User talk:Drmies/Archive 135

Thanks Prof. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I was kinda hoping no one would see it. You should see the errors that this other friendly editor is correcting in my writing. Thanks for the block, BTW. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know I've seen such a case of IDHT. Again, thanks. Unfortunately, there's probably no hope for my grammar.... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Does the primary-sourced cherry-picked-as-"notable" financial info belong? One of its (re)contributors noted on my talkpage that the intent of including it is purely for pov/advocacy. DMacks (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• DMacks, I was looking at that too, but decided that the best solution for now would be to go walk the dogs, which we did. I don't know. I think financial information is valuable, just like CEO salaries and stuff, but of course it can have POV aspects, depending on what is presented and what isn't. If we (royal "we") decide that it is, we might also have to conclude that primary sourcing is acceptable, or the annual report or whatever. I don't rightly know where I come down on that. But as with so many of those articles, there's other fish to fry, which may be bigger fishies--the article has two secondary sources in all? I think everyone in the US will know the organization has some kind of notability, but it is so hard to prove that via the GNG. It's similar with Sigma Tau Delta, which I'm involved with--it's thousands of members, a convention where big names show up, tens of thousands of dollars each year in scholarships, and a presence at hundreds of universities, but sourcing that adequately and even proving notability is a difficult task. Let me see what that contributor said. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize that you now have to re-read Wises Landing, Kentucky, Doktoro. I've only slightly expanded it, though.

Uncle G (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sure lots of people are happy that someone is putting Kentucky on the map. Me, well. I drove through it one time, and had a convention or two in Louisville. But whatever you do with Wises Landing is your own. (Seriously, I'm in awe.) Drmies (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I moved Drmies/SelectiontoUser:Drmies/Selection. It looks like you intended it for your own user space and that its creation in article space was accidental. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Shoot, thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for remembering her! ... and the difficult review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Of course--and thank you for your help. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  See my talk today for the result, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Music of the Federated States of Micronesia. Doesn't MOS:OVERLINK only occur in the case of the most famous and largest countries? In that case, I was literally inconvenienced that the country reference was not listed - and had to navigate through 3 articles to figure out exactly what the music referred to - country or region. The name of that country certainly doesn't seem familiar to most readers, doesn't it? Solidest (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Depends on the reader, maybe. I don't totally disagree, but if something is an independent country, one can presume a global audience should know where it is. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Such assumptions sound subjective. Just as subjective as my opinion, according to which the vast majority of readers have no idea that the object is a country and not a region, union, or something else. And even what Micronesia is and especially where it is located. And if there is such a precedent, then WP:OVERLINK is not appropriate here. Solidest (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Many things are subjective, but I think Micronesia is not the right one to make this argument about. But [Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking]] would be a good place to start that discussion, and of course Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is relevant here as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Keepingitabuck is suspicious for all the usual reasons. Mind taking a look? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not much more for me to do than to do block--sorry. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Apparently Daszak is a popular target - see [1]... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    • This might need redaction due to excessive amount of quoting without it being for any encyclopedic purpose other of course than to cry foul about censorship.. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC).
      • RandomCanadian, do you see now that hiring GorillaWarfare would be the best decision the WMF could ever make? You owe it to her to adopt a cat in need, and love it. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Yep, agree. In any case, ducks be quacking once more... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)
• Off-topic: Special:Contributions/47.138.36.205 keeps making non-requests about facts (mostly numbers) already included in articles and well I don't quite know what to do with that kind of thing (it's not exactly disruptive other than being a minor time sink, but it's not exactly constructive). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• … that there have been 48 post offices along Goose Creek (Oneida, Kentucky) and its various tributaries (including Martins, Beech, Collins, Little Goose, Horse, and Laurel Creeks) including Plank named after a plank, Grace named after (not that one!) Grace Kelly, and Bluehole after a blue hole?
• … that Peabody, Kentucky wasn't Peabody until after Peabody no longer owned it?
• … that Garrard, Kentucky owned by Garrards wasn't Garrard until the railway came?

Uncle G (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Holy shit, Uncle--we should clone you. Please do ping me when you get to Alabama. Also, that's 9 QPQ reviews... Drmies (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You need a source as good as Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data/Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection for Alabama. That said, it appears that English professors get paid to do serious stuff in Alabama. Unfortunately, their work isn't as easily accessible to those of us without the Main Beaming and Tex-Mex Lexus and suchlike. Uncle G (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Foscue, Virginia Oden (1989). Place Names in Alabama. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 9780817304102.
    • Foscue, Virginia Oden (1978). The place names of Sumter County. American Dialect Society Series. University of Alabama Press. doi:10.1215/-65-1-17. ISBN 9780817306632.
    • Vasiliev, Irina (1989). "The Naming of Moscows in the USA". Names. 37 (1): 51–64. doi:10.1179/nam.1989.37.1.51.
    • Bibb, J. Porter (1921). "Montgomery County Present Day Place Names Showing Aboriginal Influence". Arrow Points. 2: 1–3.
    • Wright, Amos J. (2003). Knight, Vernon James (ed.). Historic Indian Towns in Alabama, 1540–1838. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 9780817312510.
• Well, here we go: according to Vasiliev there's one Moscow, and it's in Sumter County, but according to this it appears to be in Marengo County, on the other side of the Tombigbee--and there's two. Maybe one of them is the "landing", cause it's closer to the river, but the coordinates in Moscow, Marengo County, Alabama point to the other one. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Did you know that the Tombigbee at Moscow is to be bridged with cocks?Drmies (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • So there's the two Moscows (or the two words "Moscow") in Marengo County. On the other side of the river is a geological feature called "Moscow Landing", where an Auburn geology student did some research; he wrote a master's thesis on the topic, and I've emailed his director for an email address--but the man is now with emeritate, so it might be a while. I could drive out there but it's already close to lunch time; I might make a day trip of it with the kids this week. I ordered the Foscue PADS publication through ILL, and I'm getting the relevant pages of her book, Place Names in Alabama, from Special Collections. But all this is pretty much completely new to me, and I don't know the conventions and the go-to sources. So I'm going to stick with this one place, in this one county, and maybe write that up. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have recently been having some trouble with a Wikipedia user who is on one of those anonymous IP Addresses. They keep adding information which isn't sourced and removing other information despite being warned. I noticed you blocked a user with IP 1.129.110.126 recently who I think might be the same person who has been trolling the Cronulla page. It might be worth investigating.Sully198787 (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I semi-protected the page, and blocked a range which had been screwing around with other things as well. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

—valereee (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Valereee, are you familiar with Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics? We got 16,000 views on this--can you maybe put this up in the right place? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies, am I doing something stupid? I think I'm seeing 1400 views? —valereee (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    • —valereee, the stupid one is me: I should have put this under the template for Lynching of John Carter--I'm so sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

      Hahaha! :D I've added it to May's listing, but anyone can add those! Doesn't need to be one of the regular workers at DYK. —valereee (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

During a password reset last week I was reacquainted with a long-forgotten special purpose user account I created and used for two weeks in 2014, for working with elementary school students. While looking over the work product of that account, I stumbled across this edit, which I remembered heartened me at the time; the edit continues to charm, though it no longer appears in mainspace. I don't remember how I got anyone else involved (I honestly can't remember to which admin I reported my new user account). I just wanted to remind you that you are a good human being, and I'm glad I edit with such people. BusterD (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• BusterD, thank you so much for that. I'm afraid I'm no longer the same person, I think--I wish I was the person who'd get in touch to try and get the animal license. But then, maybe I was charmed by the incredible cuteness of the text. Thanks--I really appreciate it and I'll try to do better than I'm doing these days. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • We concur on the contemporary cuteness. I have heard said that we reveal ourselves best through our actions (I like to think we reveal ourselves best through play, not work, and this is kinda both). IMHO, you don't have much to regret. I can tell you from RL, acting from a position of trust is difficult work and takes a daily toll. Of course it's entirely possible that I've chosen this opportunity to blow smoke up an admin's patoot! All the best. BusterD (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, BusterD, there's something you can do to change that balance a bit. You've been here longer than me, your fifth edit was already fantastic, your block log is shorter than mine--you're a shoe-in for adminship, despite that earlier attempt. I support. Anyway, I'm watching the president speak in Tulsa--I'm happy to be working on a project that can help increase the knowledge of things that were covered up. Take care, Drmies (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Kind words. I'm also watching the president this afternoon and it's distracting me from Jane Douglass White, my latest infatuation. I think I'd run into a roadblock because I was User:CorporateM's mentor ten years ago. I'm still quite proud of my association with that editor, but I feel my views on paid editing (that it's inevitable and the best way to deal with it is to assume good faith and train such professionals to a standard of behavior, which CorporateM always maintained) won't stand me in good stead with the torch and pitchfork crowd. Also, sixteen years of editing and I'm just not an FA guy. I've got two GAs I claim credit for. The newest article might easily get there. The only FA on my list is William F. Raynolds, and User:MONGO did all the heavy lifting. Perhaps I might put myself forward for pre-examination. I'd be proud to serve. BusterD (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Haha Corp! I miss those big fat checks I used to get from his outfit. You don't need a bunch of FAs, of course--but you've moved more infantry regiments than I wrote DYKs. There was some chatter about AfD closures? Have you closed any recently, like this last decade? And I guess it's fair to ask if you'd want to be one in the first place, and what you'd do with those awesome powers. Psst, that stuff about the $5 per block, that's all baloney. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
          • I put my feet in the water. Now I have wet shoes. BusterD (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Can you explain to me why you deleted the template "Vb cl3 header". All the volleyball pages with standings are currently disabled because of that. Regards, TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Typo. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Greetings -- is this a troublemaker with a history? I have trouble keeping track of all the LTAs. Familiar song, didn't quite recognize the singer. Antandrus (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Not that I know of--this was news to me. But I went through that article history and saw they pulled that sick shit before (and I revdeleted it). The other IP (you can see it in my log) shows a bunch of edits all made by the same person, one with grudges to spare, which is why I went back and lengthened the block: they've been at this for a while. Yes, I forget them too, there's so many--and I wish I had a better memory for it. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No kidding. I thought I had seen that exact same thing before but couldn't remember where.

