This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Drmies. Can you do me a favour? The user 109.69.167.235 had been tampering with Dc comics pages again. Is he been blocked before? No, is he the 109.69.160.98? --Manwë986 (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Are you there?--Manwë986 (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I am. Why did you ping me? A rangeblock was placed by Ferret, and I broadened it a bit. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This one has been frustrating to try to combat without just blocking three ISPs in his nation entirely. I've probably placed over 15-20 blocks in relation to this user. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Ugh. Ferret, I appreciate you. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
      • For a little documentation, here are some of the other IPs in use: 188.164.216.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 217.73.129.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 93.159.192.0/21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- ferret (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Holy moly. You have a list? Were there ever accounts? Cause we might write this up, as an LTA or an SPI, in cause you and I meet on a train and fall into a ravine. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
          • I don't believe I've ever identified any account for them. They came across my watchlist one day editing "demons" and when I looked down the rabbit hole I never escaped. They make a few minor edits that are technically ok, but there's masses of invalid edits about characters being "demons" and "gods" and all kinds of weird made up titles like "Lord King Demon of Darkness Evil Chaos" -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. So, the section title we've talked about has been changed to a more neutral one (at least, everyone seems to be okay with it), however, there's another problem now: I've created a draft for a separate page entirely dedicated to the core of the section's content (there have been talks about it, since the section is just too long and new material is arising every day), so, is it possible to urgently review/publish it as something related to an ongoing event? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I don't want to do that. I do not believe we should have such articles in the first place. We are not the news. I believe that very strongly--whether it's about the George Floyd protests, Occupy Wall Street and Every Other Fucking Thing, the wars in Donbass and Syria, and now this one. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure what "news" have to do with all that. As I see it, it's just about documenting the events, which is appropriate from the encyclopedic point of view. Some of the named articles, of course, go beyond that, but that's a different problem. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    • If you don't understand how I object to "news" when you're writing articles about events that happened in the last few days, then I think there will be more things on which we will disagree. (Seriously. It boggles the mind that you think you're not writing "news" things.) Drmies (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite get what you mean by "news things". If the recency of events is what frustrates you, then it's pretty strange, because new events is what makes the Wikipedia article base grow, and this process is natural. If what you're talking about is agenda pushing, then it's understandable, but this is something that is certainly manageable and what is to be expected on an online encyclopedia. If it's about "turning an encyclopedia into a news aggregator", well, I'd say, reading about recent events is already one of the most common Wikipedia use cases, which is only going to increase in popularity simply because Wikipedia has established itself as the biggest center of information flow in the internet. If the reasoning is something else, I am curious as to what it is. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you would say that "new events" make an encyclopedia grow, particularly when the newness of events, and therefore the paucity and immediacy of sources run directly counter to WP:V. That is my reasoning: we are not the news. Reliable sources, gathered over the long run, help select what is noteworthy. Rushing include every shot, every arrest, every move means that editors are doing all of that, and many editors, blinded by their enthusiasm or their POV, are not capable of excising non-noteworthy material unless it doesn't fit their POV. That is the problem here, and that's why we have massive articles and walled gardens of things that are simply not as noteworthy as many other things that languish in stub status. Drmies (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so it was mainly about the reliability of the sources. I can certainly agree that the majority of the articles about ongoing events get spammed with questionable references, however, it would also be true to say that usually this gets managed by the editorial community, and these sources get filtered out. COVID-19 articles are a great example of that. Also, I may be wrong about this, but it seems like you're comparing the stuff I've written in that section to something like, for example, a reference to a source about "Russian planes bombing a civilian hospital in Syria" in an article about the Syrian War, or something like that. If that's the case, this is very, very wrong. The stuff I've written there is supported by, firstly, the victims' accounts, who's names and photos are given in the articles, secondly, the photographic and, in some cases, video evidence, and, thirdly, the fact that the media cited there are not flagged by Wikipedia as unreliable sources of information and de facto are widely used in covering the internal Belarusian events. So, as I understand it, there can be no issues from the standpoint of Wikipedia guidelines. As to the "blinded by enthusiasm" and "including "non-noteworthy material" part, I can agree that it's a problem, and, frankly, a couple of times I had to restrain myself from putting even more details into those translations. However, "condensing" them even further while simultaneously preserving the original message is impossible, in my opinion. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it was not "mainly" about the reliability of the sources. That's one problem, sure, but the bigger problem is that the things that get written up may not even be noteworthy in the long run. Or need not be told in such detail. Or in any detail at all. Or they are simply wrong, or partly wrong. I'm also not talking specifically about what you are writing; it happens in all those articles. You are writing up NEWS, no matter how often you say you're not, and the argument for "this is not news but encyclopedic information" is "it's important". Well, that works for everything--for a K-pop comeback as well as a demonstration here or there. Encyclopedias should take the long view, longer than the news cycle. Have you seen the size of this? Drmies (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but there are a few problems. Let's say, we completely restrain from covering events until some time has passed since their ending (around 1 month, for example). Can you imagine the amount of material to be studied to even start writing about them? It would be very hard to do. It's much more rational to cover them right from the beginning, and only then, in the future, make sure no excessive or factually wrong material is left in an article. Also, I agree that encyclopedias should take the long view, but I don't think this approach and the type of articles we're talking about are mutually exclusive, because Wikipedia, by its nature, is in a state of a constant change and, in the end, everything there is decided by the editorial will to "do it right", i.e. to carefully choose your sources, to re-read what you've written, to avoid single POV etc. So, I think, you're a little too dramatic about this. By the way, the Hong Kong article is not that bad, considering around 50% of the page is taken by the "References" section. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm "too dramatic"? Ima let this slide since I think you're L2, but next time phrase things more carefully. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

English is, indeed, my second language, and it's the first time I see the word "dramatic" being interpreted as something derogatory. "A little too emotional", if you will, since your dislike towards this type of articles seems to be so strong. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Your best guess; what is a Wikimedia movement? Tiderolls 18:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, something that doesn't really exist but makes us feel good about ourselves? I'm just a fat old guy sitting behind a computer; I don't feel very movement-y at all. How are things? Drmies (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Meh...things are well, generally. Of course, like everyone, there are new frustrations these days. Find a way through...hope that football season makes some appearance. Concentrate on whatever positive one can find. Hope y'all are well. Tiderolls 18:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, any chance of adding translations of the legends of this image to the Commons file? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am rarely stumped, Johnbod, but I am now. That is some seriously old Dutch, and in every sentence there's a word I can't put a finger on. For instance, it says "ghescheten" in the first one, which I suppose is modern "gescheten"--but that is the past participle of "to shit" and I can't make sense of that, grammatically or otherwise. "All is lost, whether prayed or shat"? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - I'll go & try one of the smart-arsed Belgians. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm really sorry. I feel like I should know this. There's a few things here--the word choice may throw me off, and the spelling may lead me astray, and on top of that they are indeed legends, and their grammar is severely compressed, making even guessing difficult. Good luck with it, Johnbod. I'm sorry. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries - thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As random courtesy notification, this issue vaguely involving you is also at ANI. It's not going anywhere there - feel free to comment in that thread, or ignore it as you wish. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you two. A waste of time, both attempts by that user. Drmies (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, you may care to know that 111.125.118.154 is continuing to vandalise his own talk page while blocked. Perhaps his access should be removed as he is making no attempt to appeal the block? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I revoked talk page access for 111.125.118.154 (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you, User:AussieLegend and User:Johnuniq. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that you had blocked one or more IPs of the format 41.XXX.XX.XXX that had edited this article. Did anyone check these IPs against User:Untrammeled? Some of the, shall we say "odd" constructions used by these IPs reminded me of him. --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• You mean this range, I suppose. It's possible: this is typical LTA behavior, which might match your suspect, but I can't really see individual edits in the Bantu article that would suggest a match. C.Fred might remember them, and maybe has something to add here. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• I see now that Mz7 has looked at that range, in connection with another sock (K scream (talk · contribs), which I'm not familiar with. But the range is so big I can't see anything. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding my past check, my answer here is going to have be  No comment because the checkuser policy prevents us from publicly connecting accounts to their IP addresses. Since the IP range is already blocked for a month, I'm thinking there isn't anything more we need to do right now. Mz7 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Khajidha, yeah, I don't see what any of us could do here. You might post a few edits on the SPI, but it's ancient history. I appreciate you letting us know, of course, and it's something to keep an eye on. But the range is blocked, of course. The bigger question I have is who, which expert, is going to improve all those articles and make them as strong as they should be. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

2.99.236.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Would you mind taking a look at this IP's edits, and most likely blocking them? They are inserting nonsense sequences of (always) 4 words into random articles. They were reported at AIV more than an hour ago, but it seems to be backlogged. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 01:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Thanks. And I'll have a look at AIV. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You beat me to a block by about ten seconds. I guess that's what I get for being nice and only attempting a p-block (which cost me about 15 seconds figuring out the Twinkle menus). Primefac (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. I had someone beat me by a few seconds, and I got some new note saying "already blocked"--but I went ahead and blocked anyway, haha, so now the WMF has to send us both a check. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  You know you've screwed up royally when there's at least a three-way edit conflict to block you... Primefac (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Haha, no, it was a different one, a day or two ago. Sorry. I think Only blocked just before I did. Maybe we have to split those five bucks. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, based on the block log, it was just you beating me, but I'll take a split ;-) Primefac (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• y’all are getting paid for this??? only (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oh I can't wait til I get the checks in for what I did just now, cleaning up AIV. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Five bucks a block? The WMF owes me $11,680. How the heck do I collect? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately CU blocks, the easy ones, are only one dollar each. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It's all in bitcoin floating around the ether. I'll tell you the secret if you send $49.95 (American currency only please) to:

