight to stop adding Unsourced info to WWE Hall Of Fame user then decided to come to my talk page referring to me as an idiot and how he had a source, which he clearly didn't since he added it 3 times without a source and kept removing other content in the process. Their talk page was full of warnings for the samething across other articles, they even had one from an admin for doing it on a UFC article, they have since blanked the page to "remove" the warnings. User is continuing to bring his battlefield mentality to my talk after being told several times to stop and after I removed it the first time. So how should I proceed? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @WarMachineWildThing: Well, if you think that you have exhausted all other avenues, then WP:ANI is your next move. What did you have in mind though? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, they are not getting that the battlefield mentality isn't how to act, clearly they think name calling is how things are handled. I've never done an ANI but if that's what I need to do then so be it. Seeing as I did the SPI wrong when I filed it that's why I was asking how to proceed and what I should do, don't wanna screw something else up.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

We have warnings for "adding unsourced information" and at least some admins at AIV will block for it, so you could consider reporting there, giving a little bit of background (no more than a sentence). Or ANI, yes. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work on it when I get home from work tonight then. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 18:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for edit

I believe the page [amanda lang] contains information that violates the BLP policies. Notably, lacking neutrality, using poor sources (including a single source blog with slanderous content) and inflammatory or irrelevant information. My concern is that these edits are being made by one or several people on a vendetta. The edits I have made are not for well-sourced material (indeed, the very first edit - source 2 - is simply inaccurate, referirng to a show on tuesdays when the source clearly shows tuesday and wednesday shows). But the larger concern is about bias and lack of neutrality. And using a blog as a single source (it is the original source, repeating slander, in ensuing newspaper articles). The edits I attempted which you removed were an effort to restore fact and neutrality, in keeping with Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryip13579 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Please discuss this at WP:BLPN. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I will do so - but it should concern you that the very first source - and one that you yourself reverse edited - is inaccurate should it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryip13579 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Will answer at the noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

167.88.81.122

Did you see the screed they just posted? This person has serious issues. Some of what he wrote sounds like straight up threats. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Was that before or after I blocked? I'm still busy cleaning up and filing paperwork. Yeah, they've had issues for quite some time, it seems. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

My finger has been hovering over the block button with this IP since I first saw the ANI. I don't see them contributing constructively to the project. This is a wiki-drama IP and nothing good is going to come from them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

YGM. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

FeatherPluma et.al.

Interesting. I knew I had seen those edit summaries before... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Me too! Drmies (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Question about a revdel on Oshwah's talk page.

Hey, I noticed one of my edits to Osh's talk page seems to have been revdel-ed. I'm not sure why, but the edit is completely unviewable (I was working on synching the watchlist of my alt account, the one I'm on now). However, to the best of my recollection, I think the edit is still there (a quip about getting my WP:AGF wholesale from China).

It seems to me that it might be because the auto-sig of a registered editor who edited while logged out was visible in it. Is that the case? I'm fairly certain it is, but I just wanted to make sure it wasn't something I said. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• That is correct. The history should show that clearly enough. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am back

Hi, mentor, Drmies, I am back after a long Wiki-vacation. I hope, Wiki-terror will not happen this time. Have a cup of coffee. Please keep an eye. I enjoy Lady status on my FB every day. Love bless you. :) Justice007 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Nice to see you again, Justice. Happy new year, and I hope you're keeping warm--I understand it's chillsome over there. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy new year you too. Yes, chillsome, but Lekker. Justice007 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I protest that

• It is going very awkward targeting this as the revenge without the legitimate stand. You and LadyofShalott. edited the article, is being spoiled with the tags. I protest.Justice007 (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• (talk page watcher) @Justice007: Neither Drmies or TLoS have ever edited that article. Regards, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Just check the edit history, do not guess. Justice007 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, the Lady last edited the article on December 23, 2014, and the good doctor on July 18, 2012. Perhaps we should examine what they did as children, too. I hear one of them played with matches, but I'm not telling which one.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That'll teach me for thinking a year's worth of edit history would suffice! Thanks for the detail. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Justice and I (and the Lady) go way back. Bbb, that was me--and I regret it to this day, though luckily my grandmother's house did not burn down. How I miss her. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The article contains some questionable sources which question the neutrality of page, but I'm not going to give heed at the moment but I will surely try to fix it later some time. However I will appreciate if tags won't be removed until then. --Saqib (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Nolelover, Drmies, Lady and other multiple editors edited the article from its beginning. It created the immediate family. I was not involved at all. What is the need to tag COI, while on the talk page displays such one template permanently? It is just the way of some intentions, which executes not the rules; however, preventing from the editing.Justice007 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Template is gone, per my judgment call. Advice/edits from seasoned BLP editors is always welcome. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

.