Icky work but someone has to do it, right? Thanks :) Antandrus (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You were right that I didn't have a vendetta for a permanent block against my "opponents" or anything like that. I've just been in a similar situation with topic ban violations before, and also observed how other users handled topic bans. That many repeated violations in a short amount of time usually results in a block that's indefinite, or several months at the very least. So it was just a little disbelief if anything. But I'm aware of WP:NOTTHEM, so it is what it is. --Steverci (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I invite you to take a look at persistent vandalism on the article about Petar I Petrović-Njegoš by user User:VukMNE. Shadow4ya (razgovor) 12:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Shadow4ya is blaming me for something that he is consantly doing himself. He is writing false articles about history of Montenegro, and doesn't allow us to write anything about our history. Nobody from Montenegro is trying to rewrite history of Serbia, but conversly if often the case. Pure example of bullying — Preceding unsigned comment added by VukMNE (talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

[2] FYI Drmies, I have reverted a comment that edited the original complaint and am about to raise this at WP:ANI. 11:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Reported here WCM_email 11:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that. Very messy. Oh, it's bullying: of course! Drmies (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I need help with User talk:91.127.73.122's edits to the article on David Stoll. The user insists in editing it in a way that I think makes the point of view less neutral, and he's using some citations that don't really support the claims made in the text (the most egregious instance is the use of a reference to the Nobel Peace Prize website as if it contained criticism of Stoll's work, which it doesn't). The user has engaged only minimally in discussing this in the talk page, and more recently not at all. The situation threatens to turn into an edit war. This is especially sensitive because the subject of the article is a living person. Any assistance is welcome. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Eb.hoop2, setting aside the Nobel website, the IP's version has two more journal articles than yours does, and where I'm from more is better. Your templates are cleaner, but why are you insisting on removing Feffer and Johnson? Drmies (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The two additional references don't support the claim that the editor gives them as a reference for. I read them, and they contain nothing that challenges the factual evidence used in Stoll's book, much less any accusation that Stoll supports military dictatorship or genocide. If the editor wants to use those references, it must be in a different way that reflects their actual contents. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    • That Johnson article is particularly dense. The content about that controversy really overshadows the rest of the article: this thing should be a biography. The best solution, it seems to me, is to write up the book in a separate article, with all of the critiques, including Johnson, in there (Johnson, David E. (2001). "The Limits of Community: How 'We' Read Me Llamo Rigoberta Menchú". Discourse. 23 (1): 154–169.).

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not inclined to start making accusations, but recent events have got me smelling something fishy. First, a user makes controversial or ungrammatical edits at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and COVID-19 misinformation. Note that similar edits of theirs have been previously reverted by others in the past, and there's even a subsection about it on their talk page. The editor in question the, after their edits are reverted (note that on one page the revert was only partial), without having taken part in the talk page discussion any time recent (nothing in the past 500 edits there, which goes back to April 7), immediately jumps to the open ArbCom page to make accusations of inappropriate behaviour. I can't help but feel that this is deliberate, i.e. baiting in the hope of getting an over-reaction. Am I being too cynical? Your two cents? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• It's like in an RfA, or a Facebook thread (can you tell I've been blocked again?): it's best to not respond, and hopefully others will take up the cause for you. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way we can have this user's IP address 119.18.2.245 blocked from editing. I have warned them twice now not to vandalise Wikipedia pages and they keep doing it as they have done with Gerard Beale and a few others. For instance, they keep changing team names from Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles to Manly Sea Eagles. Manly Sea Eagles is not the correct name of the club.Sully198787 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well it's too late now, but did you report them at WP:AIV? This isn't really a matter for WP:ANI 2.0 (still going strong, User:Wizardman!) or even for ANI. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Drmies,

@CommanderWaterford reviewed my draft on 18th may. It was rejected by him and there was no obvious reason for it but still I worked on my Draft:Phosphoester Bonds again and re-submitted my draft for review. But now it is not being reviewed by anyone. I don't know why. The first time CommanderWaterford reveiwed it in 7 hours. But this time it has been over two weeks and no one not even CommanderWaterford is reveiwing my draft and now i saw his User Talk:CommanderWaterford and he has been blocked indefinitely by you.

I wonder if thats the reason why my draft is not being reviewed yet or is it natural that reviews take time like 5 months or more. But according to Wikipedia rules and guidelines my draft will be deleted after 6 months. So what do i do? Please i would be grateful if you responded to this talk ASAP.

Thank you,

User:Souradip Mandal Souradip Mandal (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Souradip Mandal: There is a backlog. It will be dealt with in due time. Guidelines explicitly exclude drafts which have been submitted for review. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Souradip Mandal, thanks, but please don't ping CommanderWaterford: they're blocked indefinitely and pinging them when they can't respond is very unfriendly. I can tell you this: that article draft needs serious cleanup. Anytime one sees sources like this one the chances of it going live are diminished. It needs copyediting too, for grammar, for capitals, etc. Then, I don't understand what you were trying to do in the references section: you write out what are supposed to be references, and reference them with the same reference? No, references need to be provided for specific statements in the article. Finally, I wonder if those images aren't copyright violations. So if you like I can review it right now, and simply reject it again--I think you need to come to a clearer understanding of how articles here are structured and then do some serious work. Try to make it look like Covalent bond. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Problem is not that i can't cite proper books but the main problem is that its only few paragraph of the whole book and thats why my citation will agin be rejected. I have seen the Article on "Covalent Bond" it has prpper citations because covalent bond is a founding step in Chemistry so it has books which have dealt specifically with that bond in mind but phosphoester bonds on the other hand does not have a history behind its discovery so there is no specific books which can be valid citations .It is a part of Biomolecules and even if i cite a book it will never deal with phosphoester bond in specific.So the only choice i have is external links which have already answered and explained it for citation purposes and the images which i have taken from other websites can be re-used with proper mentioning of the website i have read their policies and their it gave total liberty in using their images for non-profit purposes. Souradip Mandal (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Souradip Mandal, Diannaa was quite clear: you need to discuss the copyright for the images at Commons, where you uploaded them. I don't know how you got to this image, or what page it is on: everything in that tree link is inaccessible, except for the main site, and there is no search result for "Phosphoester" on that page (I see now that it's from this page, but that page doesn't have a lot of information and the image has nothing--but that doesn't mean you can just take it). If there are no valid citations for a subject, then it's likely not notable. But it seems to me that the first thing you should do, or maybe the first two things, is to clean up the references because what you have now is not acceptable or even clear--you have a bit of text in External links which is footnoted to this book, but the actual citation is incomplete, without author and title and book editor and full page numbers. You need to look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations.

  And then you might go through and remove all the stuff that is just not acceptable in the first place, like this, and what is this supposed to do? This looks like course material, and it might be acceptable, but it needs to be cited more fully and more properly. Please review guidelines for what to cite, how to cite, and when to cite--and rather than come to me (I am not an expert), why don't you ask at the relevant WikiProject talk page? There are links on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Souradip Mandal, allowing use of the images for non-profit purposes is not liberal enough licensing for Wikipedia or for the Commons. We allow any usage, including commercial use, provided the other requirements of our license are met.— Diannaa (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Souradip Mandal For your files to remain on Commons there are actions required of you. Please visit c:User talk:Souradip Mandal and take the action required, which is described to you there Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Can i replace this media File:Phosphoester Bonds in Biomolecules.gif with a new media, if yes then how and what tag should I use to indicate the same. Souradip Mandal (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Souradip Mandal At risk of hijacking someone else's talk page with my answer, provided the file(s) you use are correctly licenced, then yoiu may. If youi are just exchanging one potential copyright violation for another then you risk being blocked on Commons, if that is where you are working. Commons is separate from Wikipedia, and this discussion should take place there, probably on the Commons help desk.