Prince JfI P.o. box 13 Mombasa 36Z25

John from Idegon (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

this LTA just posted your personal info. Good thing got them on time and reported pronto! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris, Deleted and blocked. Drmies you may want that suppressed? Glen (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that's WhenDatHotlineBlings, who gets a kick out of this kind of childishness. Revert, block, suppress--and report to WMF... Drmies (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope you are staying safe in these trying times --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 11:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks--apparently we don't have an outbreak yet, that's the good news. BTW I just got tested--wasn't painful or bothersome at all, and it was negative. I don't agree with having in-person classes, but I have no choice, and at least my classes are in these huge auditoriums, with some of the students following remotely. It sucks but it's the best we can do within the parameters of "we must get students back to campus or they won't pay full tuition". Drmies (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I requested to delete this page because I had made a rewrite of it on another page. It wasn't copied without attribution, since I wrote both of them and I mentioned on Draft talk:Women in the US Healthcare Workplace: A Focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion that it was a rewrite. Thanks for understanding. Eugenia Lee CEF (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Gotcha. That wasn't clear to me. It's the kind of thing you can note in an edit summary; see WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw this comment. I'm not familiar with this dispute at all but the argument from silence caught my attention. In my wikipedia editing experience I'll sometimes find a scholar making a claim buried deep in a book and it will neither be repeated by other scholars nor rebutted by them (as it never gains prominence). That doesn't mean its false, but if something is WP:DUE shouldn't it be repeated by other sources? Thus, can argument from silence be a valid argument on wikipedia? VR _talk 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• There's a difference between "not repeated by other scholars" or "not repeated YET by other scholars". That's number one. But as someone else at that forum, if we disallow a thing that other scholars don't repeat, we have to throw out tons of scholarship. In history and literature, we operate a little bit differently from the physical sciences--results don't necessarily require verification by others. The point here is that both the press and the journal have editorial boards who can flag content. I just got done with a book, and it had two reviewers looking at the next-to-final version. An article I published a few years ago had FIVE reviewers--people who have published in my field will tell you how extraordinary that is. But the real point, and that's the sticking point that is buried underneath, is that scholars are re-reading tons of material now with an eye on issues that by earlier scholars were taken for granted for one reason or another, and in this case that the practice of slavery, which so many colonialists were involved in/guilty of. Sorry, gotta run. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond.VR _talk 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to handle the incident on the Jacob Blake page, thank you for the clarification! --Buffaboy ^talk 17:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for reverting. I've taken this a step farther. If you look at the user's talk page, you will see two very specific warnings, both of which apply here, about discretionary sanctions. And if I had seen the second edit, after you reverted, or maybe even the first one, I might have blocked on the spot: they were warned and should have known better. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the ping, you were the first admin I saw online. I am anxiously waiting to hear back if I got a position I am vying for so my focus is a little strayed. As you can see from my talk page, it's been a very busy night.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Exciting! Are you making any money on blocks, or is it all difficult stuff? I'm just sitting here watching my boy play Splatoon while a dog is nuzzling my hip. Oh now he's nuzzling my elbow. He's very hairy but his nose is delightful. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'd love to make money on blocks . It's a mixture of both and I normally wouldn't mind but tonight I have not let my phone out of my sight. I thought I'd do some relaxing editing and well... I heard Fall Guys is also pretty popular. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Haha, that eight-year old little s**t had already heard about it! But it's not available on the Switch, which is what we have. Ha, I've never even touched it, unless I'm cleaning the house. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate your fast response over at Chadwick Boseman. If I got one more edit conflict message I was going to go insane. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah sure thing. I just went through a whole bunch of RFPP requests, but I find those so boring, and the WMF doesn't send checks for semi-protection. I had no idea he had died--that was a shock. Black Panther is the only superhero movie I've seen in the last decade or so, and I really enjoyed it, but also in part, of course, because of the African-American mythological aspect of it, the Afrofuturism, which was very interesting. Hey thanks for all that ant-vandal work you're doing. Don't forget to write articles or you'll get bored. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Drmies, and thanks for shutting down a couple of unproductive discussions at the talk page. Does it strike you as possibly more than a coincidence that we suddenly have a wave of editors, including at least one brand-new single purpose editor, all trying to change the article to be more supportive of Rittenhouse? Is some commentator out there telling their listeners, "go and fix the Wikipedia article about this!"? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sure you saw that article in Grio: I have no doubt there are concerted efforts, besides the usual socks. What's funny is that I just semi-protected the article on Brian Urlacher, the *******, who posted something supportive of that alleged murderer and is getting flak for it. Ha, lest I get accused of partiality, here I am protecting his article. I think we need more admins on those articles with shorter fuses. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't know anything about Grio, and in a quick look just now I didn't see what you meant. But I do suspect that somebody somewhere is encouraging their followers to come here and fix our article to emphasize Rittenhouse's version of the incident. As for Urlacher, I hear you. I often find myself protecting articles about people I can't stand, or removing POV stuff that I secretly agree with. I have a pretty long fuse, but on a lot of these articles I am too INVOLVED, in terms of content editing, to do much adminning. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • This is what I meant. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, my barnstar yesterday was sincere, so if it did not come across that way, I apologize. Secondly, they are up to their usual loser tactics again so perhaps another block is in order if you are interested. If so, I promise to keep my appreciation on the low down this time. Thanks for your assistance with this idiot. Robvanvee 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry, blocked by Materialscientist. Robvanvee 09:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate it, but in hindsight I wasn't proud of myself. I see that Ms placed a nice, big, fat rangeblock. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. There's a problem with this template: it gets repeatedly vandalized by some IP editors who are forcing a "new code style", which drops the manual input of the gain percentages, even though I told them I don't need that as a sole maintainer of the template, since I have a script performing that task for me and their changes disrupt my workflow. They also seem to be aggressive about it and attempted to vandalize my personal talk page. Here are some of their edits there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. To be clear, this coding style was not discussed on the default template's talk page and, as far as I know, is not enforced in any way by the template's developers. Even though the "new" style has been adopted by many of the COVID-19 cases templates' maintainers, it is purely optional, and the "old" style is still used, for example, in the UK template, or the Spanish one. So, is there anything that can be done about it? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes there is. You can ask for this at RFPP also, next time. And this may help too. Drmies (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Got it, thank you. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • When semi-protection runs out we'll re-evaluate. If the editor shifts IPs (you can easily check whether they've been disrupting other templates) we'll see what we can do. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you please block 14.192.208.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), or reinstate the block on 14.192.192.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? This is an LTA who has returned very recently (one of the IPs that edited on August 15 was Globally Blocked today, for example). This range has been continuously abused since November 2018, and in the multiple individual IP blocks I've viewed, I've seen admin comments hinting that there are plenty of Open Proxies in this range. Given the behavior, I believe that this is WhenDatHotlingBling or My Royal Young (a CU wouldn't hurt either). Since you have some experience dealing with these LTAs, I thought that you should be the one to handle this. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• zzuuzz, can you help out here? I'm being doxxed again, as we speak. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, s***, looks like you have your hands full. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: Actually, I know exactly who you're referring to. 2001:1bb0:e000:1e::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log). This nut is "threatening" suicide while attempting to out some personal data (how the f*** did they even get their hands on that??). They just went from en.wikitionary to the Simple Wikipedia. I doubt that anything less than a Global Block will stop them. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Ruslik0, Bsadowski1, and Tks4Fish: Can someone please Globally Block 2001:1bb0:e000:1e::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for 1-2 years? This is an Open Proxy currently being abused by an LTA, and it's becoming a bigger cross-wiki problem. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
        • @LightandDark2000: done for 6mos. Thanks for the warning. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 17:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Yeah. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, someone can take care of our LTA pal, now that this ****storm has blown over. BTW, the latest edit on the range (14.192.192.0/18) from today shows that the LTA is still on there. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Pretty manipulative move of yours to choke off a legitimate debate. Now even the neutrality template has been removed from the article. Why not let neutral admins take over? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I thought you knew that we are working on this project where we use secondary sources. Your debate was not legitimate: it was just bunch of speculation. If that is how you think neutrality is achieved, by letting someone discredit reliable sources based on them having watched a video, then maybe this project is not for you. And if you are going to claim objectivity, don't do it after this kind of edit, where your edit summary, "Cut back the whiny and lengthy victimology that treats his perceived racist treatment as fact (quote has anyway nothing to do with with racism", is a racist claim that is probably a BLP violation. And after I had to scrub a whole bunch of your edits because, again, you seem to be blissfully unaware of the BLP. Do you need to be informed about discretionary sanctions in the BLP and AP areas? Drmies (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary! From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Drmies. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Drmies, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4, he's already received two of these, just above yours, from CAPTAIN RAJU and Synoman Barris. Y'all really need to get a clue or stop posting these. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, One condition when placing entries into the Birthday committee calendar is More than one person from the committee may send messages to the same person. Please have a look at WP:BDC. Best regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Can I just ask why you made this edit to Savage (song)? I did not know it violates the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you! Bgkc4444 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Hi Drmies, I see you blocked Unusual Wikipedian and noticed EnlightenedWikipedian, which was created shortly before. Not sure if the name similarity is enough for a CU but probably worth keeping an eye out. S0091 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't account for the tone on that talk page, but I feel like I'm watching one of those board games where all the players have a secret goal that they're not allowed to reveal to the other players but drives their movements. Folks need to calm down. I can't think of anything more genial than interrogating the historiography of a topic and yet everyone's at each other's throats. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks again for that lengthy commentary; I appreciated that. I think there's goals, yes--I think Binksternet wants something in, I think Thucydides wants something out, and if you go over the edits you'll see I'm at least partly in the middle, having taken out material that T. thought was SYNTH, and added the Hutchins material which arguably is on B's side. But I don't take kindly to obvious "oh this is fringe" arguments if that is clearly not the case, and T has a long history of choking up talk page discussions with interminable posts. The desire to keep things clean, to keep our Founding Fathers and their companions free of such connotations--I saw one of those National Geographic magazines at the store today, about the Founding Fathers and their struggle for freedom or whatever, and I couldn't help but think of Jefferson and his 600 enslaved men. So yeah, I take that seriously--but I'd like to think that I wasn't defending a crazy opinion that was not supported by scholarship and by our policies. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to lionize the founding generation. I'm trying to write an accurate and informative article about an influential pamphlet. I dislike when pages are used to make a point about something else entirely. Information about Dickinson's ownership of slaves is very relevant at John Dickinson, but it's been shoehorned into Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (even into the lede), where it's almost entirely irrelevant. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Your problem, Thuc, is that you value your own opinion on a par with scholarly and journalistic sources that have been vetted by peer reviews and editorial oversight. Until you have your own trove of such published analysis, it really would boost everyone's productivity on this site if you'd repeat your opinions maybe twice at the most. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, since you've taken a further interest in the question, perhaps I could invite you to Talk:Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania#Crevecoeur? The question of whether Hutchins is part of the historical mainstream on Crevecoeur is an interesting one, and it's certainly a legitimate question for Wikipedia editors to engage in, regardless of their credentials. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: If you followed the WP:RSN discussion, you saw that in this case, the scholarship bore out my skepticism of Hutchins, in that his views do not appear to represent the general scholarship. Mackensen showed that Hutchins regards his own views as novel, and that what scholarly comment there is on Hutchins' work on Crevecoeur has been quite negative. Just to be clear: I've never put my views above those of the scholarship. I've pointed out that Hutchins' characterization of Crevecoeur is radically different from that of other scholars. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, I understand your position completely insofar as whitewashing the founders is concerned and I have no patience for that (it's not on par with Clean Wehrmacht exactly, but it's similar). I'm just not convinced that we're dealing with such a situation in this case. Anyway, I apologize, I didn't mean to throw a party on your talk page but that seems to have happened all the same. Mackensen (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:8807:200:BA9:182:E20E:C361:F2D7 seems to be on an ongoing campaign to remove certain software categories the editor sees as redundant. This has often been reverted by multiple editors, including myself, but many of these are still outstanding. The editor often simply (manually) repeats his edits, and has not engaged on talk. With a couple dozen articles involved, it's getting a bit tedious. In fairness, the editor (per edit summaries) does have a point, just not a complete one. It could be discussed, somewhere, but I'm not sure where though, and the IP isn't discussing anything anyway.

Does this merit an attention-getting block, or maybe something more? Whatever you decide is fine by me. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

August

Sunflowers in Walsdorf

Finally a reason to give you the bumblebee before the month is over: for the coffee you gave El C, while I still struggled to word something ironic about this Much ado about nothing. I think it's today that I finally understood what disruptive means. Waste the time of how many people about white space???--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Haha, the entire election in the US seems to be about white space. Thanks Gerda! Drmies (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I had a tough topic today in more than one sense. Couldn't believe he had no article. And then we argue about white space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Or we piss on those administrators who block trolls. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I spoke up for y'all. Though knowing wiki it'll prolly get removed or whatever. At least I tried. Sad because I think we admired her. Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Today: Rhythm Is It!, inspired by a phrase by El C ;) - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, Le Sacre du printemps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Drmies. I work for bitFlyer, the largest cryptocurrency company in Japan. I would like to contest the proposed deletion of the bitFlyer page, since multiple editors previously supported the page, approved/implemented my suggested edits, and said the references were good. However, I am not sure if I am allowed to contest the proposed deletion as an editor with a conflict of interest? Would greatly appreciated if you could take a look and advise. Thank you! Sebastien0693 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it prudent to add a large^{[weasel words]} number of tags to an article, without explanation? See Indo-Aryan migration: Revision history; I don't know what to think of this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears that you protected the page Chadwick Boseman, for the following reason:

Persistent vandalism

Remember: The page is being heavily edited because the subject, Chadwick Boseman, has recently died.