A block you made...

Hi Drmies,

Wondering if you were going to block Bleckter (talk · contribs), since you blocked Bleckter23 (talk · contribs) indefinitely. They claimed to have lost their password for the other account, but we have no idea whether or not that is true. Technically, since Bleckter23 is blocked Bleckter could be used as a sockpuppet. Please consider this block, since you have already blocked the other account indefinitely, thank you. 73.96.113.110 (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like you and another admin are taking care of it. 73.96.113.110 (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, that seems the prudent thing to do. I hesitated because I don't think we get paid our usual ten bucks for blocking an alternate account which is not used for socking, but let's do this one for charity then. Doug Weller, did we and the new arbs decide on new rates yet? got a vacation in Costa Rica that I need to pay for. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Aren't we getting tax breaks instead? Doug Weller talk 09:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Can I request a history merge?

between User:Jonthoroddsen/Gísli Örn Garðarsson and the article I just created at Gísli Örn Garðarsson? The original needed some love that it didn't get—I have a couple of dozen references I need to add, including major theatre work that isn't yet in the article, the gent is hugely notable—and it's odd that the undeletion request appears to have been Jonthoroddsen's only edit. But credit where credit is due. Now I will create a non-alt-chars redirect and then I will fall into bed. Thanks in advance to you or any mop-equipped talk-page stalkers. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Did I get it right? Drmies (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, yes :-) Maybe Bluebear001 will see and come back. Researching all that Gísli Örn does has made me quite exhausted the past couple of days. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Instead of a back­rub, why don't you give them a nice in­de­fin­ite Bock? –EEng

• You deserve a back rub, or a delicious dark Belgian beer. Sorry, gotta go--they're repeating last year's championship game between Clemson and Alabama and I'm pretending I don't know who wins. WILL ALABAMA PULL IT OFF??? Tide rolls, I don't know! Drmies (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• EEng, I'm all for handing out beers but I'm running kinda low, and that fourth quarter wore me out. Imagine how OJ Howard must feel after running over 200 yards, carrying his 240 pounds and a ball. I'm still upset we let them score that last touchdown, but hey, a win is a win. Drmies (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Professor, I'm loathe to face reality WRT Monday night's outcome. I'd much rather let those men (I'd normally say kids but that's only because I'm so old, they are men) do their duty [jobs encased with honor] and let the chips fall where they may. I'm so proud of their accomplishments to date that whatever their performance I'd buy them all, those that are of age, a most robust beverage. Roll tide Tiderolls 07:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:WINING. EEng 07:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you and don't worry, I understand the situation. Greetings. --Bleckter (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

ForRent.com

I tried to get rid of this piece of dreck, but it didn't work.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• I can't really judge notability with my copy editor glasses on, but I did do some pruning. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia User

Hi Drmies! I didn't add anything to the discussion of Xpanetta as I wasn't sure if it was relevant. What I find unusual as well is that when I created certain pages he edited them. That's great and Wikipedia is based on collaboration. However he used to reverse a lot of my edits, which apparently were "redundant" as "he created the page". In terms of his unblock request; is he most likely going to be declined? I'm asking this as I created a page for Spinnin' Premium which was removed. This user then created it and added quite a few links that didn't improve the page at all. Now he's been blocked; this page and others seem to have improved a lot. Thanks! ✌️ Fox Tanawa-Bamba (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the unblock request/talk page in a few days; frankly, I want to stay out of it. In Spinnin' Premium I see this edit, whose edit summary is a false promise, and I am in perfect agreement with this edit by Noq. The article has maybe three decent sources, but its content is basically a company catalog. A section in the main article is what seems fair--I wonder what Dan56 thinks of the matter; he seems to know records pretty good. I do not see what dispute you are having with XPanettaa, and I certainly don't know what his chances for getting unblocked are; the account he gave on his talk page wasn't very convincing. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The ANI you just closed