  Correct licencing is 100% the responsibility of the uploader., whether locally on the En glish Language Wikipedia or on Wiokimedia Commons Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 09:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

  Administrator changes

  Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

  Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

  Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

  Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

  Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

When you have a moment, would you consider semi-protecting my user and talk pages (maybe 3 months)? The incessant spamming by the various Jinnifer socks is driving me nuts. Thanks in advance. Grandpallama (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I see that you've been acting in an administrative capacity on Radio Free Asia. There is currently an administrative discussion awaiting closure at WP:AN#Proposal: place the Uyghur genocide and any articles relating to it, WP:Broadly construed, under community discretionary sanctions that may be relevant. I've posted this on WP:RFCLOSE as well as the talk page of Go Phightins! recently, though it hasn't been closed yet. I worry that it may be archived without a close if it is not closed soon, and I am wondering if this is something that you would be willing to take a look at in your capacity as an uninvolved administrator. Please shoot me a ping to let me know if this is something you would be willing to do.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Morning Mikehawk10 and Drmies. I closed the discussion. Implementing the findings is a bit of a sprawling process, it appears, and so while I've done my best to follow past cases as models, it's almost certain I've missed at least one or two things. More sets of eyes welcome. Go Phightins! 10:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Go Phightins! and Drmies. I've gone through and I think that Module:Sanctions/data still needs to be updated. I've included an edit request on the talk page. I've also added a request for an editnotice to be made for the Uyghur genocide page itself (the request being at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Uyghur genocide.) Similar editnotices may be reasonable for articles on related topics, such as Uyghur tribunal, Xinjiang internment camps, Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism, Civil Servant-Family Pair Up, etc. It might also be reasonable to tag Adrian Zenz and Radio Free Asia with the editnotice as well (given the disruption at each of these pages was discussed in the AN thread as being related to that experienced by Uyghur genocide-related pages). Additional pages to consider for tagging with the GS editnotice would be Mihrigul Tursun, Tursunay Ziyawudun, Islam in China (1911–present), China Cables, Xinjiang papers, Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, and Uyghur Human Rights Project. Additionally I'm not sure if Xinjiang, Xinjiang cotton industry, and/or East Turkestan themselves may also be considered within the topic area, broadly construed, but I figured I would list them here so that the list could be more complete.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you--I'll go ahead and take all the credit, OK? Seriously, thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, Let's proceed cautiously as far as what articles to tag with the edit notice at this point. I slapped it on Xinjiang internment camps and Uyghur Tribunal, but I would be inclined to not go further there until there is disruption that warrants adding it elsewhere? Truthfully, I don't have really any experience with community imposed sanctions, so I'm kind of making it up as I go ... if others feel differently, no need to consult me to go further. And Drmies, you got it—after all, here I am using your talk page being AN 2.0 :-) Go Phightins! 21:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Question: are drafts allowed when the content cannot be scrutinised due to containing no English? I am referring to this. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ha, Coldtrack, that's a fun question. The speedy deletion guidelines exclude deletion for "coherent non-English material", but for many of us it's of course impossible to determine whether it's coherent, or whether it occurs on another wiki already. You can mark it with Template:Non English. I'm sure there's a reason for that (that is, for keeping it and possibly just letting it linger), but I don't really know what it is. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Done. Coldtrack (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• I think the logic is that they could be encyclopedic articles, just not in English and they could be ported to another wiki. In this case though, google translate makes it abundantly clear that it's a CV. It's probably not bad enough for G11 though, so it will seemingly have to clog the servers for the next six months until G13 applies. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Right--that's the problem I have with it. It's great to invite content, but anyone who spends time looking at drafts and AfC knows how much work it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and how much chaff there is. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel I've tried my best with a couple of editors, one in particular, to no avail. We have Tennisedu and Tennishistory1877. Both very knowledgeable and both always right. The other one is always in the wrong per conversations. Every morning for a year it seems I see the same edits and reverts. A couple different faces, self-included, but the two characters in question cannot work well and play with others. 3RR... that's gone out the window too many times to count with these two. Personal attacks.... do you have an hour? I've had it with these two disrupting multiple tennis articles from the 50s and 60s. I gave them a curtesy non-official warning that an ANI on their behavior is just around the corner. They seem to actually want. I explained to them that an ANI won't care about solving their issues of tennis page compromise, that it will look pretty much only at behavior. They seemingly don't care from posts on my talk page and their talk pages. They acknowledge they will never be able to work together.

Most of the problems are at Lew Hoad and talk page, and it spills over into Pancho Gonzales and his talk page. And then further spills into World number 1 ranked male tennis players, Ken Rosewall, and Rod Laver. No question that Tennisedu instigates by making far more edits that multiple editors revert. He starts with pennies and moves up to nickels and dimes. Tennishistory1877 takes the bait and has a very nasty way of conversing. I have had issues with him myself, even the last things written on my talk page are quite abusive towards me. But they simply cannot work with each other. It seems like it's been going on for a year... dies down a little... and picks right back up soon thereafter.

Is there something you can say officially to them before they get dragged to ANI where topic bans and interaction bans await? They are good tennis editors factually, but I'm sick and tired waking up to more of the same week in and week out. Cheers. PS... if you feel I'm wrong here, and only one of them deserves any scolding, by all means tell me. I have no issues apologizing if I'm in the wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Fyunck(click), why are they fighting over this? I don't even care to know what the dispute is about, but why are History and Krosona so adamantly opposed to that material? I saw (didn't read all of) the discussion on the talk page--but Tennisedu says stuff like this, "exercising personal judgment at this enormous distance of time from the sources consists of original work and is outside the boundaries of the source practice in this Wikipedia article", which is complete bullocks. And why can't they use colons properly on a talk page? It's really hard, by the way, to figure out what to do here. I have one solution: a partial block for both (or all three) for that and other articles--just block them all any time they start fighting somewhere. But I saw also that El C protected the article, and maybe they have a good reason and a plan--El C, what's up? Drmies (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • They seems to have problems working together. Some of it is simply length where you have how much lew Hoad has made in cash after each event. How much to trim seems to cause fights on a regular basis. Through the last year it has been many different items focusing on informal rankings, placement among all-time greats, you name it. I believe thay have each written books with different conclusions as to where to place Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Segura, etc... especially during the 1950s. One tends to ignore everyone and keeps on changing things and one blames everyone but himself for his personal attacks and edits. When the page lock expires just sit back over the next few months and watch the fireworks. It's grown very tiresome. Both have been wrned multiple time in the last few months, and both have retracted personal attacks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure, but prize money, placement, rankings, those are all things that can be hammered out on the talk page. And if someone edits against that consensus, then blocking is easy--or, in the end, a long block specifically for this page. Those partial blocks can really come in handy. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Agreed. It sounds simple enough but when only a couple editors respond, consensus is iffy and edit warring goes on. I guess we'll see what happens over the next few months. I'll give an opinion there if someone asks, but I'm so tired of the fighting there and having to reorganize indent nesting so I can follow who said what. It's a permanent headache to deal with some folks on a couple of articles that are inter-related. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • S'up. Reason, yes — plan, not so much... El_C 19:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi. Perhaps I should give my views on the situation. Firstly, as you rightly pointed out, Drmies, the particular dispute that fyunck mentioned involved three editors (myself, tennisedu and Krosero). Fyunck seems desperate to portray this as an issue between two editors. This is fundamentally wrong. Over the past year or so it has often been an issue between two editors, because I have been the one most frequently involved in clashes with tennisedu, but Krosero was also involved in the edit war the other day (something fyunck refuses to acknowledge, despite the fact Krosero has told him that he was involved and the page edits show he was). Krosero also clashed with tennisedu on talk as you observed, Drmies. Krosero has also been involved in clashes with tennisedu in the past. Wolbo has reverted and warned tennisedu for Point of view editing many times. A user on the rankings page was very upset by tennisedu removing his edits before consensus had been established to do so.

      Also fyunck's explanation of the situation has been contradicted, not only by myself and Krosero, but also by Wolbo (an impartial observer on the situation). Fyunck's warnings to myself and tennisedu portray this as a clash between two badly behaved editors. This is what Wolbo said on his talk page "The edit warring on Lew Hoad on 8 June was a clear violation of WP:3RR by both editors and could have resulted in a block. However, as I mentioned above, to me the core problem lies with the persistent POV editing by one editor on Lew Hoad and related articles. This in turn invokes reactions from the other editor. It is cause and effect. These reactions are sometimes too combative and violate WP:AGF but they are also understandable and are in my view mostly necessary to prevent the Hoad article and others from becoming POV trainwrecks." This is a far more accurate depiction of the situation than the one fyunck presented to you.