Please unprotect the page so IPs can edit and add new evidence about Boseman's death. Sysages (talk | contribs) 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)What is your motivation here, Sysages? The use of the word "evidence" is extremely troublesome in this context. --Orange Mike | Talk

So I was reading our page on this repulsive man and they had a link to a book he had authored near the end of his life defending segregation and white supremacy. Believing the link did not belong in the body of the article, I have moved it to the external links section. However on reviewing the link which takes you to a digitized copy of Bilbo's book, I got suspicious and checked out the webhost. And naturally it is a white supremacist website. This has left me deeply conflicted. On the one hand I think the work, repulsive as it is, is historically significant and lays out very clearly Bilbo's beliefs and ideology. As such I tend to think it meets the criteria in WP:EL. On the other hand, I do not want Wikipedia being used in any way as a possible source of traffic to this website which is unquestionably WP:FRINGE. I am conflicted on whether to give weight to WP:NOTCENSORED or WP:PROFRINGE. I note that NOT is policy while PROFRINGE is a guideline, but... This is really odious stuff. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. This isn't a time sensitive issue. It's late here and I'm off to bed. I'm sure it's late where you are as well. I will check in tomorrow sometime. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem--good call. That is a nice bit of fascist and racist swinery, holy moly. In this case, there is an easy solution, if you want to link that text--here. HathiTrust is fantastic (they have tons of serials), and it always makes me think of The ed17 because Michigan. I read a few pages, and now I'm even sicker to my stomach than I already was, because shit like this, "This book is not a condemnation or denunciation of any race, white, black or yellow because I entertain no hatred or prejudice against any human being on account of his race or color-God made them so", I still hear (or read that every day. BTW the best student in my Early American Lit class is this wonderful young woman whose father is Black from Puerto Rico, and her mother Spanish (Spanish Spanish, not Central-American Spanish) by way of Cuba. "Mongrelization"--brr. Yes, I'd certainly remove that link from the lead, and if it were me, I'd beef up that section on the text (under "Death") with some third-party sources, so I could make a summarizing statement in the lead rather than merely state its existence.

Sorry I took my sweet time getting to this. I'm a bit miffed over recent developments at AN, and I don't really care to do much administrative work right now. Thanks again, and take care, Drmies (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

HathiTrust saved my master's thesis. Not gonna take a swing at the rest of that. :-) Hope you're well, Drmies! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

@Drmies: Hi, I'm sorry to be bothering you about this again, but I'm making zero progress. I had created that RFC in the vain hope of getting the attention of users beyond the usual crowd, and very quickly it has been drowned out by Optra2021 who simply copy and pasted his massive response from previously. The only user to respond to this RFC has immediately ducked out, and frankly I don't expect anyone else to participate. These issues usually drag on until these new users get blocked for being revealed as sockpuppets, and frankly I suspect that user and H0llande are both socks of MixedButHumann. It'd be brilliant if I could get your thoughts or help on this. Cheers. Mugsalot (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Mugsalot, I'm sorry but I won't be able to help you for a little while, certainly not in an administrative function. Your suspicions seem to have a foundation and I encourage you to file at WP:SPI, and maybe get an experienced CU to look at it. Maybe that is the first thing to do--if that comes up positive you can ask an admin to simply scrap all their walls of text. Or you can go to WP:AN and ask for an admin to help you out in that RfC; stifling conversation with walls of text is disruptive, and they are impeding progress in the article. As far as I can tell this kind of disruption has been going on for a while; if it weren't on a topic that's pretty far removed from the White, computer-educated Anglo-American experience, it would have been up at ArbCom a long time ago. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

second the motion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Mugsalot opened a second RFC on the 30th August 2020, therefore not even a week has passed. Another user replied to the RFC today. Maybe Mugsalot is just impatient, and should try to give other Wikipedians the oppertunity to get a clue what is really going on from BOTH sides, since this is unfortunately a topic, not many people are interested in or know anything about it. I will remove my comment from the RFC myself. It is again nice to see, Mugsalot is accusing another editor for being a "sock" since user H0llande is not in line with Mugsalot´s preferences, and the overall Assyrian POV editings on English Wikipedia. I suggest you to take a look at those allegedly "socks" and by whom (according to their contributions, namely Assyrian POVs) they were reported to admins. This has been the case for many years without anyone noticing it. I hope you pay attention to it the next time, please. Thank you very much in advance. --Optra2021 (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thank you for your prompt response and advice. It seems that an SPI is the best course of action, albeit I'm not wholly familiar with the process so it'll likely be a bit rough around the edges. I did also find this bizarre little page for an SPI seemingly about me by a user who's only popped up this month and seems to be parroting the other two users I mentioned. Mugsalot (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I just asked a SPI admin to make an investigation on me. I have nothing to hide to anyone!

The bizarre user probably pointed out at some of Mugsalot's unknown POV-editings in the past, e. g. when he changed the original book title from "Arameans and the Making of 'Assyrians'" to "Assyrians and the Making of 'Arameans'" on purpose or falsfying the organisation's official name from "World Council of Arameans" to "World Council of Assyrians". He abuses his "credibility" to continue POV-editings since he has been on Wikipedia for almost 5 years. Admins should be suspicious, why so many Wikipedians get blocked or accused for alleged sockpuppetry regarding this situation, and shouldn’t rely too heavily on the fact just because Mugsalot and his companions have been on English Wikipedia for so long, therefore they must be the good guys and anyone else especially new Wikipedian like me are the bad guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johny_Messo&diff=935120057&oldid=908926034

https://books.google.de/books?id=9cDyswEACAAJ&dq=johnny+messo+Assyrians&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBtr3P_sjrAhVFy6QKHRHDBgMQ6AEwAHoECAQQAQ

Please could you review Mugsalot's past and current editings? Optra2021 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm no expert on rules, but Assyrian779 admitting to be blocked user Aram-Israel must be breaking some rule or another 1. I really should learn how to deal with this sort of thing properly considering how frequently this happens. Cheers. Mugsalot (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: We seem to have yet another sockpuppet (Drmartinbey), who, as Arabsalam kindly informed us, has already been blocked on German Wikipedia (1). Mugsalot (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drmies,

When carrying out my recent changes patrolling, I came across the above named user, and what specially caught my attention was this edit [1]. It got reverted by cluebot, but you may know who the user is? They have also added things to their talkpage. Agent00x (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Agent00x: I've left the things on their user talk in case it's useful to build a sockpuppet history, though others may feel free to blank or delete. However, even if I don't know who it is, it's obvious enough that it's a sockpuppet that I've blocked and revoked talk page access. —C.Fred (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a bunch of possibilities, and the log shows three or four different SPIs. I found no other recent socks but the range is huge. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. How's it going? I was reflecting on the block of that IP range, and reached the conclusion that a month would be an appropriate length. I was tempted by a bit longer, but on balance I think a month rather than a week. I also reached the conclusion that you probably didn't intend to reduce it.[2] If you don't mind, I think I'll put it back. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Shoot zzuuuzz, I'm sorry, I don't know how that happened. Yes please--I'm sorry. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No problemo. I only mentioned it so people don't think we're having a wheel war. And without further ado, it is done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Haha, a block I placed last week was lifted without a by-your-leave. I gotta say, that was a first. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hiya Drmies, I've been this morning having the (dis)pleasure of receiving these grim comments by LissanX (whom you previously blocked for personal attacks [3]) out of nowhere.

Hello HistoryofIran. You should know that Wikipedia is not your personal blog, nor a vehicle to push your personal opinions, or perhaps racist tendencies. The Rashidun Caliphate’s military had many non-Arab Muslims. This is not an “opinion” as you have tried to portray it, perhaps as a way to antagonize Arabs. The Sassanian Empire was also not known as Iran to anyone, not even the Sassanians themselves. The state, as well as nearly all other states centered on modern-day Iran were known as Persia until the 20th century. The Sassanian Empire was known partly a ‘Eranshahr’, which was an endonym and also not the same term as ‘Iran’. Following me across several articles just to edit war, especially given your history of edit warring, is childish.

Stop your malicious behavior.

You should spend your day taking a reading comprehension class instead

Looking at this user’s edit history, he seems to impose Islamophobic and anti-Arab antagonistic language. ... It seems HistoryofIran is edit warring for the sole purpose of pushing racist and islamophobic language.

To explain it to you like a child, since apparently that’s what you need

A little thing I noticed, a few days after his block expired last year, he resorted to the same type of bad behaviour in this thread [4]. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if I found more if I started digging. The only reason I know about this thread is because I myself was part of it.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to hear that. I see that Ian.thomson already warned them--let's see if that helps. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The toxic behaviour hasn't changed at all [5]. Don't mean to push you, but several grim accusations of racism and whatnot, including just general uncivility, surely should be taken a bit more serious? This user is well aware about the rules regarding civility considering he has been blocked once, and warned several times. Btw, he was warned by another user as well before Ian but still continued, just like as he is now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Well that was not nice. (But plz keep indentation consistent.) Yes, it's time that they stop doing that. Ian.thomson, you think a week is proper? I might have checked "indefinite"--it's not at all clear to me that the editor is willing to listen to others and to improve their behavior. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm seeing that you've blocked them previously. As I said on my talk page, ANI is woefully inadequate at dealing with incivility, and one of the problems there is probably giving out more rope than Candlejack will ever need. Unless we can get together a case to show that they need to be topic banned from areas where they're most likely to insult and edit war, I think the next block for this stuff should be indeffing. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Is your indentation correct here [6]? I'm not sure who you're saying is wrong, and it's important since it's currently one vs. one. Geogene (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• My "no" was addressed at your "yes", yes. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • So when Patronek says other scientific papers report breed as a factor, this is secondary. When Patronek reports his own conclusion that breed is not a factor, this is primary? Geogene (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    • That is incomplete, but suggests the opposite of what I was saying. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I sent you an email, just a heads up. Praxidicae (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. There's always a new low, isn't there. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but I think this might (unfortunately) be what is needed to get something done. Praxidicae (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

• New partnerships
  • Al Manhal
  • Ancestry
  • RILM
• #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
• AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! New to editing on Wikipedia and I thought I added verified information about Posey's romantic life that seemed to have been acceptable based on what other actors' pages have (ex George_Clooney#Relationships, Jennifer_Aniston#Relationships ). I avoided tabloids and kept the wording particular to the situation. Not hurt that it's gone. Nature of the game. But, what would have been a better revision for future reference?-- Sternalize (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for the note. I gotta say, it's a bit disappointing that those article have so much of that kind of stuff, but by the same token, at least some of the sourcing is of pretty high quality (I saw a link to an Independent article--though also one to Fox, in the Clooney article). The content you added does have a gossipy flavor ("rumors surfaced") and besides an Instagram link, the material is sourced with tabloids like People and Entertainment Tonight. Add to that that Posey isn't Clooney or Aniston...in fact, I think the section as it currently exist needs some pruning as well. But that's just my opinion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks a bunch for taking the time to write that out. Got it. Firsthand sources and avoiding any allegations. -- Sternalize (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Didn't want to muddy the discussion over at AE, but the editor you mentioned is almost certainly a sock, probably of some banned user. I'm never sure what to do in situations where a user hasn't yet reached that threshold of disruption that would merit an indef block yet fishing trips to SPI aren't allowed. ~Awilley (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

On 3 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Islam in the Arctic, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite an extensive history of Islam in the Arctic, the first mosque (pictured) in the Canadian Arctic was only built in 2010? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Islam in the Arctic), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That was a hard slog, my friend. Somewhere alog the way the creating editor vanished. Fiddle Faddle 12:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for seeing it through! Flibirigit (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

September

Thank you for another good one! - Every once in a while, I have a TFA, happy that it was also a tribute to Brian, in great collaboration, fine Main page, and see also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Volkslied. I began that article, as a translation from a much longer thing in German, for the Wanderlust. So far, it redirected to the history of Folk music, and Volkslieder redirected to a certain album. Now, searching, I se that it is also a name for Dutch anthems. How do we distinguish? Hatnote? Mationing in lead? See also? I know too little about these anthems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