So you closed that longgggggggg ANI and people are still responding to it here not sure if it should be removed or not so I didn't touch it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I don't have much of a problem with it--edit conflicts happen. I included it for future reference and as a courtesy. Thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) one curly turkey = people eh? :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 05:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh who's counting. I got a guinea hen that I count as half a chicken; I don't want to be too quantitative. Gobble. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that's what I meant about them still responding, because it was an edit conflict do I wasn't sure what to do. I didn't explain that correctly. Sorry I didn't explain better it's been a long day. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jim1138 (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You have mail yet again

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Eutaw riot

On 12 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eutaw riot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the Eutaw riot in Alabama, several blacks were killed by the Ku Klux Klan during a campaign of terror that led to the election of Democratic governor Robert B. Lindsay? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eutaw riot. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Eutaw riot), 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) 12:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Fort Vijf Sinnen‎ and Fort Geldria

There's apparently a boatload of images donated to Commons by a Dutch foundation via meta:Wikimedia Nederland/The Netherlands and the world and it likely includes images of the above two forts that we worked on. I can't seem to figure out how to find these two among the Dutch names but could you use your Dutch superpowers to check if there are some usable images at Commons:Category:Temminck Groll Collection. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's a lot of images. I did a quick search at the official site but found nothing. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Dutch musician

Up-and-coming Dutch musician: Leon Bolier. Now at AfD. Gets quite a number of Google results. Many of them, including the web, news, and book results, are in Dutch. You might take a look. (I noticed this at ANI.) Softlavender (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is this another Xpanettaa article? Spinning Records? Drmies (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Xpanettaa edited the page once - in April. And while Bolier has released through Spinnin', he appears to have put out three albums. I noticed that the OP of the AfD indicated a withdrawn. I did not comment on this one myself as a previous edit resulted in the ANI case that Softlavender mentioned. Karst (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Avengers (band) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Karst. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Only noticed this now. I noticed it as came up at the Cleanup Listing. Karst (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks

• first edit summary
• second edit summary
• warning
• third edit summary after warning
• I'm involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) I'm not, so I've blocked for 72 hours. Note also a fourth edit summary — I don't think they were about to stop. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC).
• What is "extreme prejudice"? What does it mean when people say shit like that? Bbb, I'm sorry I missed it and Bish, thanks--I was making totally spicy wonton soup. I can feel it through my scalp. Fun! Drmies (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Terminate_with_extreme_prejudice. Sometimes wonton cruelty is involved. EEng 01:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oh what a fool, and their edit still stood. One wonder whether such edit summaries aren't worthy of an immediate indefinite block, so they'll have to figure out how to behave properly in polite society. Jack Johnson--one of my heroes, one of Miles Davis's heroes. Bbb23, how are you involved? Drmies (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Making soup sounds so much better than monitoring your Talk page. You probably put pork in the wontons, though. Could you make some with chicken instead? It's cold here; soup would be welcome. Seems like reverting the user makes me classically involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • "... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias,..." So there. Yeah, cold here too--the pool was at 53, so the girls couldn't really go sunbathing after jumping in this morning. Keep warm, buddy. Also, oil, garlic, ginger, some red pepper, chicken stock--that's really all it took. No, I'm not making chicken wontons since ground chicken is revolting. Take care Bbb, Drmies (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't like to hang my hat on that qualifier, debatable. Revolting??? Use a clothes pin on your nose when you make it. Actually, you don't have to put anything inside the wontons. Then it becomes a sort of Chinese noodle soup with large noodles. Two of my favorite things of all time are fresh garlic and fresh ginger.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
        • No one is going to make a big deal out of it: that edit was obviously poor. Anyway, cold, no soup, no Drmies to keep you warm--I strongly suggest you find yourself a few Maritime Bhangra Group videos to watch. If that doesn't do anything for you, you may need resuscitation. Does this link do anything for you? Drmies (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Norwood High School (Massachusetts)