      Tennisedu has a long history of bias towards Lew Hoad. He is obsessed with Lew Hoad, has made many point of view edits and been warned many times for doing so (he has various methods in doing this, I won't go into all the details here, it would take too long). Tennisedu is also a prolific poster on an online forum, where his bias towards Lew Hoad is well known (he frequently has his posts removed by moderators because they contain inaccurate information). He has knowledge, but he only uses it to promote one player. I have been very robust in stopping his point of view edits and his going-against-consensus edits on wikipedia because I know how persistent and devious he is. It is a thankless task and one I only undertake because I care so much about the accuracy of the page.

      Tennisedu is almost impossible to deal with on talk. He leads people into futile debates of which there is never any resolution. This has been going on for over a year. I am sick and tired of it. I understand rules on edit-warring and have stated if it is a question of us both being banned for edit-warring then I will take that, because at least it will mean tennisedu will no longer be able to push his biased agenda onto the page. After the recent argument, I felt that enough was enough, something needed to be done. I requested the page to be locked, which was enacted last night. Laying out the correct facts of the situation is fundamental in knowing how to deal with it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

      • Tennishistory1877, I'm sorry, but I can't read that. Fyunck is almost as wordy, but they divided long bits of text into paragraphs, and I can't address your points if I can't easily read them--so please thrown in a couple of <p>'s. For this dispute, I'll say this.

        a. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement failed, and that would have been the way to go here. ANI will be a mess, especially since you and Tennisedu are so incredibly wordy--I read some of y'all's talk page conversations.

        b. For that Kramer material, you need a real RfC. Tennisedu started one, but it's inept: an RfC should propose something specific, in neutral terms. "There is a need for more viewpoints" is a ridiculous way to start; no wonder it doesn't go anywhere. And it needs to be set up neutrally. "The use of material from Kramer is discouraged" would be something specific (I have no idea what that might mean; it's just an example). And you need to advertise the RfC properly, so it's not just the three of you fighting over something. When you have a consensus, editors can be held to it. And of course you might could ask an admin to oversee the process, and suggest a word limit be set. There are options there. For the record, I am not convinced of Tennisedu's positivity here. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

        • I have put in paragraphs to my previous post. Yes we can all be quite wordy. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Tennishistory1877, please see MOS:INDENTMIX. I'm looking at this edit and one thing comes to mind: I think you and Krosero and Wolbo all want that gone, and there was some edit warring over that. I don't know how much prize money is still in the article, but an RfC that proposes "no prize money if sourced only to newspapers of the time" or something like that, that can be quick and enforceable. I really think that's the thing to do--right now I don't see why I should block Tennisedu, not even from the article, but if maybe Wolbo, who I think is less caught up in the edit-warring than you are, makes another pass through the history to pinpoint what a few of the repeated stumbling blocks are, and puts those up as RfCs, then surely you can establish some ground rules for this article. If it turns out that you, Krosero, Wolbo, and Fyunck pretty much agree on a number of things, then consensus should be easy to come by. Now, I'm not proposing a cabal here, and RfCs should be done "officially" so that they're listed, and you should advertise them specifically on the WikiProject talk page, but if Tennisedu's thoughts and desires here are so outlandish, then consensus will bear that out. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
            • Wolbo, when he intervenes, always intervenes correctly with tennisedu. The problem is tennisedu can not be dealt with by Wolbo alone, because tennisedu is relentless and needs constant monitoring and Wolbo is not prepared to spend the time doing this. Wolbo has described this monitoring situation of tennisedu as untenable. Krosero is the most friendly, reasonable human being I have ever met, but if he is reduced to edit warring with someone, that speaks volumes to me. He is the sort of person who would do anything to avoid being involved in an edit war, but he has come to the point with tennisedu where he realizes there is no other way of dealing with him. Krosero has been absent from wikipedia for many months (he has other priorities away from wikipedia). Krosero knows tennisedu well and knows all his devious ploys to sneak biased information onto wikipedia.

              It is hard to explain to someone who doesn't know the situation and harder still to someone without knowledge of the subject. Actually for someone coming fresh to this, it seems to me you talk a lot of sense, Drmies. One of the main issues with this page is that basically (as far as myself and tennisedu are concerned at least) the page is complete. We even came to an agreement last year where we both agreed to stop editing the page. This lasted for a while, but then tennisedu returned to editing again. He just can't keep away, its like an unhealthy addiction. I don't hate the guy, in some ways I pity him. But I do hate having to deal with his editing.

              Although coming to group agreements to stop tennisedu sounds very good, it is not easy to obtain. For a start, Wolbo likes to stay out of things a lot. I don't want to get into a mudslinging contest with Fyunck on this thread, but I feel his involvement is not always beneficial. Krosero (if he is around on wikipedia) can be relied on 100% to prevent tennisedu's biased edits. I would like to leave the whole matter of tennisedu's editing in the hands of an administrator (I can't put into words how much I hate clashing with tennisedu, but his bias must be stopped and many times that has seemed to me to be the only way). It is impossible to reason with tennisedu on talk. Both me and Krosero have given up on that now.

              The problem is an administrator would have to know a lot about the subject to understand all of tennisedu's devious ploys to put biased comments onto wikipedia. I hope that the temporary page lock on the Hoad page may solve things. If not then I see two possible ways ahead. The first is to apply for a page lock on Hoad every time there is a major issue. The second option may be try and ask one of the many people from the forum that tennisedu uses to join wikipedia and take part in the issues at stake. I do not use this forum myself anymore, but I did for a brief time. I don't know the members well but there are people with knowledge on tennis history on the forum who understand tennisedu's methods and know how biased he is. But will they be prepared to spend the time? I don't know.

              It seems to me that a great deal of time is wasted on an editor who (despite his knowledge of tennis history) has such bad motivations. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

              • But we can't do that, Tennishistory1877--admins need to stay out of content, and what you're talking about is content. What we can do is enforce decisions agreed upon by the community, and that's why I am suggesting the talk page, RfCs, and the involvement of other editors. What was the last edit war about, the one that ended up with a lock on the page? Kramer or something like that? You know this stuff, you should be able to write up something that gets to the heart of that particular matter, because I tell you what, the moment that protection runs out, it starts all over again--but if you have a consensus that that content is not to be returned, then it's an easy matter for an admin to rule on, and draw the appropriate conclusions.

                You said "bias" once or twice--that's another thing, and again if it's something you want an admin to do something about, you need to write it up precisely and sharply, and define what that bias consists of. Otherwise we can't do much about it. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

                • The problem is there are simply not enough editors at present willing to enter the debates. Often the consensus would consist of Krosero and I against tennisedu. Its still a consensus and tennisedu should accept it, but not a large one. In terms of action on tennisedu's bias, there are mentions of this on his talk page and his previous page which was his IP before he used a registered ID. But there are many more times when tennisedu was reverted and the Neutral point of view page or "point of view edit" was listed as a reason. His editing history shows this. Just look how many times tennisedu was reverted on the pages he was involved with compared to myself, krosero, fyunck or Wolbo. Tennisedu reverts us, but we don't revert each other a lot (it happens occasionally). Everything with tennisedu is a battle. He has even described this battling as a necessary part of good editing. I don't see it that way. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
                  • But it is what it is. And if RfCs are properly set up, you have a better chance that people will come. I don't see any relevant hits for "Hoad" on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis, and only one for Tennisedu, and that page is where the action should take place. So when you start one of these discussions, advertise it there. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
                    • OK. I will do. Thanks. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Drastic is as drastic does! UTRS appeal #44311 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ugh. I have to tell you, User:Deepfriedokra, I really don't like placing those kinds of blocks. You know I'm under one myself? Some a-hole out of Georgia, I keep forgetting their name, and their range expands a few hundred miles outside of their ratty little house. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello I'm Chip3004, A while ago you blocked 104.2.212.104 for Disruptive editing, now that same ip created User_talk:Dariuskantihero is back causing Disruptive editing by doing the same thing that ip address did to Extreme Rules 2009 , Please compare these edits that the ip made and User_talk:Dariuskantihero made, they are the same person.

104.2.12.104 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_Rules_(2009)&oldid=1022864436 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_Rules_(2009)&oldid=1022865168

User_talk:Dariuskantihero https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_Rules_(2009)&oldid=1027990924 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_Rules_(2009)&oldid=1027991125

In Inclusion both two edits by 104.2.12.104 and User_talk:Dariuskantihero are the same edits. Chip3004 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Chip3004, Drmies, I would bring to your attention that Chip3004 has become a bit unhinged and begun to personally attack editors in his or her edit summaries. Elizium23 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to briefly apologize for my behavior for attacking other editors, I would like to mention that I have ADHD and sometimes obsessive over many things. It won’t happen again. Chip3004 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well, anytime you're in a "What In The Hell is fucking wrong with you?" kind of mood it's probably best to walk away. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to comment on this on the article talk page, so I'll lay it out for you as I see it.