(that question still open ...) - in contrast: matching colours music to the Dahlias, "brute loud and secretly quiet". - The music (specifically "Meermenschen") was given to me for my birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, Drmies, you're probably aware of this already, but in case you missed it, someone else engoodened your Shooting of Greg Gunn article, and it appeared on DYK in the set immediately before the one with Islam in the Arctic. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Whoa, no, I was not. User:GeneralNotability, holy moly--that was a nice bit of work: thank you. I'll add that much of what happened in this case directly contradicts how the president claims things go. And the killer went to jail, but damn, I can't look at a painter's stick without thinking about that poor man. FloNight wrote a related article, Shooting of Bernard Whitehurst, and FloNight, my friend Foster Dickson wrote that book. I met and shook hands with Mr. Whitehurst's brother at the book presentation we had on my campus, and felt honored. Whitehurst has the street named for him now, and it's around the corner of the Lynching memorial (as it's still colloquially called here). We finally elected a Black mayor, Steven Reed (mayor), who is doing a pretty good job (and mandated masks, for instance). Things are happening here. Anyway, Mandarax, thanks for letting me know, and for always helping out with DYKs and everything, and GeneralNotability, thanks for doing that heavy lifting--you too, FloNight. We should all meet in Montgomery and I'll show you around. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, happy to help, I didn't even notice it was yours - otherwise I totally would have let you know that I was working on it. I actually spent a few years in Montgomery when I was pretty young, but it's been a long, long time. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Small world, GeneralNotability--and your dog looks a lot like our most recent puppy. We should chat about things--schools, downtown, etc. Things are probably better now than when you were here. Of course places for activities are still at a premium here; we drove all around Lake Martin yesterday for a kayak trip down the Tallapoosa. Ha and we all got sunburned pretty badly. Anyway, thanks again--you did a fantastic job and I really appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have deprodded Drought (sport). Deletion of an article that's been around over 15 years and has such an extensive history isn't likely to be uncontroversial. I have no prejudice against bringing the article to AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, could you please take a look at the W. Ian Lipkin page? I've been reluctantly drawn into an edit war with Thucydides411. The debate is related to quotes added from a primary source i.e an interview with Lipkin conducted by a fellow Columbia professor, which, along with material from over 70 other sources, is repeatedly wiped. Thanks. Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• It seems to me you're in an edit war with a whole bunch of people, and that your (massive) edit falls way outside the scope of a BLP. Sorry. BTW I'm not sure why you're posting here. I've never edited the article, and while I have had some serious disagreements with Thucydides411, I don't hold to the whole "enemy of my enemy" kind of theory. Again, sorry, but when I look at phrasing like "There was some dissent, however", I can't help but think that I'm reading an essay. And if this would come up on WP:3R, and I saw the report, I would block you for edit warring immediately. I don't know if you have violated the bright line of 3R, but you are certainly edit-warring in the long term. What's that, four reverts since the day before yesterday? Oh I wish you hadn't invited me to investigate this. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• 45,000 bytes! I ain't reading through that! (LOL). Life's to short. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. You may want to consider the block you mentioned. See [7] Best, — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks--but I restored the comment. Let it serve as a memorial. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• I guess that was the sound of one mouse-clicking. Perhaps they should take their own advice, taking care to not let the abyss stare back. Oh, I guess it did. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Whaaaaaaaa. I have enough nihilism in my life already, with two teenagers and one boy. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Doc. Could you or one of your stalkers possibly take a look at the recent edits of Cificis. He's been here over two years. Recently he's become interested in catagories pertaining to schools and to my rather ignorant eye appears to be mangling them. Considering my recent problems with getting along with folks, I'd prefer someone else who knows more about catagories than I get involved. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Drmies

Ref previous talk page and email discussion about a sensitive case, Boynamedsue, has again referred to it. Could you please take another look at the talk page, inadvertently @JzG: has also mentioned it. WCM_email 12:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You might be interested by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThegreatBush Elizium23 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. Again, a nice insight into human nature. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This editor's behavior strikes me as odd [[8]]. New just 7 days ago, now at 400 edits. Starts by editing their own user page to blank (avoids the red user name). Lots of talk page activities in a short period of time... [[9]]. Basically a bunch of red flags. Not sure which admin would be the best to look at this so I figured I would ask you. Thanks, Springee (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I am no accomplished sockpuppet detective but the behavior of this editor raises red flags to me. Their very first editing session lasted five hours and was almost entirely focused on pushing vegan anti-meat talking points. When criticized for POV pushing, they have turned to adding flagrant meat-loving userboxes to their userpage, as if that would resolve valid concerns. Perhaps they think we all fell off a turnip truck, but I for one do not appreciate having my chain pulled. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Jpgordon and Berean Hunter didn't act, so any administrative action will have to come from behavior. Cullen, it's up to you. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Given that this editor came to my attention during a content dispute at Smithfield Foods, I am involved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you asked TonyBallioni and his magic checkuser 8-ball? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed by Bishonen, unblock request declined by Salvio. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Occurs to me it's time for one of these. Cheers! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes it is--I'm sitting here with coffee, indeed. Thanks Geoff. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You beat me to it by about 2 seconds, maybe less. Have a lovely weekend.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, if it hadn't been for the username I might not have looked at it. Roll Tide Ponyo, and all the best to you. I'm sad: the kids couldn't stop screwing around while we were playing Splendor and I walked away from the table, and now I feel like a bad parent. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Wow, walking away from Splendor, that's some tough love you're doling out. Next step: Scared Straight!.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd hate to be that kind of person. I already hate being this kind of person. But I've been here, home with the kids, essentially since March and I am running out of things to do with them, and with myself. Everyone spends too much time on their devices, including me. I should actually do some writing. Thx Ponyo--Ima get busy in other ways. Much love, Drmies (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it's been a while since I've done one. I think this might be another sock puppet, similar name, edits and history User:Kyurkan1 --AW (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, shoot, I just closed all my CU windows... OK, I cannot confirm that. This might call for an SPI, if you really think these are socks. BTW I only "updated" because I wanted the record to show the names and the reason, not cause I knew better or something like that. But yes, I have no doubt there are more; they always travel in packs. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • True, I can't tell if they are socks or just a bunch of people doing the same thing, but seems pretty similar for it to be multiple folks. I don't think I've asked for an investigation before, do you have any advice? --AW (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Awiseman, if you think it is worth the effort (it'll take you a few minutes), then go to WP:SPI, to "How to open an investigation:" Just follow the format/template, but you have to choose a name. If that Kyurkan account is older, you file it under that. You can list all the ones that I blocked (and note that I already CU-blocked them), but the more important thing is that you provide the evidence--what kinds of edits, what topic, what idiosyncrasies, etc. Since I cannot confirm that they are them via CU, it will have to be done on behavior--the old-fashioned way, so to speak. The better your (succinct) evidence, the easier you make it for the next admin who looks at it. Good luck! PS I see you've been sort of intermittently active; I appreciate you having stuck around. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you think: [10]? -- Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hrm. Well, zapped, obviously; no encyclopedic purpose (I really hope we're not in the business of using Wikipedia's voice to place new articles in the N-word category). A little more troubling than usual, in that pagemover access was required to create it through the title blacklist, but not really sure if that needs to be pursued; it's kind of a passive use of a right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Note to Drmies: Please check who (re)created the Category and when: [11]. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(the admin-only link you'll want is Special:Undelete/(page title). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC))

I just fully create protected that as a reflex. Feel free to undue if I was wrong, but damn! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

" (diff) 2020-04-22T02:03:57 . . L293D (talk | contribs | block) 29 bytes (Redirected page to Category:Negro via Articles for Creation (you can help!)) Tag: New redirect"? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I like WK's deletion note--"(non-controversial) cleanup: the obvious) " --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was not a good creation. A category redirect is really sort of a sidestep in the first place, and I don't know what purpose they thought this might serve. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, when I said "put through the wringer", I wasn't saying that all of that was unjustified. Creating a category like this deserves to be questioned... I assume you didn't know about this creation, but when someone runs for admin they can expect people to dig deep, and this is the kind of thing that will come up again. So, in the meantime, L293, who otherwise seems like a fine editor, has some thinking to do, and should consider writing down some of those thoughts for next time... Drmies (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but nobody's ever complained about Prince of Fucking Darkness. As for the category, I'd use G10 instead of G6, but that's just me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. But certainly in the US, in 2020, there is no comparison between the n-word and "fucking"... I can say "fucking" in class. If I say the n-word in class I'll be out of a job. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Um, yeah - that's why I said in this case I'd G10 delete it and tell the creator something along the lines of "please do not do that again", regardless of who did it. Frankly, it reminds me of Neelix, and not in a good way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Not going to say who the target of Prince of Fucking Darkness should be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

On a tangential note, tomorrow is exactly 50 years since Paranoid was released. I'd put it on the main page, but it's got too much unreferenced content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it didn't come out of nowhere; they created it as a response to this entry on the Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories page. Still not good, and still not policy, but it's a little more understandable as part of mass-handling AfC requests than as a "let's create this cat redirect just because we can". I chose G6 just because it's what the ((Category_redirect)) template suggested, and I didn't feel it was worth anyone's time to think more about exactly which criterion fit best for a page that so obviously needed deletion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

SHoulda said no. We cannot grant every request, and one stopped by an edit filter should give someone pause. Should we ping them? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the first person to ask would be LaundryPizza03 who asked for the redirect in the first place. An AGF excuse from L293D could be "well, that editor's been around for a while and doesn't look like a troublemaker, so I'll assume they're doing this for a reason". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to alert the following to this ([12]), since the editor says he is going to run for RFA again: Barkeep49, Bradv, L235, Cullen328, Fuzheado. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  Consider me alerted but I'm not sure to what end. I hope, really truly hope, that L293 will take on board what was offered, as their withdrawal statement said they would. And I hope in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, however long that they will have gained some experience in tough discussions and that I am able to support, if not nominate them, at their second RfA. Beyond that I have no interest in being a part of saying further negative things about someone who has done a lot of good for the encyclopedia and who I just publicly criticized, and did so in a way that has earned me some criticism I am reflecting on myself, and who I very much want to stay around, because we are a better encyclopedia with them as an editor than without. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  What Barkeep49 said. I don't see any need for further knife-sharpening. Hopefully L293D returns soon and gains the necessary experience to show us what kind of admin he can be. I look forward to supporting his next RfA. – bradv🍁 02:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  I for one am not sharpening knives but remembering things is useful if my senior brain can handle it. I would like to support a future RfA but I would expect this issue to be addressed again at that time. So, I hope that this editor will show better judgment regarding highly contentious material in the weeks and months to come. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure the use of CSD here was incorrect. The page should have been sent to RfD. I think it was plausible enough, since it's a synonym used in many of the page entries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  Now at undeletion. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  Well that's just disruptive. – bradv🍁 06:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  Welp, I don't want to be disruptive and offend other ethnicities, so I'll use my dad's as an example. We don't have redirects to "German" or "German people" for "Heinie," "Kraut," or "Boche", and none of these are "fighting words" in English. How my distant cousins across the sea might feel, I do not know. Having been called such pejoratives briefly while in first grade, I can say I didn't care for it much. (Most of the other kids' dads had been killing Germans during WWII.) So why we should have so inflammatory, so racism-condoning a redirect on Wikipedia is beyond my comprehension. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  prior CfD --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I have spoken to L293D via email, and without going into detail he has given me some difficult questions that I don't know how to answer easily. What I will say is that this is not the first time I have seen somebody not have a full grasp of cultural norms in the US that everyone who lives there knows about. For example, consider Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2018#(Posted blurb): Aretha Franklin, where we see comments like "Oppose Blurb She was a local singer. Except USA nobody around the world knew her. she had no world impact stastically speaking.", "I am pretty sure we have an established tradition of only posting deaths of Mandela-size figures to the ITN, and this person is sure as hell isn't, neither by the importance, nor by the number of views of her page before her death. Very disappointed in a yet another example of heavy American/Western bias on Wikipedia. Sad." and "Pull/Oppose blurb Not a world transforming figure therefore doesn't merit a blurb. Never even heard of her before she got hospitalised recently." Now, reading these comments about (IMHO) one of the greatest American singers and civil rights campaigners of all time, damn right I'm offended. But crying racist is about as helpful as somebody saying I support a No Deal Brexit because I've done some work on Jacob Rees Mogg. You don't know what L293D's opinion on this category is; one would hope he would endorse the G10 deletion along with everybody else. We also don't know why LaundryPizza03 wanted to create the redirect in the first place; I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's probably not because they're a closet racist. See Hanlon's razor. I also fully endorse the comment made by Coffeeandcrumbs that caused me to drop a barnstar on their page yesterday; that doesn't apply to the redirect here (which is just crass and pointless) but rather all of us should not shy away from difficult conversations just because they're, well, difficult. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"What I will say is that this is not the first time I have seen somebody not have a full grasp of cultural norms in the US that everyone who lives there knows about." Ritchie, he lives in the U.S. See his user categories: [13]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, there are plenty of people of my ethnicity who are clueless on these matters. Being born in the USA just does not ensure awareness. Let's just say "clueless", or had their eyes closed to the last 350 years if American history, shake our heads, and move on. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Considering possibilities for good use, I just dropped the category in my sandbox User:Coffeeandcrumbs/sandbox. There it is in bright red. How long would it take for someone to notice this on an obscure BLP? I am asking honestly since categories are not my strong suit? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I, uh, can't tell if you're being serious or not, but WP:CATREDIRECT says that In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. It goes on to say that soft category redirects should only exist in limited circumstances, giving an example of hyphenated rather than en-dashed category names. Category redirects are not the norm--to the extent that the ((Category redirect)) template includes a link to speedily delete itself when placed--and I cannot imagine a legitimate reason for this to be treated as a special case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I am being serious. I, so far, agree with this discussion and the outcome. But I just realized that the category can be used for vandalism and wanted to know what can be done to prevent that. Can we disallow use of certain categories? Or force a category not to show? Can we make it a hidden cat and alert some noticeboard when it is used?