All of the redlinked accounts (except User:Jajhill and User:Bluevalley9... OK, but the fact remains he has a lot of socks) that have edited Norwood High School (Massachusetts) since September 2016 are socks of User:Finnyk. How he hasn't been blocked for being WP:NOTHERE by now baffles me. Lizard (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, sorry I didn't see this earlier--was busy blocking. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Initially I didn't block all of them since they made a few non-vandal edits, but that's all different now. Please see if I missed any of them. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's all of them. I had been following that guy for a while. Every time he had his hiatuses, I figured he had gotten tired of it, so I would just let it go. But I guess he got his jollies off of monthly vandalism. Lizard (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • There was one account that was a bit different, very interesting. And a new one just popped up cause they got nothing better to do. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mark Regev, official apology

Hi there, it seems you were involved in a disruptive and counterproductive edit on the Mark Regev page, but you did not notice that the earlier contribution was perfectly well documented with a reference cited. If it was a flagged or automated disruptive revert from your account, please check such, as the page does not need any multiparty 3RRs or edit conflicts. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.131.8.208 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• It was not (since sourced to a tabloid), and it was not relevant. Verbosity aside, consider it's a BLP. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ngaiire

Hi Drmies. Since I've noticed you seem to have a good sensibility of what is encyclopedic material and what matters on a BLP, if you get time, would you please be able to go through Ngaiire? She's an Australian singer who appears to have one main contributor who has puffed her biography up a bit over the course of a few years and I'm having a bit of a time cutting out what's relevant and what's not. It's not a very long article, so if you could cut out what's not fit for Wikipedia in your opinion, it'd be appreciated. Thanks. Ss112 22:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, plenty of people don't agree with me! That article isn't so bad. The albums can have individual articles. There's a few flags in there that need to go. The lead has a crazy thing, "one of the greatest living people on earth by Monster Children magazine"--yeah, that magazine is nothing, and their opinion means nothing (today we're celebrating John Lewis, as far as I'm concerned). Wait--it's a clothing website? I do agree that there's too much verbosity--we can trim the quotes, remove some detail, and check closely to see what publications there are reliable and notable, and thus what can be cut. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Norwood High School (Massachusetts)

All of the redlinked accounts (except User:Jajhill and User:Bluevalley9... OK, but the fact remains he has a lot of socks) that have edited Norwood High School (Massachusetts) since September 2016 are socks of User:Finnyk. How he hasn't been blocked for being WP:NOTHERE by now baffles me. Lizard (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, sorry I didn't see this earlier--was busy blocking. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Initially I didn't block all of them since they made a few non-vandal edits, but that's all different now. Please see if I missed any of them. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's all of them. I had been following that guy for a while. Every time he had his hiatuses, I figured he had gotten tired of it, so I would just let it go. But I guess he got his jollies off of monthly vandalism. Lizard (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • There was one account that was a bit different, very interesting. And a new one just popped up cause they got nothing better to do. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mark Regev, official apology

Hi there, it seems you were involved in a disruptive and counterproductive edit on the Mark Regev page, but you did not notice that the earlier contribution was perfectly well documented with a reference cited. If it was a flagged or automated disruptive revert from your account, please check such, as the page does not need any multiparty 3RRs or edit conflicts. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.131.8.208 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• It was not (since sourced to a tabloid), and it was not relevant. Verbosity aside, consider it's a BLP. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ngaiire

Hi Drmies. Since I've noticed you seem to have a good sensibility of what is encyclopedic material and what matters on a BLP, if you get time, would you please be able to go through Ngaiire? She's an Australian singer who appears to have one main contributor who has puffed her biography up a bit over the course of a few years and I'm having a bit of a time cutting out what's relevant and what's not. It's not a very long article, so if you could cut out what's not fit for Wikipedia in your opinion, it'd be appreciated. Thanks. Ss112 22:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, plenty of people don't agree with me! That article isn't so bad. The albums can have individual articles. There's a few flags in there that need to go. The lead has a crazy thing, "one of the greatest living people on earth by Monster Children magazine"--yeah, that magazine is nothing, and their opinion means nothing (today we're celebrating John Lewis, as far as I'm concerned). Wait--it's a clothing website? I do agree that there's too much verbosity--we can trim the quotes, remove some detail, and check closely to see what publications there are reliable and notable, and thus what can be cut. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Southern Courier page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you please look into this personal attack?