InPreston Sturges the following sentence:

"It is not uncommon for a Sturges character to deliver an exquisitely turned phrase and take an elaborate pratfall within the same scene. For example, in The Lady Eve, a tender love scene takes place between Henry Fonda and Barbara Stanwyck, which is enlivened by a horse as it repeatedly pokes its nose into Fonda's head."

was objected to because "a horse is not a pratfall". My feeling is that a sentence claiming the Sturges had the versatility to combine two ordinarily separate and distinct things ("an exquisitely turned phrase" and "an elaborate pratfall") in the very same scene can be illustrated by a scene in which a tender loving moment between a man and a woman is repeatedly interrupted by a nosy horse, which again shows his versatile abilities.

Hey, teach, am I crazy? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just a page stalker, but it's a charming and descriptive bit of composition. BusterD (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "A horse is a horse, of course, of course..." Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Uncle G is already drafting the article on Pratfall so it won't be just a redirect to one of the worst articles we have. In other news, I just learned what "pratfall" means. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there a Dutch word for it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Google Translate says "valkuil", and DeepL says "pratval" or "valstrik"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

None of those make sense (and "pratval" isn't a work, AFAIK). Todays' Dutch word is "man of the match", as in Denzel Dumfries. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way a block can be put on User 119.18.2.245. I have warned this user several times now not to do disruptive edits and they keep doing it. For example, they change the team name in multiple articles from Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs to Canterbury Bulldogs. This might seem trivial but it is not the team name. It would be like changing Washington D.C. to Washington on multiple articles or Golden State Warriors to just Golden Warriors. I don't want to have to keep going into articles and constantly reverting edits. Kind Regards.Sully198787 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

RememberYourSPAG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making the usual noises. FDW777 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather curiously, every edit they made after this post is vandalism. Perhaps the notification caused it? FDW777 (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hut 8.5 and Yamla took care of it--thanks. I don't see any more socks there, and I don't have data to compare it to, but that identification is likely based on geolocation--and on the somewhat childish nature of their edits, combined with . If you think that having a positive ID is important you could add it to the SPI and see if anyone wants to compare to previous data. BTW there's a lot of weird accounts in Jubeiha area and I checked a few; one of them, Jzqwerty2014, might be related to Gordimalo but it's hard to see, cause--well, they're odd. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking at the similarity Special:Contributions/Beanom, who is checkuser confirmed, in particular the similarity in the exact same use of "<i>From the CIA World Factbook 2000. Not Wikified.</i>" on multiple articles I don't think there's much doubt they are the same editor, but don't see SPI will achieve anything other than wasting everyone's time? FDW777 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Beanom--yeah that's the a-hole that told Favonian to have sex with me, and I'm pretty sure I'm not his type. The advantage of an SPI is precisely in the confirmation, and the possibility of record keeping, for purpose of comparison. In fact, now that you mention Beanom, I'm going to check again and I'll update the CU wiki. Thanks--I had totally forgotten about that one. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Paishsydydhdh. It's an obvious sock of User:Jinnifer for which you've blocked socks of recently. They're back using this account trying to force the same exact edits now that temporary protection on those articles has ended, as well as once again harassing users to make edits for them on articles they can't access. Today, they're harassing User:TigerScientist. NJZombie (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked, thanks to Daniel Case. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Yeah, it got a bit out of hand after contacting you. I appreciate you getting back to me though! NJZombie (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I saw the notification but was knee-deep in an SPI… Drmies (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
      • No worries! Appreciated all the same! NJZombie (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a reminder that a QPQ is needed for Template:Did you know nominations/Three Notch Road when you have time. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw you protected deleted Draft:Western Telematic... see above. More product of RBTWI19-620827. --- Possibly (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately they won (yes, you heard me well, screw Portugal and especially CRP!), better luck for me next time. Go Netherlands!

Hope you're also well, take care :) --Quite A Character (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor has now taken to calling everyone else a sockpuppet. Lavalizard101 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

For what it is worth I have declined their unblock review and warned them that they will lose their talk page access if they make any further personal attacks. I am watching the page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Damn, the crazy runs high there. I'm reminded of the old Tahash editor. Thanks Chillum. Drmies (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

He sure made my life sound interesting. More interesting than "clearly sitting on the couch all day long waiting for the lockdown to end". HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh man that still isn't over? I'm so sorry. I mean, I'm sorry you live in a responsible country with a functioning healthcare system. If you were my sock I'd make you pay for that new heater that's coming today or tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary I am currently in a country that has accomplished about 2% vaccination. They are being very responsible, but their healthcare system is below what I would call functioning. I am however safe and happy. Ask me on IRC and I can give you more details. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue if Special:Contributions/Wi11iam_1yons is just random trolling, a copyvio of somewhere, or some form of an LTA (the deliberate spelling of the username is what pushes me towards this option). Mind to enlighten me? Either case, likely needs a blow from the banhammer... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• That name looks like an Instagram pornbot. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Alright, it's hard to say. There is an LTA who keeps dumping lyrics into articles, but I found nothing there to suggest that's this one. There's also a Shrek LTA, though I haven't seen that one in a while. In this case, CU revealed that it's a school, on a blocked range, and there's a bunch of blocked accounts and one or two serious accounts. So for now I'm going with your first two options. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(If that's not the Dutch word for "hoax", I blame Wiktionary.)

Tomaatje12 (talk · contribs) has made a rather unusual edit here, seemingly confessing to having created a hoax article on nlwiki. However, I can't tell if they mean that they created it knowing it was false, or based on a misunderstanding (in which case it wouldn't actually be a hoax). If it's the former, we'll probably need to review their contributions to enwiki. So I was wondering if you or another Dutch-speaker ("-sprecher"? "-sprooeker"?) could take a look at nl:Marginale Driehoek (last version to which they were sole major contributor · ongoing AFD), and figure out what's going on over there. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• They said it was first created in 2006--I don't have magic powers on the nl-wiki, and I don't know anybody there. That entry does not read like a joke. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Their only article creation here was a place in Belgium, Hulste, and it seems real enough. Tomaatje12, can you explain Marginale Driehoek? Was it deleted? And if so, why did you create it again? I know it's the Dutch wiki, but still. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• I discovered that it was a hoax by accident. I made the page in 2020 and had plenty of sources. Various media sources mention the Marginale Driehoek. Vice Belgium described it "the place where the dumbest people life" [3] But they all likely refer back to the original article on Wikipedia of 2006. No sources older than 2006 make a mention Marginale Driehoek. I was unaware of the origins of the Marginale Driehoek when I wrote it. Tomaatje12 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up, Tomaatje12. :) And thanks for the assistance, Doc. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why I thought you were an English major [4] oops on me. :-/ — Ched (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I would've said in the edit summary that there's a reason why the article List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters was featured as effort was done to cite sources adequately and polish it to a high standard rather than lump in a bunch of character sheets and call it a day especially if no indication of notability is included. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Howdy! I'm in the midst of changing jobs and haven't been around much the past couple of months, but today I am being accused of vandalism at Kaffir lime by an IP, without contributions on any other articles, for deleting repeated references to those who would call this fruit by a non-colonial name as "woke." I reported to AIV but who knows whether the person acting on those reports will grok the issue versus denying for having not provided sufficient notice. Maybe I'm the one who's out in left field here.

Hoping all's well in your world; it's 114 degrees in mine. Take care! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I wouldn't use "woke" as an adjective, because it occurs so often in quotation marks and is used as a put-down, and it's worthwhile noting that the article doesn't use the term either (BTW that's a good source--worth incorporating). I blocked the editor for disruptive editing--which here includes edit warring, false claims of vandalism, and NPOV. Thanks... (It's only high 80s here, but my AC unit is currently in pieces waiting on a new motor, haha) Drmies (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Guess I'm getting popular... Already reported but would like to know if this has any relation with other known accounts or if its just some random troll. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I have soft blocked this as too similar, making sure they don't edit until this is looked at further. If there is more history here that warrants a harder block I have no objection to another admin changing the block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/The Love Songs of W.E.B. Du Bois at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, when you get a chance, could you delete these death threats You should be shot in the head...You are a descipable individual who needs to be dealt with. See you in South Korea. from that users talk page[5], they are still visible. Thanks in advance. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, I think everything has been removed now, and editor blocked. — Ched (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you folks..this is terrifying, I feel sorry for Piotrus. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

oops ..Ched I think you accidentally blocked the wrong user, [6] SangminChoe was the one who reverted that threat. This user posted the threat ---> [7] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Damn - that's twice in 3 or 4 months I screwed up. TY GizzyCatBella, unblocked, and apology left. Hope that's enough. Earslore was blocked already by another admin. — Ched (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ched, no worries, with all that difficult tasks you folks constantly do, these things happen. It is understandable. Thanks for taking care of that so swiftly. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. Sorry, I was otherwise occupied today. Piotrus, Nishidani, I appreciate your work--y'all might know who it was, and Materialscientist does too, I think--thanks MS. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks pal, though I didn't notice any recent death threats, (other than that of age, which, well, is hardly a threat: just nature making way for youngsters!) from that source my way. But then again, I'm disattentive to these things. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