Another thing to consider, when I used Category:Authors in my sandbox, HotCat automatically replaced it. When I used the same category manually, there is Authors. Would the redirect have helped prevent it from appearing? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

To follow along the lines of Deepfriedokra and go with the "people of my ethnicity" thing--people of my ethnicity indeed often fail to see the point. And frequently we start talking about intent. Like, I don't intend to make a racist statement when I'm singing along to ____. Or, Ritchie, closer to my home: I don't intend to be racist when I dress up in blackface and play Zwarte Piet. (The latter one doesn't work anymore in 2020.) The question isn't anymore about what one intends or not, and we can't easily judge that anyway; it's about how something will be perceived. In the Netherlands right now they're discussing the equivalent of "f*g", which, Ali B seems to have discovered recently, is offensive to gay people. I feel stupid even typing this. "But I don't mean to be homophobic." "But homosexuals say it to each other." Yes, we've heard all that before. "OMG I have to think about whether something I say is offensive to other people???" Well, eh, do you say "b---h" to your grandmother? Or "old fucker" to your father? We do this all the time, don't we? If you cannot imagine an audience for what you say and write, how can you write an encyclopedia? Drmies (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand everything you are saying and agree with it. However, you just did almost exactly what L293D did in the AfD. You mentioned another slur ("f*g") as an example and spelled it out. This is your talk page and I can see how you may choose to relax the rules a bit but I think that should be allowed on any talk page discussion, not to use, of course, but to mention. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Coffeeandcrumbs, the claim that using the n-word is equivalent to saying "fucking" is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. And there is no "rule" against using the word "fucking", which is not a slur like that racist term. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about "f*g". But you see where the problem lies now. By censoring my self, I led my self to be misunderstood. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a way to get around that if you didn't want to use that word even in quotation marks. But I get your point. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Highing back to WK on empty cats, I cannot imagine anyone adding that and would have serious concerns if someone did.15:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 15:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It is always intended as an attack when someone adds this category, redlink or blue. I was saying that deleting the category does not prevent it from being added to a BLP. It happens and I have seen it. I wish I could find the edit where I removed one instance of it. I was asking if there was a way we can prevent that, besides watch listing the category. The last time I saw it was definitely in connection to an article that was linked from WP:ITNRD. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't be possible to edit filter "Category:N*****"? Not with asterisks but the actual category that was deleted. It is such a specific string of text that I cannot imagine anyone acting in good faith would need to use it in article space. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi all, Ritchie asked me to comment here. I endorse the G10 deletion and I should never have created this page in the first place. The only reason why I did is that the other category existed, but I understand that that category at least had an encyclopedic purpose, whereas a redirect category was really useless. I can guarantee all of you that this kind of incident will not happen again. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Abuse of admin rights by Drmies. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hey Jack, I saw you were running for admin. I don't know you very well, but I've seen you do good things. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Drmies: I checked the edits of the editor in question after seeing your concluding statement on AN/I. I rolled back what I could, leaving just the two edits on AN/I. I checked most of them before rolling back, they were mostly harmless. A fraction were actually minor improvements, but nothing like a copyvio-fix/BLP-fix/vandalism-fix that would warrant ignoring WP:BMB. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • They play good hand followed by bad hand with some of their accounts. I don't really care for their "regular" edits in article space and ignore them, except for their edits on gender issues, where they have an interest but no expertise; I think User:Flyer22 Frozen can confirm this. Here is another one, by the way. Must be a boring night for them. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Drmies, you're a good person and don't deserve all this abuse. Stay strong. – bradv🍁 04:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I appreciate that, Bradv, just as I (and other victims of this harasser) appreciate the help from all admins, oversighters, and stewards. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Doc, I am really, really sorry about the abuse directed at you and your wonderful children. That's really vile. You may remember that a creep threatened to kill my grandaughter a couple of years ago. We will celebrate her 3rd birthday next month and she is the light of my life. Be well in these trying times, my friend. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I've seen actual college-level courses with names like the first one in this list. My gut says the editor is just listing factual information and editing in good faith. That said, good call on deleting the list.

I think he really is new to Wikipedia. He deleted a history merge request I put on the page, twice. I'm assuming good faith, since the template did make the page "look ugly at the top" (my words, not his). I asked him about it on his talk page, I'll give him a day or two to respond before re-requesting the history merge. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, would you take a look at the Andy Ngo page. This is another frustrating page? There were some recent, disputed changes made to the article and I think people are trying to "win" the edit war vs getting consensus for disputed changes. Springee (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Springee, that's how it goes. If one's side doesn't win, you can't always claim the other side is cheating. There's a lot of chatter on the talk page and it gets pretty boring. I think O3000 is trying too hard to discredit an article from the Washington Post, and I think Wikieditor is trying too hard to remove that one Patriot Prayer-related factoid from the lead. You dispute the changes, but you and Wikieditor are the only ones, and that doesn't have to mean they're ganging up on you even though you're right. With a limited number of participants all filling up a talk page it will be hard to find a clear-cut consensus. Or were you talking about the podcast? Personally I don't see a huge problem with keeping that in cause it's kind of relevant (though it seems silly to deny "far-right" in his case), but what Grayfell says here makes sense, and that is why I typically don't include such material anywhere. Take care, Drmies (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The WaPo article reminds me of an issue I had with a NYTimes piece three years back. The first paragraph in the Unite the Right rally article contained mention of Trump/Pence signs sourced to one analysis article. That source was Maggie Haberman, in my mind, one of the best sources you can find in the subject area with a Pulitzer for Trump admin reporting. Problem was, she was the only source and, incidentally, wrong. Metaphorically she was right, as I have no doubt most of the guys sporting swastikas, KKK signs, Confederate flags, etc. were Trump supporters – but wrong on the facts. I argued it was only in one source and we must consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. Not prevailing, I started an RfC, [14] where I found myself arguing against the folks I normally side with. The text was removed from the lead. Now, with the WaPo article, we have in WaPo a stellar source. But, this reporter has nowhere near the stature of Haberman, the article seems to be a description of two Senators’ position, and again lacks support from the prevalence of RS. I just don’t like relying on one source for an accusation in a heavily covered incident. I prefer to just leave something out that is questionable, whether or not it coincides with my own feelings. Anywho, I stopped debating that a week back. O3000 (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not clear why you were asking about the police report but if your concern is stating in wikivoice that the attackers were antifa members, I agree, we shouldn't do that. I said as much almost a year ago. Springee (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't talking about O3k's complaint. Honestly I'm not sure I understand why they were so offended or even why they asked the original question about a police report. No, I was thinking about the changes to the lead that were made, reverted then restored. Given the current ARE I think the optics of just reverting again are, well, poor (but with a 1RR on the article there isn't a concern about 3RRs again and again :D ). Anyway, my concern is just that those making the change aren't going to the talk page to discuss why the challenged edit is OK before restoring the edit. Really, this is one of my biggest frustrations that lead to the ARE in the first place. I'm get that I'm not always going to be right (or at least I can't always convince others of my brilliance :D ) but if something is rejected I think those who support it should make their case at the talk page first. I'm actually happy to change my mind when editors stop, make reasoned argument why I'm wrong and get agreement before making edits. I think I showed that on several firearms topics. Sadly in this case editors didn't do that and they ignored prior discussions on the topic when making changes. I admit, I do find that sort of behavior very frustrating. It's like a broken glass theory. If editors start by ignoring requests to discuss changes and just push a change through via having a few more reverts per day than the other side we get hostile editing and accusations of bad faith. If we talk first we might not agree but it's easier to agree that consensus isn't reached and, even if I/we don't agree content is due I/we can still provide some input on how the final changes should look. Sorry, this is a bit rambling. Springee (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of not respecting... could you take a look at this editor. [[15]] Springee (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This user, which you so staunchly defended back in the day (i supposed you know how that turned out), has completely lost it with me, i suppose because i had the nerve to talk back.

A good example of the taunting can be found at Álvaro González (footballer, born 1990). But it serves me right for hanging in here for so long, why can't i just say "fuck it" and quit the project? And if this individual or any other thinks that when that happens they will win because they wore me down into leaving that's when i'll die of laughter. I should leave because i'm not having fun anymore, but i know in my heart i'm a good WP editor, even taking into consideration it's not that of my native tongue.

This person says they're not who they are being accused of in their many interactions at the pertinent threads, so who's to say if X or Y is the correct answer. But i suppose that with the tracking equipment available for WP admins, if they say that it is the same person they should be onto something.

Regards, (belated)thanks for the beer at the IP account! --Quite A Character (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You are not a good WP editor at all. Your command of English is nowhere near good enough to contribute effectively. Worse than your language failings is that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you refuse to accept that you have even made mistakes. You've been forcing your idiotic non-English constructions into articles for years. Three years ago, you claimed that you had finally understood your most characteristic error, but that of course was a lie, just like your recent claim to have retired, and the laughable claim on your user page that you speak English with a "near-native" level.