Hi Drmies, I have been dealing with Nishidani's condescending and holier than you attitude for quite some time. He routinely posts along the lines of "I know you won't understand this but...." and he issues personal attacks that just cross the line and it's gotten to be enough is enough. I asked at Bishonen's page the following but she doesn't want to deal with it. There is a reason why people are not editing in that area as much as they used to. Toxic editors who are smug and condescending is not a pleasant place to be. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

From Bishonen's page:

Hi, I was wondering if you can look at the contributions of Nishidani at Talk:United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334. One of my issues I have with him is that throughout his editing tenure here, he is extremely condescending to everyone. He pontificates, and throws out snide personal attacks. Is this a personal attack: "You've obviously never read a paragraph of anything he's written, not only because it would require more concentration that you seem capable of." And also calling someone "foggybrained," I know this may seem small, but it's basically with every interaction, and it's not just with me. Finally, I ask you to notify him that his user page violates WP:POLEMIC. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Sir Joseph. Please ask another admin, or maybe WP:AE if you prefer. Palestine-Israel is a highly contentious and contested area under discretionary sanctions — as arbcom said in 2008, it's a bitter and long-standing real-world conflict — and I'd rather not stick my ignorant nose into it. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC).

Thank you, it was more of the comments I posted right above that I was questioning. I'm not going to take him to AE just for that, but I did warn him to stop insulting others. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

And he now responded to my warning with a post (in yiddish so people wouldn't notice), that "to write history, you need a head not an ass." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And even more, "Okay- I'll dumb this conversation down even further to help you grasp the point." This condescending attitude has to stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As for POLEMIC, his page was deleted on 11:51, 31 May 2015 and then he promptly recreated it once things died down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, I'm sorry but I can't do much for you this time, being spread a little thin. I've run into Nishidani a few times but have no recollection of their being a net negative or a jerk, but I have not looked at your recent conflict or their recent edits. I think Bishonen is right and AE may be the place to go. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• OK, thanks anyway. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• , and more of the same, Sippenhaft#Connsistent_abuse_by_Sir_Joe, to repeat, this is not about the IP conflict area or about content, this is about behavior and why do I need to go to AE when all I'm asking for is for an admin to let him know to stop these attacks? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested block of User:Hijiri88

I have responded to the above editors post on my user talk page, in the section you previously responded at, at User talk:John Carter#Stop following me, please, a post which is specifically in violation of an existing ban of that individual from posting to my user talk page. Given what is, to my eyes, a deliberate attempt at falsification of evidence to misrepresent circumstances, I also believe that the block might be more than just a few days. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hey John--you know I love you like a brother, but I'm going to give you the same answer as I gave Hijiri. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Understood. But, FWIW, you should know that, after I posted here and didn't get a response for a while, I also posted at ANI. You might want to make some sort of comment, of whatever kind, there as well. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah I was in class all morning. Sorry. I'll look, but I will tell you, matters involving Hijiri (whom I love like a brother, of course) are typically too wordy for me. Vita brevis and all that, you know. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Do not apologize for being in class, dammit. If one of our primary functions is to basically try to educate people about topics, there is no way I can see anyone having to express any sort of regrets for actively doing the sane thing on a more personal and direct basis. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dr

Now that the traditional salutations are out of the way, your thoughts re: this new account [12] will be welcome. Are the copious additions of external links to a college library's papers from a WP:SPA with conflict of interest constructive or spamming? I dunno. Thanks and best wishes, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have concerns about this as well. The links actually appear to be constructive to the articles for the most part, but I am concerned about it being a WP:SPA as well, and I'm wondering what the motivation behind it is. I'll attempt to reach out on the talk page (I noticed the welcome template there already, thank you!) Garchy (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

My take, too, Garchy. A minimum of research supports the conclusion that this is WP:COI, and that the account's user is employed by the institution. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wait--this sounds very familiar. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Received a reply from the editor here - The mission does seem to be positive and contributes to the encyclopedia, but does appear to be a COI. Garchy (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, this is not the same user I ran into last year, but this is not the first time. The goal is laudable, of course, and positive, at least on the surface. EL doesn't give much guideline here. Much of it will depend on the value of the collection (quality, comprehensiveness, etc.) by itself and in relation to the subject. I mean, an archive pertaining to Home Alone, I don't see much purpose there. Without specific guidelines (maybe they got added since I last looked?), and without an RfC or something like that, we should weight it individually, and in that case a mass addition of links is burdensome and can become disruptive; certainly the previous case I saw was disruptive, with someone adding links to hundreds of pages. Mind you, I am all for archives, in principle, and we should maybe have some advice on the EL page even if we can't agree on whether they should be in or out on principle (which would be silly anyway). LadyofShalott and DGG, both of whom work in dusty underground archives, will have opinions too.