But Special:Contributions/CutePeach just decided that they didn't like the current article, and they've decided to remove the existing sections on the topic, and replace it with one of their own creation, and put it at the top of the article to give it undue prominence [8]. This is very unusual, and also very disruptive, and I'm stuck at three reverts (I've given them a warning for the blanking, and asked for an explanation on their talk page, but they don't seem interested and likely just want to see me revert them a fourth time so, you know, they can make a report for edit warring)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Look, I can't act on an editor named "Cute Peach". It's just not OK. Drmies (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• I edit-conflicted with User:Shibbolethink. Drmies (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Tell me if I'm wrong: 3RR gives a first mover advantage (since the first move is inherently not a revert...), does it not - at least, according to the letter of it (never mind the spirit, one, or a well-explained two reverts, should be the absolute maximum)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah sorry, I was just reverting because they didn't explain their content removal. I definitely agree it's a case of WP:UNDUE. We should get a consensus on the talk page. It can go to RfC if it has to. But also we really do need to follow BRD.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
      • It's too early for me to start counting. RC, this kind of math is always tricky but yes, there is that advantage, which makes it all the more important to NOT get caught up in an edit war, and to rely on the collaborative nature of the project. Shibbolethink, I don't know why you're apologizing--my edit summary was pretty much the same as yours: unexplained edit warring is disruptive. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
        • • :) --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
        • They've just made a post at AE, where in other things they say I'm the one that created the discretionary sanctions, and where, of course, they are using this recent episode as some form of ammunition for their accusations (completely ignoring WP:ONUS)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Now a personal attack saying how I "poisoned the well"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • And now, "there is a small band of activists"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• ^{(  Buttinsky)} Is anybody taking bets on how many TBANS are going to get issued as a result of this AE? Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • LOL. it's really very similar to the original ANI thread 5 months ago. A perfect example of WP:STOPDIGGING. It's almost as if in reaction to the thread looking like it's going "the wrong way," various editors are trying to edit more POV into those articles... More activity at Gain of function and the two AE report articles. Careful nobody gets caught up in that and battlegrounds! And report the edit wars...But I know I'm preaching to the choir.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy first day of summer, Drmies!! Interstellarity (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I know I'm not the best editor on Wikipedia, but I require assistance again. User:Rootone left an angry message on my talk page regarding User:Rtkat3 and I undoing their edits to Steel (John Henry Irons) and Natasha Irons' page. They claim we ganged up on them to undo their edits and that we're trying to intimidate them. However, one of their reasons for us to leave them alone is essentially "I'm too old for this shit". For fear of antagonizing them further, I chose not to respond to the message. Rtkat3 suggested I seek out administrator help, and you're one of the only ones I know who maintains an active presence. Again, I'm well aware that I'm not a great editor considering my inability to remove every instance of fancruft and my reasoning for undoing Rootone's edit to Natasha Irons' page is definitely the worst. However, I would like assistance in, or at the very least advice, on this matter and how to proceed. Blazewing16 (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Blazewing16, thanks for the note, and don't worry about good or best. But I don't really see what the problem is--the edit histories aren't very clear and I can't figure out what precisely was being fought over (Rootone also isn't very clear in their edit summaries)--but if what they call "ganging up" is just you and the other editor agreeing, well, you can just let that be. You can remove the message from your talk page and just go on, right? You don't have to respond to their accusations which were clearly spoken in anger. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Remember Filetime? Well, [9] and [10]. (Also [11], but no disruption there.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Interesting. Well, what can I say. The false accusations of picture-stacking (is that what it is?), that's moving toward an ANI post. Setting that aside, the RfCs aren't going well for them, and I see User:SMcCandlish and others making very good sense. (I'll add Epicgenius, whom I know as an eminently reasonable editor.) Those RfCs are still happening, and, eh, I hate to say it, but maybe you need to go for the "I" that we know from "RBI". If the RfC goes your way, it doesn't matter what they say, right? Drmies (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• This really shouldn't get out of hand. I warned them, but this might actually become an ANI matter--if you can phrase it in fewer than 200 100 words, haha, without bold print. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• What? NO BOLD PRINT!! Not possible.
  I really have no taste for bringing this to ANI, so we'll see what happens. And, yes, Epicgenius has turned into a very respectable editor -- I told him so recently. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Why did you delete some many sourced paragraphs and sections? Why didn't you engage with people who know the subject?Vale.devin (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• You mean like someone with a PhD in literature and a decent knowledge of WP:OR, and of this, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question?Drmies (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • You deleted in a few minutes entire paragraphs with sources. Why did you delete the paragraph with Florio's proverbs? They are sourced.Vale.devin (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Read the edit summaries. "They had sources" is weak: in fact, the sources did not verify the text. And citing reviews instead of books and claiming that the argument which likely isn't even in the book can be distilled from the review, that's intellectual laziness and misrepresentation. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • You know, you could have written "Florian influences on Shakespeare" or something like that, but you're going for the fringe view here. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You deleted an entire paragraph with Florio's proverbs, taken from Florio's works. They are not from reviews, but from the original sources. This is laziness at his best. Not checking sources and deleting them. The only misrepresentation is your censorship. You did not engage, you did not check the sources provided. You should be ashamed to have used the word 'monster' in another comment. Vale.devin (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Why did you delete the three phrases from Florio's works used in Shakespeare's plays? They were all three sourced. Why did you delete the sentence in which is stated that Florio contributed to the English language with over 1,000 words. There are studies about that. And it had been included the source (Empire of Words: The Reign of the OED, by John Willinsky, Princeton University Press, 1994). Why this censorship?Vale.devin (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Why did you delete that three of Florio's phrases become Shakespeare's plays titles? This is pure laziness not checking the sources provided. This is real censorship.Vale.devin (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You boast that you have a Phd, did you read all Florio's mentioned sources? Did you read Florio's First Fruits, Second Fruits, Giardino di Ricreazione? If not, why did you deleted those sourced information?Vale.devin (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, "taken from Florios's work", to which you added OH THAT'S A LOT LIKE SHAKESPEARE. That's original research. And I did check the sources provided: here is a review from 1960 of Longworth de Chambrun which doesn't say a damn thing about Florio and Shakespeare, and here is another, which lists a whole bunch of "debatable" opinions, the only relevant one of which is "Florio taught Shakespeare Italian". And here is a 1953 review of Simonini's book, whose only relevant statement is that Shakespeare and Jonson owe a debt to men who taught Italian in England. None of these articles prove anything about the thesis, though you made it sound like they do, and the laziness is in using those reviews instead of the books themselves--not that that would have helped. That Florio added words to English is completely irrelevant to "Florian authorship of Shakespeare's work. I'm sorry, but you seem to completely misunderstand what Wikipedia is all about. You should write up a website--but maybe you already did: there's a lot of hits for the owner of that website in the article. Funny to see Gary Taylor in there--I studied with him. I don't think he'll tell you that Florio wrote Shakespeare. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• False, you didn't check the original source, which is『Giovanni Florio, un apôtre de la renaissance en Angleterre a l'époque de Shakespeare』a book written in French and published in 1923. The two-pages articles by Longworth de Chambrun you cited (Shakespeare: A Portrait Restored) have nothing to do with the paragraph that you deleted without checking the sources. Is this a correct behaviour You deleted an entire paragraph about Montaigne and Florio with citations from George Coffin TaylorShakespeare’s Debt to Montaigne published in 1925. Why? Did you read this book? Why did you delete the paragraph? You acted like a censor! Did you read Simonini book or you read just a review? Vale.devin (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Why would we cite a book published in 1923? Isn't there, like, something more recent? Also, it isn't anybody's duty to hunt out a century old book to support your claims. The WP:BURDEN is on you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • You make no sense at all. Your citations are not from the scholarly works, one of which was already questionable according to the review you yourself cited. There were no articles "by Longworth de Chambrun"--there were two reviews of her book. Sheesh--this is all pretty elementary. Did you read Simonini's book? If so, why don't you cite from it, instead of from a review of the book? Can you not tell the difference between a book and the review of a book? You certainly can't tell the difference between primary and secondary sources, or you simply don't understand that we work with secondary and tertiary sources in this encyclopedia. But you are too tiresome, and this is in too many places: do not visit my talk page again. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This please. I have reported them to AIV as well. S0091 (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. What is wrong with people. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If we could figure that out, we could solve a LOT of the world's problems. They have come back as 212.129.79.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) but just one edit so far. Went ahead and reported at AIV. S0091 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Dude's running around resetting his modem or phone or whatever. He'll have to run a bit farther in a minute.