The cultural vandalism you are so fond of is outrageous, and you should have been indefinitely blocked long ago for it. Sadly (and bizarrely) English language ability is not very highly rated on English Wikipedia so you've been allowed to perpetuate your abuses. You may rest assured that I will continue to highlight them. If you do not like being called out for your poor English, either learn the language properly, or stop editing English Wikipedia. If you start fixing your errors, instead of posting attention-seeking wailings to talk pages in the hope of preventing them from being fixed, that would be a start. Stroven (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You either have a great memory or keep a good administration. Too bad you can't use these skills in a productive manner. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: please don't think ill of me with all this editing with both account and IP (to which i totally admit, but my IP is static, so i'm easily caught). I SINCERELY want to leave WP, but cannot seem to do it (isn't the point of this project to have fun, while contributing at the same time? I am not having fun at all after 14 years, and according to persons like the one above i never contributed to begin with, so really wanted to close this chapter and leave because WP is full of very very good contributors and, very much like a sports team, no one is irreplaceable). Apologies for any inconvenience, keep it up. --Quite A Character (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I need your help dealing Avdald because its gonna end with us getting blocked and I don't that to happen. SpectresWrath (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Two editors of what is supposed to be the world's greatest freely accessible encyclopedia are fighting over how to render the titles from episodes of the 20th season of a Japanese children's TV show where most of the sourcing is to Amazon.jp, and most of the content is poorly written plot summary ("they ran to find Law, who was chilling in an abandoned building") full of grammatical and other errors. I thought Cwmhiraeth's advice to the other editor was pretty solid, certainly when applied generally. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I know. Its another stupid argument over something small when we focus on expanding and errors other pages. SpectresWrath (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah a stupid argument but yet you're still pushing your nonsense without any clear explanation... Avdald (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I gave you my reason. We use the official English titles from Crunchyroll since that is considered a legit source. Without a source, its challenged and then removed one isn't given. This isn't my first time going through this. SpectresWrath (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Avdald, this terrible attitude of yours makes it more likely that you will end up being blocked, if any blocking is going to happen. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I'm clearly in the wrong, I should be banned, please do so. Avdald (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Howdy! Your recent Linode range block caught dashboard.wikiedu.org, which runs out of 2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7973. Can you undo that or carve out a narrower block? Thanks!--ragesoss (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, the Dashboard's account creation feature (which lets us create accounts for known students whose own locations are blocked from account creation or reached the daily limit) is what broke with this block.--ragesoss (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sage, how are things? Please see User talk:Bradv—thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Aside from < gestures at the world > all this, things are going well! Thanks for following up... hopefully blocking a bunch of those smaller ranges will keep this from coming up again.--ragesoss (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I was a bit confused about your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Sul Shopping. The closing comment suggested that you'd be deleting it as WP:G5, but the result was keep. Would you mind clarifying? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I "deleted" the AfD, which was created by a banned user. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

on my talk from user:Albertpda. Multiple UTRS declines (banned) and much socking. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• What an incredible timesink. You'd think they could find a different hobby. Haha, still complaining about that original block--actually the second one. They just blanked a bunch of shit, got blocked, and then blanked all that shit again, and feigned surprise at being blocked again. My my. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Ima make sure my UTRS declines highlight, ""Please describe how your edits were inappropriate and what you would do differently. Please do not criticise or find fault with anyone else." Don't think he internalized that message. Now he's mad at me because I was not going to decline myself and then had 2 ban requests for him in less than 24 hours. So I'm the bad guy. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, that's better than me being the bad guy. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template. Davidelit (Talk) 10:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I was going to post here but I figured drama could be avoided with a gentle nudge from you. This non-logged-in editor (contributions) (talk page history) has been blanking his user-talk page after every negative comment, leaving the impression each problematic edit is his first. You posted on his talk page on September 12th, he's blanked it at least 8 times since, blanking the comments of at least 10 editors including yourself. The majority of these editors posted informal or formal warnings. I was tempted to just restore all the old edits, but I think he would just revert a non-admin doing that, plus it would just increase the drama unnecessarily. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, sorry--I was all out of gentle nudges... Drmies (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, so much for avoiding drama. See the history of his talk page for details. Is it time to take this to ANI? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • No I blocked them. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh you already saw. No: per OWNTALK they can do all that (and I reverted you there); they can remove a block notice. They can't remove an active unblock request, for instance. To be clear: I didn't block them because they were blanking their talk page, but because their edits were unverified and unexplained, and they refused to engage in communication. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. 2 days ago, you blocked the IP 109.93.135.50 for vandalism. [16] How, IP 93.86.79.84 [17] is doing the same editions (overlinking, deleting pictures, deleting the lead). Can you do something? Thank you :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Real life taylor.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I just thought you might be interested in knowing that WarriorWithin600 (the editor that you indeffed) is back. M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• OK, while it seems a simple match I can't really confirm that with technical evidence; it might just be time to file an SPI and ask an(other) admin to look at behavior. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the socks @Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bcliot33, you tagged them as "((checkuserblock-account))--Bclout33)" and not Bcliot33. I assume that was auto-correct, and could you tag their user pages as socks. Thanks! Jerm (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to leave that to the clerk who archives it; they are much better and faster at it than I could be. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Smartse and Drmies: Apologies for the late reply, I've been busy lately with off-wiki stuff. But do you still need help with this?

And nice to read your explanation of my nickname. It's pretty accurate. :-) Trijnstel_talk 15:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, I think we're good on the spam. Hey, I'm reading a Dutch book (well, translated)--The Discomfort of Evening. We should probably write that up. Please tell me if I missed any good Dutch writing in the last thirty years, haha. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dat boek heeft een artikel nodig! Ziet er interessant uit! (translated!)† Encyclopædius 16:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hallo, hoe gaat het vandaag, mijn vriend? (typed without assistance, I am learning!)† Encyclopædius 16:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Prima, dankjewel, en met jou? Drmies (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Goed! Heel goed, bedankt! Mijn hersenen/brein? is echter overbelast! :-)† Encyclopædius 16:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Dat hebben we allemaal wel eens. Groeten! Drmies (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tia Dalma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calypso.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Friendly observation, K-Pop is pop from Korea, J-Pop is pop from Japan (and the term is older). The… less mature segments of both fandoms rabidly hate each other, so getting the two confused may get both of them out for your virtual blood.

(Feel free to delete this after reading, of course. It's hardly important enough to preserve for posterity.)

Oh, just in case you have no idea what I'm talking about, it's not about anything you wrote in an article or Talk page, but an edit comment. --Lalo Martins (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, thanks, I know what K-pop and J-pop are (and M-pop, etc.), though I don't always know which group is which. As far as I'm concerned, they're pretty much the same thing, especially given the crossovers. What's odd is that I-pop is not the Indo-pop of JKT48, but that's by the by. I think plenty of fans already hate me; they'd be much happier on Wikia... Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Drmies, I hope you don't mind if I ask for input regarding Talk:Assault of Maho Yamaguchi#Edit war, as another major contributor to the article is disputing how much information to include. Thanks. lullabying (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hmm I see you pinged me there earlier. I'm wondering if I just missed it. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• That lead is really oddly written. It's a split from the main article? It seems to be written by an L2 speaker of English, and poses more questions than answers. But I assume you want me to comment on the edits of that Bullpup editor? I agree with User:Wlerin: there is an excruciating amount of detail, which is completely unnecessary--I think your version of the article, half the size, was already on the long side, but that's in part because that lead is so poor and gives no indication of what is at stake here. (That's typical for K-pop and other bad articles: one can't see the forest for the trees, and these huge articles are merely listings of factoids, where every factoid is of equal value--for instance, why a "new female manager"?) I think Bullpup11, who is an editor with limited experience, in only a few articles, is going seriously overboard in that and other articles, and I think you should revert--and then improve the article. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Since I see myself called into the debate, let it be said that the lead was wholly Lullabying's doing and has never been updated by them ever since even after newer additions. The lead explanation, reading it now, does indeed feel poorly worded or researched.
It's not correct to say said female theater manager was "hired". As said at the conference she had been working around as individual manager for SKE48 and STU48 since 2011. The sibylline explanation by the agency for the "whys" of the replacement was that "as a woman herself she would understand the position other women are in", as I had added into the article. That's hardly a factoid to me, since this removed the previous theater manager who, according to the same agency (see), was the one who apparently knew something about the police investigations, and who never showed up or was ever contacted ever since.
Sadly, that "it leaves more questions than answers" is the whole leitmotif of this case, even judging from the actions taken by the idol agency.

For last, I think it's one thing to have the article slimmed down, but when I find the description of the assault from Yamaguchi's perspective, or on the proceedings of the "civil case", both central parts of the matter, removed, I see that there's no clear idea of what needs being cut down.
I take this more as being a problem of form, than of content, to me. I still have no idea to what extent Lullabying's knowledge goes about this topic either despite being themself the starter of the Wiki entry, because I get that on many parts we are far from being on the same page, but I can say for sure that the "original" version contained errors that were egregious for anyone who followed it. Cheers. Bullpup11 (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Bullpup11 is correct that I wrote the lead, and it can be revised and reworded later on. @Bullpup11: I have no problems with changing sources or fixing inaccuracies, but the amount of detail you are adding into this article is excessive. One egregious example was reverting a summary of the assault incident because it "watered down details." I've told you time before that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Furthermore, it is extremely concerning you are reverting not just mine but everyone else's good faith edits to the article. This is showing ownership behavior. lullabying (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Bullpup11, there are three, THREE editors here telling you that the amount of detail is excessive. Guess what that means. Rewriting the lead is easy enough and I started on that; Lullabying, I think you should drop whatever else you're doing and spend a bit of time making the article as good as you can make it. Higher-quality articles are more easily defended from such invasive edits. Drmies (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, I saw most of your pruning, and ironically enough most of the bits of text that were deleted (I dare say 95% of them) belonged originally to Lullabying, yet you are somehow continuing to blame me for something assuming it was my own doing. To quote you, "guess what that means". Very funny to see indeed
Regarding this pruning, which is probably the only one to have a part I personally added, I think it's not only "relevant", but vital because the entire controversy revolves around how and from who the guys came to know the apartment address of Yamaguchi, and it ties in with the claims made later. In short, there was a recording of a discussion and this was submitted for examination to the third-party committee.
With all due respect, I am going to rewrite it better... Cheers. Bullpup11 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I just haven't gotten to "your" part of the article yet. If anything is vital, it should have been indicated as such in the lede. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Kronos-feldman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Werewolf beast among us poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to invite you to check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Didierstreckx since you recently blocked one of their suspected socks (Ilovenia123). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope you know how much I care about you. I just wanted to let you know that I saw some exceptionally ugly personal attacks directed against you and your family a while ago. I am so sorry that happened to you. I have a sense of how that feels. I spent yesterday with my granddaughter, by the way. Love to all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, Cullen. Thank you. Yes, that was pretty gross--and then they to go ANI to complain I said "fuck off". All my best to you and yours. I hope those fires go away; it's terrible to see and read about them. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir I recently made edits to the wiki page on my home areas signature dish, Pie and Mash, you in Alabama, USA 4000 miles away, and probably not a Londoner, chose to not only reject edits from someone who has been eating the said food in the traditional way ,ie spoon & fork, liquor, pies turned over, it's like the Japanese tea ceremony to many, I have first hand customer experience going back to the early 1970s of Pie and Mash shops of numerous architectural styles, some offering the side dishes and deserts (afters, as us Londoners would say) that you also chose to expunge in your attack on a part of London culture that is not for tourists but for us Londoners, although many tourists do go, or are taken for (if a Cockney/Londoner takes you for PnM, den we like ya, just don't insult us/it by ordering gravy, when in Rome... And if said noob don't like it, it won't be wasted, as would happen with with gravy (mostly granulated instant, nasty, most P&M addicts will happily go at least another one and one, with liquor of course, even after a double double, or more! Get that kind of knowledge from Wikipedia, oh that's right, you can't because someone on another continent, with probably no deep connection to London, or nowhere near any knowledge of these endangered establishments, where real Londoners, including those who have adopted London as their home from elsewhere go to get a decent honest meal has chosen to suppress this part of a culture that is not theirs, but is so intrinsically linked to workin [sic] class London, that it deserves further expansion on what was already quite a dull and uninformative item, I say I added that, you choose to censor my lifetimes knowledge of the most identifiable part of London food culture, one that I have been a regular consumer of for almost half a century, and have seen changes in menus, eels less common, (they were still alive in the shop til killed/cooked when I was a kid) alternative pies, as said in the article, offered at, I would order neither. I am also watching the industry die, squeezed by not only gentrification, but local authorities, run by "parachuted politicians with no connection to London, that seem intent on killing off what Bill Bryson would call "mom n pop stores" if they were in the USA, family businesses with a particular speciality, being strangled with extortionate business rates, (locally levied taxes) parking restrictions and road closures that the local communities don't't want, that cause hardship to those deepl rooted communities, my own urban inner North London borough, Islington, had at least eight shops in around 5 square miles up til the mid 80s now there is 1 left in Islington, on the site of a (very good) Pie n Mash that closed about 1984. With at least another six within a short walk from Islington in surrounding boroughs. There are now no Pie and Mash shops North of the river from the unusual location of Portobello Road in the north part of Westminster, then for about five miles East of that location there are now only two. I am only trying to add some valuable insight into the subject, the current version of which reads as a sterile, 'past' history of this London cultural icon, way more so than Buck House and Beefeaters, we blank em, on our way to get the good stuff, PnM. GoonerNut (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• GoonerNut, thanks, but please see WP:V. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Aha I see the reason now, the facts are easily verifiable by a quick look at social media groups dedicated to Pie and Mash, but understood, it was the two quoted sources seem to offer more of an academic outsiders perspective. I was trying to add some first hand knowledge of the subject, I now see that that counts for little on here, no matter how deep. Fair enough. All the best. GoonerNut (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    • GoonerNut, it's in between. Social media groups are not acceptable, but a variety of other sources are. BTW I do not agree with this idea that an "academic perspective" is necessarily that of an outsider. You'd be surprised, perhaps, if you saw what all academics write about and from what perspective. But the issue here is of reliability. Some Facebook post, or even the opinion of an expert such as yourself, is not accepted because, well, we don't know that they are speaking truthfully and that someone factchecked what they said. Newspaper and magazine articles, books, all those things are acceptable. Go look and see what you find. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    • User:GoonerNut, see this academic publication: Schweid, Richard (2002). "Consider the Eel". Gastronomica. 2 (2): 14–19.. I love it, and it contains two recipes, for stewed eel and jellied eels. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I will not respond on the articles talk page, I am getting a whiff of wp:not about a certain unindenter. As well as Ididnot herethat.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's hard to play along with someone who doesn't want to play along. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I have just rated around 7,500 WP:IR pages as part of clearing the backlog of unassessed pages. I note that you have removed country comparison tables and some See alsos. I understand why you are doing some of your reverts, but could you clue me in on about what is going on with the tables and See alsos as I have all these on my watchlist and keep getting emailed about them? Johncdraper (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Johncdraper, I perused the contributions of one specific editor who added those tables to a number of pages. These tables contain information that is completely irrelevant to the subject matter: seals and flags and capitals and what not just are not relevant, and they distract from the actual article. I don't know what you mean with See alsos--though it could be that those were part of the sets of edits by a longterm disruptor who operates a variety of Italian IPs, like this one. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Hope this message finds you well.