  As for the COI, meh. We can take our policy very strictly (the user has disclosed, but we can make them put a thing on their user page and a tattoo on their forehead), which I think would be counterproductive. "...whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content"--well, adding a link isn't much influence. We can call it spam, of course--but again, if it's a good archive, why not? Of course it will increase traffic to their site, and of course Jessica.holden would not be opposed to that, but we do need to think about the benefits for our articles. So it's a mixed bag. I would certainly get a few folks who know what they're doing to actually look at that archive, and at the individual links. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well put, on every level. The user's disclosure was welcome, and viewed, at least from this desktop, as an alleviating rather than incriminating measure. On balance I was unsure about the edits, too, and how the benefits mitigate the appearance of a mass spamming sort of approach. The pain is in reviewing each link to assess its relevance and importance for the article in question. Ecchh. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh absolutely--which is why it's imperative for Jessica.holden to discuss with us--on talk pages, but also on their own talk page. I'd like to see a bit of information given about the archive and, more importantly, about its individual holdings and what they add per individual article. Because, Jessica, here is the thing: a link to an archive is not automatically or inherently an article improvement. You'll look at that differently from your perspective, but that's the essence of COI: you think that what you're doing is helpful (as I think that what I'm doing is helpful...), but for the article that's not obvious. In other words, the burden is on you, and you need to meet that burden one way or another. 99, DGG, Lady, what's a good WikiProject where this can be discussed? Gotta go--and thanks for looking into this, 99. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Thank you for bringing me into this conversation. The mission of University Archives and Special Collections at UMass Boston is as follows: "The mission and history of the University of Massachusetts Boston guide the collection policies of University Archives & Special Collections, with the university’s urban mission and strong support of community service reflected in the records of and related to urban planning, social welfare, social action, alternative movements, community organizations, war and social consequence, and local history related to neighboring communities." The links that I have added to Wikipedia articles have been meant to enhance those articles - I have added links to collections of organizational records and personal papers that document the subjects of those records/papers. For example, we hold the organizational records of Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research, WUMB-FM, and the League of American Bicyclists. I have added links to those records to the Wikipedia articles about those organizations. Similarly, we hold the personal papers (which include research papers, manuscripts, correspondence, photographs, etc of a particular person) of Robert Dentler, Phyllis Harmon, and James Green, so I have added links to those papers to the articles about those individuals. My goal has been to enhance the Wikipedia articles by providing access to primary sources that were created by the subjects of the articles. I think that if a person were reading the Wikipedia article about Gloria Emerson, it would be beneficial for them to know where her photographs are held, just as an example. I did not intend to spam, and will certainly delete links if I have added too many. Are there specific guidelines for how many links an individual can or should add? Thank you for your insight!Jessica.holden (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

our general practice is to add links only to the principle archival collection, and adding additional ones often requires justification. For most people who are famous, there are small related holdings in many university library archives that supplement the main collection. Researchers need to know about them all, but WP is not a archives directory, and the information is normally available from published sources--of the person is famous, there is inevitably a published biography. and any scholarly biography will list them all as a matter of course. Jessica.holden.please review your additions and see if all of them are justified by this standard. For any that are not, if you think they are nonetheless justified, the safest course is to remove them and ask for consensus at the article's talk page. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi DGG, thank you so much for clarifying. That makes sense! There are several collections that I linked to that are not the principle collection on that subject (for example, the South End News is a newspaper published in the South End neighborhood of Boston, but is a relatively small collection so I will remove that link from the South End article), so I will review all of my additions and will remove those sources. Please let me know if there is anything else that I should correct or if you have any more questions for me. Thank you again! Jessica.holden (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

An article possibly related to your area of expertise

Hello Doc,

Since I know of your intense interest in and deep expertise about K-Pop music, I thought that I would bring this article, K-Beauty, to your attention. I learned that this worldwide skin care fad is based on ingredients such as "ingredients such as snail slime, morphing masks, bee venom (an anti-inflammatory “faux-tox” alleged to relax facial muscles), moisturizing starfish extract, and pig collagen". My confidence in 21st century journalism is restored by the incisive, in-depth coverage of this phenomenon by the Wall Street Journal, which may well win a Pulitzer Prize for artful repackaging of press releases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor Softlavender (based on self-description) –EEng N.B. nails not shown.