Last week you kindly blocked User 119.18.2.245 for disruptive and repetitive editing in regards to changing team names and removing information. It seems whoever was doing the edits on that IP has moved onto a new IP and is doing the same thing. I have asked User Talk 119.18.1.210 to stop but it looks like they will continue and then when the other IP ban ends they will just move back on to that one.Sully198787 (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ha, Nishidani, thanks--but "white knight"? Hmm... Do you know I'll be preparing a class on the medieval origins of modern race/racist attitudes? The White Knights of the KKK will find a place in there as well... Drmies (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Well those lethal arseholes, sorry, on wiki euphemisms are advised, so genocidal shitforbrains- had a six year start on Lewis Carroll when he wrote Haddocks' Eyes, where the good white knight appears and the White Knight is one aware of the difficulty when many names are used for the same thing ()86 candidates for the one WS). I must confess that that was the way I read the barnstar when someone posted it on my page, taking it as an allusion to my relatively advanced years. And since I don't know how to do most wiki things like formatting for barnstars etc., I had to poach, but mniracle of miracles did manage to tinge it with Alabamee's state colours, which alas, I now realize, were appropriated by the KKK mugs. That's a great course to teach. Lucky students.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Ha, we'll have to see about that, how lucky they will be. There will be some real work involved--let's hope no one calls me out for poisoning all those minds with Critical Race Theory. Had a conversation with one of the swim moms this morning about that: she's against, because she wants people judged on their character, not their color (she's Black, by the way). Well, I said, the white colonists of America certainly didn't judge the natives they killed and exploited on their character. That's the thing--those detractors think of it as some kind of moral injunction, "Judge people on race!", when it simply means "don't discredit race in describing history". And now those less-government-is-better-freedom-loving Republican legislatures want to curtain what we can and cannot teach. You should see what you can find in some of the older and sometimes newer history books for K-12. I saw one that described enslaved African people as "immigrants". Drmies (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
      • That's when you realise American politics are quite a bit off-center. But that's a topic best avoided in discussions, right? Let's talk about the weather (humid and very damp in my part - I feel rather like in England despite being an ocean away). But then you realise the weather is also caused by some political decisions... Darn! Can't escape it. Even in Shakespeare: is there a better source than this for the following analysis? "Why do they insist that off all the possible 'candidates' the only one who can't have written the plays is William Shakespeare? Though they work hard to deny it, most reasons Anti-Stratfordians offer is rooted in an anachronistic classism. Shakespeare was too lower-class, too common, too ordinary a human to have written the sublimest works in English literature [...]" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep. The conspiracy Shakespeare theories are simply a snobbish putdown of the idea of an intelligent order outside of the aristocracy. 'Homer' probably didn't have a brass razoo to their name, singing for their suppers. Drmies. 'Medieval roots'? Certainly took strong roots then, but Poliakov's The Aryan Myth traces it back to Isidore of Seville's Spain and is very good on the invented genealogies of descent throughout Europe, which later were redefined as races. You'll know that of course. But surely, this goes back to (a) Biblical genealogies of human groups, Sem, Ham, Japhet et al., (b) which take a sharp turn with Ezra and Nehemiah, who introduce rules for correct descent as definers of the in-vs outgroup. Western racism is essentially biblical. imagine touching on that in the USA and esp the bible belt would stir the dovecotes overly, and one would require the tooey deftness of Fred Astaire to trip the light fantastique over that minefield without being knocked off one's feet by a storm of hot air protesting. ps. I shouldn't be, but was flabbergasted to see that the slaves of the African trade could ever been described in any textbook wherever as 'immigrants'. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Now that's a word I don't see a lot. Wann es gibt Schweinerei, macht das Wikipedia zu einem Schweinestall? Tschau. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• There's probably plenty of it in my log... Drmies (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. If you have time, could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taha Khattabi. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm I can't see anything. You're better off asking Maxim. I looked at the talk page, but I can't open the first report (something messed up about Word on my laptop) and I can't read the second one (no hablar Espanol...). Drmies (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @M.Bitton:, there's nothing in the technical data to suggest that it could be the same person, so perhaps it's a case of meatpuppetry. Maxim_(talk) 16:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Drmies and Maxim: it could well be a case of meatpuppetry. Many thanks to both of you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes that's what I found too, but I thought Maxim maybe knew more (history) than me. Now, that their only edit is that revert is very telling, of course. I just wish I could read those sources. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Saw you active at AIV; could you revdel the disruptive summaries in the history here? Not sure what exactly this user is trying to do, but whatever it is, it's disruptive. Home Lander (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You recently blocked Stonkaments for edit warring. Well, fresh off the tail end of that block, they decided to revert again, this time in a way that led another editor to accuse him of trying to hide it.

There's more, BTW. I could document a long-term history of problematic behavior, if needed, but I mostly just wanted to bring this incident to your attention, in case you want to do something about it, or see what another admin thinks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your concerns of MOS:COLORSonStory of the Year, however that isn't the page that discussion should be had on. Your concerns should be discussed on the pages that discuss the use of colours in timelines like Wikipedia:EasyTimeline. Not a random rock band's page that just so happens to have a timeline. The timeline as it was conformed perfectly to what is described on EasyTimeline and every band Timeline on Wikipedia. It may even be applicable to discuss it on Vital article pages that use it like The Rolling Stones, List of members of bands featuring members of the BeatlesorLed Zeppelin. I hope you understand this and also that the disruptive editing tag your posted on my talk page, does not conform at all to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Be more weary next time. I hope you have a nice day. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• You mean "wary", Issan Sumisu, because I'm weary enough of this already. You completely misunderstood: you are violating accessibility guidelines, and if you continue, I will block you. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • You missed the point entirely. Your concern should be over MOS:COLORS and EasyTimeline contradicting each other. That is the discussion you should be having if you have a problem with the colours on EasyTimeline, it has its own manual of style. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • User:Deepfriedokra, do you understand this? Editor keeps reinstating a timeline that even to the naked eye violates accessibility guidelines in terms of color contrast and light/dark contrast. There is no way that this table meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, but they seem to think this is some kind of minor thing that I should discuss on some Timeline page. How do I make this clear short of just blocking them? And Issan Sumisu, why do you keep reverting other parts as well, such as the bold print for the Members, when a heading makes editing much easier? There is a set of five lines for Philip Sneed--what colors are they? I can't tell, and I'm not even really color-impaired. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying to change your mind on anything. I'm simply trying to point out to you that your grievance with the page wasn't a grievance with my edit, it was a grievance with a policy that is contradicting another policy. You've uncovered something that should be fixed in that respect, in that EasyTimeline shouldn't have colours. This is the third time I've stated that in different ways, it seems as if you're ignoring every word I say. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
        • You can't seriously think that in a clash between someone's advise on how to draw up timelines and a set of guidelines meant to improve accessibility for the visually impaired across all articles, in fact across all of the internet, that we should have a serious discussion over what weighs more heavily, because that should be obvious. Yes, the problem is with your edit, because you keep reinserting material that violates accessibility standards. And if you think that "well EasyTimeline says it's OK" is enough justification for that violation. then you are mistaken. What needs to change here is editors using colors in a way that makes it hard or impossible for visually impaired people to read it. If you want to take this seriously, and if you want to keep those timelines, then get to work on improving them. Picking a fight with an administrator who happens to care greatly about accessibility is not a productive way forward. Go fix the problem, and if you do I and thousands of others will be grateful to you. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I'm not even trying to be aggressive. I'm trying to point out to you that EasyTimeline is site wide and heavily used. I understand WP:Colors and its relevance, and I'm trying to help you get your point across about it. I was trying to be helpful to you. I'd never heard of WP:COLORS before today, and I'm sure most editors mustn't have been either, as coloured timelines are in place in the majority of GA-class band articles. Should it not be discussed when an article is reviewed for GA? I don't understand why you think this was an attack on you in any way. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
            • I'm not saying this was an "attack"--I just don't understand why, when I pointed you to MOS:COLOR the very first time you didn't take that suggestion (and the content of that page) seriously, and why you were edit-warring over this. I've been around the block a few times here and when I say "violation" I'm not kidding. But what you say flips around easily: I had never heard of EasyTimeline, and I am sure many editors haven't. MOS:COLOR is of course project-wide, and the moral imperative of accessibility should be obvious. The very section I linked to says "Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind or visually impaired"--well, that's easy enough to follow. If a bathroom in a building is set up in such a way that someone in a wheelchair can't get to the toilet, then you rebuild the bathroom: this is the equivalent of the ADA.

              I can't speak for GAs or for other articles: it is entirely possible that one has a set of colored lines that do meet the requirements. So one of the things you can do is play around with colors and shades. Or make the lines wider. Or have fewer variables in there. I think you think I'm saying "all timelines should go per MOS:COLOR", but that is not what I'm saying at all: I'm saying this one should go.