I am hoping to create the draft of the Shridhar University of Rajasthan, but the page's creation is restricted to admins for an indefinite period from 2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shridhar_University). Could you direct me on how to get started on this?

Thank you in advance. --Adamsamuelwilson (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello you can create a draft at Draft:Shridhar University and submit it to be reviewed by an AFC reviewer. If it’s notable the AFC reviewer will know what to do, but to avoid deletion once again, do the following:

• Make sure all the text is in your own words and not copied from another source/website
• Make sure its neutral as possible, avoid promotional texts
• Add reliable, independent sources that have significant coverage of the subject to prove notability

Cheers Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 08:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Adamsamuelwilson, I don't mind unprotecting it--that was six years ago. I looked at some of your contributions and while you don't have a lot of edits, I don't get the feeling you're a paid operative or something like that. So I'll unprotect it and you can write to your heart's desire--but within our guidelines, as User:Synoman Barris indicated. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I would keep these guidelines in mind. Thank you, Drmies and Synoman Barris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsamuelwilson (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Spit cake has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Hope you're well. Could you take a look at the contributions of MAXIMILIAN KLAUS VERSTAPPEN P2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Regardless of the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Didierstreckx, they have been engaging in vandalism on Albania-related articles[18] and other topics[19] and they have openly declared themselves to be redpilled and albanophobe.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm fine, thanks--and thanks for your note. That SPI wasn't very productive, but there sure were some problematic editors, that's a fact. I'll have another look. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• I blocked them. It's weird, though, that whole cluster of strange vandal edits from accounts all over Europe. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• There's a lot of off-wiki activity linked to the Balkan topic area, some of which is really weird, like MKV2's edits. But there's no solution to off-wiki activity unless wikipedia links every account to editors' RL identity (even if it doesn't show up on their userpage). I understand the inherent issues of such a decision, but it would be a massive improvement. Over 95% of vandalism, nationalist POV pushing and other editing attitudes in the Balkan topic area presuppose anonymity.

  I've filed an unrelated report about edits from a particular IP range (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theonewithreason) on Croatia/Montenegro subtopics if you get the time to take a look. If you're busy, it's ok - you've been more than helpful :) --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Ha, OK--I see Ivanvector already commented there, and I added a note--I'm afraid that (again) there is nothing there from CU point of view. I'm sorry. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Gioguch (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the IP, as they have been purely disruptive on Nickelodeon's Unfiltered. However, you may want to look into blocking the full range as well, as they'll probably be going to another IP sometime soon. Magitroopa (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear. Drmies

This is not a destructive editing. [[20]]

• This document is a contribution of a blocked user.[[21]]

• This document has been in violation of regulations for a long time.

WP:RS WP:NEUTRAL WP:CHERRYPICKING WP:SOCKWP:NOT3RR

Can I delete it through discussion only? thank youBablos939 (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not going to let you basically destroy an article where so many other contributors have worked on. If there are problems with the article, you can solve them through the regular editing process. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Reboot, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)

An apology - I am not usually so grumpy. Orenburg1 (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Orenburg1, no worries. Maybe I'm in a different time zone and have had more coffee. I saw why you removed it, but a little cleanup went a long way. I can't do any more since that whole topic of killing babies is too gruesome for me. Thanks for the note: I appreciate it, and I appreciate your many contributions to the project. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

First, I would like to apologize for any potential misunderstanding. I did not intend to vandalize, I am a lifelong supporter of Wikipedia and its mission. I believe it is of encyclopedic value to include a list of courses available in Duolingo and Pimsleur. How would I go about pursuing this belief, in a systematic and fair way? Thank you for your help. Edwyth (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Edwyth, you said you started a discussion on the talk page: that is the way. But there are hurdles to climb here--one is, why should we include that information? Two, why included when a simple click on the link to their website gives correct and up to date information? Three, why include that information without any kind of secondary sourcing? I could go on. But I appreciate you stopping. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please, take a look at the revision history of this article. The editor appears to be completely unwilling to understand/learn how editing on Wikipedia works, despite having been pointed to the Wikipedia guidelines, and keeps sourcing the material with a social media link: 1, 2, 3. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, I hate those little lists with their flag icons. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Hmm Morocco needs verification too--and if you want to stand on firm ground, place notes for the other countries, like this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not only Morocco, but Russia as well (for each aircraft listed). Sadly, I've got pretty tired of military-related articles and, for now, just patrolling them. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, nice to see you turn up in my inbox unexpectedly! I hope all is well with you in these latter days. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• I can't look at one of your edits without thinking of the person behind it. Yes, we are as well as we can be given the circumstances--school is open for the kids again, today's the first day, and it's been a non-stop shit storm. I was happy to see that you contributed again: that means you're still alive and you haven't completely forgotten about us. One of these days we should meet up for coffee and pastry. Look for me in the continental United States, haha--I'm the guy with the rectangular glasses. Take care! Drmies (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Duolingo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wolbo (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ssssht I'm busy writing up a report for ANEW. That's actually quite a bit of work. Wolbo, just to make things clear, "FO" means "fuck off", right? Drmies (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Wolbo, the report is up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please indicate if my translation of "FO" was correct. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • That is a perfectly fine translation. I do apologize for it, it is not my custom to be rude (at least not on wiki) but I was/am rather angry that you accused me of lying which is not only false but also a violation of WP:AGF which I certainly do not expect from an admin.--Wolbo (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • You don't owe me an apology. Here's the thing: if you revert an edit that came with an explanation and you say "no explanation given", well, what are we to think? That you don't think it's a good explanation is entirely beside the point. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I think WT:MMA#Reliability of Sherdog violates WP:CAN by mentioning and pinging a lot of editors that did not participate at the relevant discussions before and they followed it by ordering those editors to ping others about it also. I reverted it but another editor reverted it back. So I wanted to ask if you could take a look at it? Thanks in advance. Best wishes, Lordpermaximum (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC).

• Thanks, but I think the best thing to do here is to add to the list, if you think there are names missing. I cannot possibly go through that list of Cassiopeia's and figure out who is in whose side--plus, the message itself is neutral enough, so that certainly is not a violation. Honestly, it is not quite clear to me why you removed it the first time when you could have just added to it. You say "others who didn't participate in discussions"--but I'm going to assume that Cassiopeia picked these names because they have some sort of investment or expertise or interest in the area. You can't just pin that down to one or two very specific discussion. I mean, if someone is going to get into it over, I don't know, the Amsterdam canals, I'd appreciate a ping even though I haven't been recently involved in discussions, but I'll take credit for Spuistraat and Lauriergracht. Even Uncle G should deserve a ping for that--and who knows, he has many talents and might have an opinion on Conor McGregor's height. You never know. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see this [22]. Also, this user has now started to harrass me as well [23] [24] [25]. How long of a rope is he gonna get? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know what you want me to see in those diffs: that editor disagrees with you. "Stop edit warring. Take it to the talk page" is a pretty regular and acceptable kind of edit summary. As for that talk page, I saw it because you pinged me, but there also is no immediate need for admin intervention: User:Ian.thomson already commented. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Due to the fact that he is literally hounding me and not doing this in good faith? Amazing that he gets through with constantly attacking me and now even harassing me. Let's how many more times he manages to go after me, sure love being a target dummy. Also, I was referring to his newest comment, where he still haven't stopped accusing me of racism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    • HistoryofIran, please do not expect me to have the full history of all these interactions between the two of you in the forefront of my mind, where they are just waiting to be triggered by a diff. I'm just a human being here, and while I blocked that editor twice, you will have to grant me that I am forgetful and flawed; maybe you should go to ANI if you want a better admin to look at something. Sorry. LouisAragon, "these retaliatory edits" points to the editors ENTIRE edit history, so no, I'm sorry, I don't see it. I see reverts, but they're not tagged with "CAUTION: retaliatory edits". Drmies (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
      • You're right, my bad. I just provided a more thorough explanation at the 3RR noticeboard.[26] - LouisAragon (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I'm also in the middle of a ton of grading and it puts me in a bad mood. Poor writing abounds in sophomore survey classes. I'm going to have coffee and dessert--y'all take care. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Good luck. Poor writing is a problem which always remains I'm afraid, regardless of age group and nation. Ik zie het elke dag hier live in NL, haha. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
            • Wat ik vandaag op Instagram zag, n.a.v. de herdenking van de opstand in Sobibor, is dat Nederland nog steeds vol met Jodenhaters zit... Drmies (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
              • Oh ja, daar zijn we heel goed in in NL; tof praten achter een scherm. Vrij triest. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• 75.15.226.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1700:40F1:3FD0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