{{nosy parker}} "[M]ost of my patients are up to at least four steps, including a daily peel and a serum." I never understood the appeal of all that kind of rigamarole. I'm doing good if I manage not to skip brushing my teeth on days I don't leave the house or have visitors. Seriously, unless you have adult acne, or are a gay male, is all that stuff really necessary? I've never moisturized, never cleansed my face daily, never done a peel (although I can see the occasional worth of the last). I have never even worn foundation (and usually don't wear makeup). OK I eat pretty well so my skin is OK, but don't women look OK without doing all that stuff, and also without a lot of makeup (unless they are going to be on camera)? Disclaimer: Not criticizing; if anyone really loves this stuff it's fine, like a hobby; my hobby is obsessing over the shape of my fingernails (no I don't get manicures or paint my nails), which I never can get symmetrical. Softlavender (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

We are doomed. Three promotional articles created in ten minutes by a throw-away account that has done no other edits. To add spice, DGG added a speedy delete tag to K-Beauty which was declined because of all the great references. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That is pretty odd, especially since the articles are in such great shape and so well-referenced. Are throwaway accounts the new thing? Also, I have to now totally flip (I'm a Libra; I'm allowed to contradict myself and argue the other side of the coin) and say that one should not discount articles on cosmetics or cosmetics-company founders out-of-hand; to do so would seem to slide towards gender bias. (Also, I'm going to totally flip and confess that one of my secret dreams – in addition to being a professional figure skater – was to start a natural cosmetics company, because I do like lotions and creams and soaps and natural perfumes and such and have a lot of ideas about them but the things I find, even in natural stores, don't meet my ideas/standards.) Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Well with a name like Softlavender it can't help but be a success. EEng 06:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well, there's Dr.K.|another doctor, whose name expresses his love for K-Pop, who can confirm that throwaway accounts are common in the area. First edit, boom, a fully-fledged article with formatting and references and all that, including infoboxes for Hangul spelling and all that. And navigation templates. And attendant discographies and list of awards received. It is truly a miraculous thing and that's all I have to say on the topic. Softlavender, hit me up on Whatsapp and I'll do you some counseling. I do want to talk lotions with someone in the know; I want to have delicious soft feet again. In the meantime, a 15-yr old black kid got shot in Macon, Georgia, for walking down the street and I'm tired of the world, just a little. Drmies (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  I listed the articles at WP:COIN but a lot of work is already piled up there. And "another doctor" is to fix the above ping which had a typo, but it seems nothing can fix the shooting problem. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Johnuniq--I obviously stayed up past my bedtime. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Doc for the attempted ping and I fully agree with your comments regarding the socks plaguing K-pop. I only add that without your help, editing K-pop would be far more difficult. Nice connection of my nickname and K-pop, although that is purely coincidental I'm afraid. I also wish to thank John for fixing the ping issue. It is always nice talking to both of you after such a long time. In any case, I leave you to your discussion. I see shrunken heads and I am afraid the topic of this conversation may be above my pay-grade. Or else, EEng may be up to his usual, mischievous, sense of humour. I wonder. :) Dr. K. 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"BorderRuffian"

Drmies: "suggests a non-neutral point of view"

Really? You object to my username? I thought that was the business of the user.

It seems to me that objecting to it indicates a non-neutral pov. But, of course, everyone on Wikipedia has a neutral pov, right? -BorderRuffian 22:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Everyone who has read Border Ruffians knows what you're referencing. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I had others in mind when I chose the name. -BorderRuffian 23:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm convinced this is a problem and have opened a discussion at WP:RFC/N. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

You should know, seeing as you do it, too. 66.61.85.149 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Are you sure? [13] vs. [14]. I'm doing better than expected, actually. You, not so much. And we're not yet talking about reverts, or about "unwarranted". Drmies (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)