@Drmies, Berean Hunter, and Zzuuzz: Can you please run a CU on these IP socks? I tried opening an SPI case, but someone decided to delete the entire case page without giving any admin or CU the chance to examine my report. This person claims to be an experienced vandal and also said that they had at least 4 sock accounts. I don't need to know if the IPs are related - that's already obvious from the behavior. What I want to know is if this person has any sleeper accounts lying around, and if this is actually an older LTA that the CUs are familiar with. This person has been wreaking havoc on multiple articles for more than a year now, and I think that it's time for this nonsense to end. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• The problem here is that it was looked at by someone was an admin as well as a CU, and that it was opened under the IP address; sometimes those are "allowed", I think, but in general, since we don't tie IP addresses to accounts, we're not going to comment on it publicly to begin with. On top of that the one IP's edits were from February, so there's nothing there for us to see anyway. It was deleted by a different admin than the one who declined the investigation, so two admins saw it--in addition, I saw it too, and I agree with their decision. Sorry, but that kind of SPI just won't be accepted as such, though actions might be taken away from public view, for privacy reasons--but there also I will have to pull a Barrett and go "I can't comment". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• One more thing: that range is already blocked; I don't think anyone will be convinced that this "puerile" vandalism is a good enough reason to start checking things. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• "pull a Barrett", you Americans are always coming up with novel language. I'd refer to this vandal with an equally regional reference - Ronnie Pickering. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ima try that one out next time. I watched a few videos; I'm almost his age! Ha, first time I've been called an American--not sure I should take that as a compliment, zzuuzz! Drmies (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

i found u adding a rewrite template in a page i created and rewritten could you assist me if there is something i need to omit NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes--there is too much detail in there, and the tone is not that of an encyclopedic article. Also, see WP:OVERLINK, and the references to newspaper articles found in that library archive are not correct: look at Template:news on how to cite that; you're using the library name as the source. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

but one thing, i want to tell you that it does not seem excessively detailed because these are the facts of the case and details of how the judges judged the case. the details of the case i wrote, they may be wordy, but are relevant to the narrative of how the case goes. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

could you help me point out specifically which are.not relevant? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

to be honest with you, the singapore website itself block our public access to any old, past news articles dated 1 January 1990 onwards NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

it was not really my or our fault if we cannot go into it NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• It seems excessively detailed to me, and I've looked at thousands of articles. Not every fact needs to be rehashed and cited. I rewrote the lead, to give you an idea of what I think. The problem with the citations was the citations, not the website. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • how to correctly cite them? i am a newcomer who had created quite some articles so i am not familiar with the standards, pardon me about it NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • i mean "but i am not familiar", sorry, i say wrong NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    • OK, no problem, but please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Technical_and_format_standards, and properly indent (or use bullet points) posts on talk pages--and please proofread them before you post them. Look in the article at the edits I made, including this one--good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      • thank you Drmies. i now know how to correctly cite them. i will try them tomorrow; its getting late now at night. thank you for your help NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      • are you a Singaporean too? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Sure thing. Good luck with it; let me know if I can help. No, I am not Singaporean; closest I ever came was having a friend from Malaysia with whom I threw many a dinner party--in Alabama. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I lol'd....seriously. I may even register on Twitter now. I hope you're happy...dragging an old man into the social media quagmire. Roll Tide. Tiderolls 11:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• I was anxious to begin with; now I'm sad and anxious. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

October

Kommt ein Vogel geflogen

... even after Darwinbish stole apples and the header link, - eat them fast, I suggest. DYK that today I was invited to restore infoboxes? ... feels nice, I must say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

16 October memories --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

On 9 Oct, Red Phoenix blocked 119.235.251.172 for vandalism. I think the user evaded the block, given the edit and edit summaries of these two edits, which both edits insert the word "The" before the subject name on Early modern warfare.

119.235.251.172: edit on 13:24, 21 August 2020 with edit summary ending ... to an encyclopaedia you must be descriptive or else

185.157.232.78: edit on 09:15, 9 October 2020 with edit summary ending ... to an encyclopaedia you must be descriptive or else!

This new editor then repeated their edit.

Red Phoenix suggested I should take this to AIV, but this particular edit, even if from a vandal, isn't obvious vandalism itself -- it's more like edit warring. In my experience, this won't get any response there for this reason.

Since then, another IP, 185.157.232.141, repeated this same poor edit. I haven't gotten any response on the talk page discussion I started.

What do you recommend? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, A D Monroe III, I'm on it like shrimp on grits, but in the meantime we have bigger fish to fry: that blockquote that your vandal butchered, the report to that Council of Ten, look at this: it's a copyvio. I'll go handle that vandal and their lousy punctuation, if you can remove or rephrase that passage (by which I mean not the citation from the envoy, but the text "around" it) and figure out when it was introduced. My apologies for mixing seafood metaphors. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Listen, I've looked at this guy before--was this prompted by you? And I think I blocked a range or two in Greece for the same edits. I simply placed a rangeblock: that edit was crappy and they're edit warring and all that, so there is really no need to make a more comprehensive case. Here's the thing: you will find this person in all kinds of articles on early modern war and warfare, including technology, and maybe, if you look at those articles and see this, you can make a list. I will be happy to block this person wherever they show up, because they are also profoundly uncollaborative and likely to harass other editors. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe I've addressed the copyvio you found with this edit. Thanks for your swift and decisive help. I'll keep an eye out for more disruptive edits from these IPs as you advised. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    • User:A D Monroe III, that copyvio goes back to at least 2008 so I'm not going to bother with it--thanks so much for taking care of it. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Ha, I knew it, but I didn't realize that it was a year ago--check out the log. I'm about to drop a few more blocks. [27] Drmies (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • User:NinjaRobotPirate, I'm like a shark who smelled blood in the water--and then I saw that you had caged this scorpion fish before, with a webhostblock. Plz adjust the block as you see fit.

of these edits?[28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 06:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oh God, not that again. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I hope I can find time to respond on the talk page, I guess it's only fair. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies - hoping that you are all safe and well wherever you are. Coincidentally, we were both editing Olaudah Equiano at the same time. Let me say right away that I am not editing for content, just to improve the style. This mainly involves going into the present tense (sometimes known as the "historic present"), as plot summaries employing the past tense lack immediacy and dynamism. I'm also using subordinating and coordinating conjunctions to vary the sentence structure somewhat so that they don't all start with the subject. I have noticed your additions and, not being qualified to comment on any of that, defer to your superior knowledge there. With best wishes, FCleff (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ha, thanks, hope you are well too. I saw you editing it and as it happens I've been grading exams on the topic. I don't know about superior knowledge, but I know a bit about it, though not enough to call myself an expert. Yes, I saw your edits, and I am all about consistency, so I appreciate that. The business about the names, I found interesting and I was surprised that "Michael" wasn't yet in there, but I just do not have a good enough edition here to figure out exactly what is going on, because of that odd "snow", which isn't footnoted in any of the editions I found available on the internets. Thanks for your note and your work on this and other articles. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't fall for it, M. Cliff. Doktoro is not one of those people who does not even know where xyr own talk page is. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Uncle G, that was a fascinating message from the IP. Come on over: it's just me and my boy at home, and the new fat dog of course, and we're having sliders for lunch. And a good game of football tonight of course. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Drmies! I'm still interested in seeing the syllabus from your African Lit class. We had talked about it here. I hope all is well! = paul2520 💬 19:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Shoot, I'm sorry--totally forgot. I'll drop you a line via email. Thanks! Hey--MN? I have family up there. I like snow. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the email! Yes, MN is lovely. Our first snow was Friday, which felt too soon, though. Fortunately, it didn't "stick". = paul2520 💬 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your edit here is WP:INVOLVED. You have not allowed anyone to make more than one revert on the article therefore protecting your own disputed edit. A clear violation of involved since that was your own second revert. I would ask you to self revert. Lightburst (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know how I am involved, and I do not read my first edit as a revert--it was an addition. See the talk page: you do not know whether this was an allusion or not, and please be mindful of the WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Drmies did not institute the 1RR, I did. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I saw that and I do not consider you involved because you are not forcing your edits- yet Drmies is immune from a 1rr. He added the material twice which is a revert of it's own kind. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:86 (term)#"Allusion" GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, I still don't know why you claim I'm involved. GW has been doing the housekeeping, and you don't see her in the article history; with me, it's the other way around. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The material you have added is not supported by RS and appears to be POV pushing. You have already been reverted once regarding the material but you forced it in again. Perhaps you are not involved but you are an administrator who is forcing others to accept your editorial. I have not found any RS to say this is a right wing media claim. Discussion like this should take place on the talk page so I am going there. It would be helpful for you to self revert removing disputed material. Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit. The Newsweek article makes it clear that it's the Trump team that considered this a violent allusion; the Washington Examiner cannot be trusted, as a highly partisan and unreliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It would be helpful for you if I reverted, but I have no intention of doing so. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Are you saying Newsweek is a good source? PackMecEng (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Back in the old days, yes, and today it's still better than the Washington Examiner. But if you doubt the accuracy of the Trump team accusing the governor etc., it will not be hard to find other sources that state that. BTW, I'd prefer it if you didn't stalk my talk page, cause it's kind of creepy. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

No doubt on the accuracy it is just odd to dispute a shitty source with a different shitty source. Though if you would rather I stay off your page, I will in the future. I do not wish to upset you. PackMecEng (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That you think I "disputed a shitty source with another shitty source" is very telling; you must not be a very good reader. Yes, please leave, I am getting very upset, haha, cause I'm very delicate. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. And FTR I dd not add any Washington examiner sources. Your refusal to self revert disputed material in the face of this much opposition is indeed baffling. Go see the talk page discussion that Y'all forced us to have because of your editorialized sentence. Lightburst (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me whether you added it or not. And "this much opposition", if it's Packmec and you, that's just not all that impressive to me. I saw what you were shooting for on the Jacob Blake talk page, where Praxidicae had to remind you of the BLP. I do apologize if all of you have to go through the work of hammering out things on the talk page; it really breaks my heart, but on the bright side, maybe you will develop some empathy for the hard work that people like Muboshgu have to do, keeping trolls and drive-by editors at bay. In the meantime, our article cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that the governor put some thing in there as an allusion unless she says so herself. And there's another option: you stop fucking caring about a trivial thing, and care more, maybe, about Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am glad that you pointed out the Kenosha Unrest article. The photo which I added was removed. And then discussed. In the case of your edit we are doing it backwards. And caring about one thing does not mean I do not care about another. See False equivalence. What I do care about is that you are not a neutral arbiter based on the edit and the above post. Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well good thing I'm not arbitering anything then. It's just kind of hilarious to see the entire right wing clutching their pearls over that little thingy. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Drmies, I hope that you are well. I apologize it looks like we applied blocks at the same time to IP 67.181.231.129. Due to extensive, long-term abuse I have applied an extended ((anonblock)) as behavior is consistent with that of a school facility, although there may be other explanations for these extended patterns of disruption. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any concern. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, Yamaguchi, I'm sorry--no, I'm with you, completely: I made a quick block, revdeleted some nonsense, and was going to go back since I saw the talk page was full of warnings; I'm sure I would have come to the same conclusion you did. Thanks! And thanks for the note. BTW can you believe another dude pulled his dick out? What is wrong with people? Drmies (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there matey,

think there is a possibility (methinks there is, but i'm not in charge of anything 'round here :)) of protecting this page? A die-hard PAOK FC fan, highly displeased with this manager's work at his club, continues to write stuff like "only managed second place in the league with great difficulty" and "those penalties in the match against Ajax should not have been given"; in that process, they remove relevant sources again and again.

Attentively, thanks a million in advance and regards from Portugal --Quite A Character (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, so the dude is also an Ajax hater??? Drmies (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far man, i believe the nuisance believes no penalties must be awarded to whatever opposition as long as they're playing PAOK, that's the amount of "sportsmanship" some people have in them... --Quite A Character (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Let's see if a four-week rest is helpful. Note that he's also a right-wing whitewasher. Take care of yourself, AL. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)