              But you should notice also that EasyTimeline says nothing whatsoever about colors or contrast. It does not dictate that this timeline should have been done this way. Nor, and that is the weakest part here (I am not blaming Erik Zachte for this), is there any reference at all to MOS:COLOR or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. There should be. And updating that page, or adding some material about that, that would be very helpful. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

EasyTimeline was published in 2004, and predates page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility which started at 2006 and probably MOS:COLOR, an abbreviation which I never even heard of. I abandoned support of EasyTimeline at least one and half decade ago, after admins introduced a patch without consultation which ruined many existing charts and refused to revert or even discuss it. Please don't drag me into discussions that are for me a waning painful memory. Erik Zachte (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Erik Zachte, thanks--it's unfortunate then that your name is still on it. You might could place a note on the talk page. And I didn't, and certainly didn't want to, drag you into anything--hence my "I am not blaming Erik Zachte". Thanks, and my apologies, Drmies (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, it appears the IP who added all these external links into the article tried to contact you at the You've got mail-template talk page. The IP and a user who left me a note on my talk page appear to be same person. Apparently one of the book's co-authors.. Just wanted to let you know, ofc up to you whether you send them a message or not. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Got it--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. I'm not exactly sure how to file an SPI. But since you are a CheckUser here, I've decided to bring you this information.

• This IP...86.175.217.223 seems to engage in meat puppetry with this IP...2409:4063:6c13:a910:2d02:7544:94d8:f8f0. Randomly came to the noticeboard to side with IP 86....
• From editing diffs..see [12] and [13] IP is dynamic but I am certain this is a case of Meat Puppetry, clearly seen in contributions. They are siding in disputes. Fizconiz (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That may be, Fizconiz, but from those IPs you can see about/almost as much as I can. If geolocation points to the same place, you may have something, but SPIs won't comment on IPs. Plus, I don't know if this is a big thing--the usual editorial tools (revert, rollback, warnings, etc.) usually suffice. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait. You already ran this by AN, where Sandstein looked into it. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes. As I was writing to you, they blocked IP 2409... But I think it was the case about the comments they left. Just wanted to give notice about the potential meat puppetry. Fizconiz (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Fizconiz, I placed a small rangeblock, but I have a question for you: do you really want sexist content like "Most Desirable Woman" in these articles? As for meat, you're dealing with a country of 1.3 billion people, many of whom speak and write a variety of Indian English, and in this case I'd say many of them are horny teenagers, and those all utter the same kind of grunts. So maybe the other IP needs to be blocked if they continue, maybe, but not yet. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I don't really have an opinion on that phrase, so I'll leave that to you. You are far more experienced here and you know what type of content should stay and what content should be removed. Regarding the meat, yes, I'm aware of that. I just found suspicion in the contributions because they randomly went to the talk page as their first edit. Like how would they know there is a discussion taking place at the BLP in which they weren't even involved? Then, they go on to make an edit where the dispute arises from (lead content) and that's the only thing they change in favour of IP 86.... Further, how did the same person on dynamic IP know there is a discussion taking place at the noticeboards? Seems odd to me. I do agree that some sort of action needs to be taken if the IPs cause more disruption. I'll let you know. Fizconiz (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

So I closed the discussion at ANI, but then it occurred to me I'd never placed a topic ban before. I notified the editor at her talk; can you check my work? And is there anything else I need to do? I didn't close it as community-placed because that didn't seem appropriate with the low level of participation and since it was my own proposal. —valereee (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, did you log it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions?— Ched (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ched, hm...have I already f'ed up? I didn't close it as a community action. There's nowhere at that log for this? Does a t-ban require community action? —valereee (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There's discretionary sanctions for BLPs, and while it's not very common (I think) to enact those based on promotional editing, WP:BLPBALANCE gives you a warrant to do so. And that you can do as an individual, neutral administrator. I think with that discussion it will be easier than to distill a consensus out of that plethora of commentary. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Valereee - I just recently got my head around applying discretionary sanctions. You need to log the action formally - ping me if you want a hand finding your way through the paperwork. (The alternative might have been to PBlock them from the article for disruption as an ordinary admin action, which is less hassle, and would probably achieve the same end...). Girth Summit _(blether) 19:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving to GS's talk for a tutoring session, thanks all! —valereee (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It's really all about what kind of thing you're doing and why, and it depends on which box you checked at WP:Ban authority. And that will determine what you do at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions. I agree that blocks are easier to do, haha, and that partial block thing, I'm really starting to like it--I just placed one here. On the other hand, bans serve a purpose as well and the paperwork trail can be useful later. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hell Drmies, I am looking for help on a problem you have dealt with in the past. A user [[User::WallyFromDilbert]] continues to remove valid and sourced information from Owen Benjamin. Most recently, he removed a post about a new article from Media Matters.The fact is, this is original research. I have no problem reporting it as what they allege, or even mentioning that MMFA is left leaning. I noted that this is what Media Matters reported, and did not state it as fact. I am looking to understand how I can escalate this issue, as it is clear there is persistent and a concerted effort to control the page. I followed the WP rules on allegations. The user also didn't even leave a comment or reason for immediate deletion. Thanks, TruthBuster21223 (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Before I look at the article, I'll give you some general pointers: look at the article for the outlet first. Media Matters for America is a self-proclaimed watchdog (but maybe other outlets support that, I don't know and it doesn't really matter) and they are, well, blatantly biased. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but that does mean that what they report should be properly attributed to them. The next thing is always to check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and the consensus there bears this out, but in addition it says "no consensus on reliability", and that's not a really good sign. It may be that there wasn't much discussion, in which case it doesn't say very much--but if it was a significant discussion, with lots of seasoned editors participating, "no consensus" just isn't good. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• OK, a few things. First of all, User:wallyfromdilbert did give a reason (twice) for removal: there are edit summaries, and that suffices. I don't know what you were looking for--a talk page post? But that isn't required, really, as long as they give a reason. They pointed to MOS:LABEL, and that sort of bears out what they're saying: "...best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". For "racist troll"--well, that is pretty contentious, of course, and I think one problem is that the sentence is real short and consists, besides the attribution, mostly of just the labels. If this were based on some report, on some serious investigations either by Media Matters or others, and if that is reflected in the article text with some context and background, I personally might let that slide, but I have to say, for now, with the one source, and with no context or dates or background, it's really UNDUE.

  And I also have to say that "a persistent and a concerted effort to control the page" is a very serious accusation (certainly if you mean by this one editor) and requires serious proof. Now, if you escalate to AN or ANI, you can make that case, or try to anyway, but that's most likely going to end up in a mudslinging content. And of course they might say the exact same thing about you, since the history shows you've been duking it out with Wallyfromdilbert. And I can go further: the history shows the numbers for both of you--you are the #2 contributor of text and Wally isn't even in the top 10; as for number of edits, y'all are almost tied: Wallyfromdilbert 69 (22.1%) vs. TruthBuster21223 59 (18.9%). So if you're saying "they're controlling it" they can say "no you are". I don't see, unless Wally is clearly guilty of whitewashing or BLP violations or whatever, that this is going to go the way you want it to go.

  One of the best editors we have in this alt-right BLP territory is GorillaWarfare. I don't know how she feels--but I do think that for this one particular edit she might agree that this needs more than this one source. Another expert is User:Muboshgu, who has seen this article too, and if they can drag their butt away from the most boring game besides curling, they might have an opinion for you. So, sorry--you may have been looking for me to agree with you, and while it's possible that I agree with the MMA report (if I were to read it), I wouldn't defend its inclusion in the article. Maybe GW and Muboshgu have an opinion; if they agree that this isn't good enough, the best thing for you to do would be to revert, if that hasn't been done already by that time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you Drmies. I was not simply looking for you to agree. I was looking for your opinion in general, so thank you for that. Firstly, I did explicitly attribute it to Media Matters in the opening line. Yes, he does consistently whitewash. I would like these other posters you mentioned to look at the post and review. If they want to give more of a description of the article instead of one line, that would be great. How could I get these users to take a look? Would you be able to ask them to please? Thank you again TruthBuster21223 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know you attributed it, but that's only one thing. I pinged these editors and that's all I can do, I suppose--if they're interested they'll contribute one way or another. What you can do is start a talk page post and ping them from there (including Wallyfromdilbert, obviously). But I cannot conclude from this one set of edits that Wallyfromdilbert is guilty of whitewashing, for reasons I mentioned. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • There are a handful of left-leaning partisan sources that I typically try to avoid in articles about US right-wing topics, even with attribution, unless they are paired with more reliable sources (and even then it's often better to just use the more reliable sources). MMfA is one of them; others are Right Wing Watch, Democracy Now!, etc. I will occasionally use MMfA for very basic stuff like to verify a quote if they directly quote an article subject, but I otherwise tend to avoid it.
    In this specific case, there are other sources that comment on Benjamin's history of racism and so it's at least not the only source describing him as racist, although I do note that some of the other sources being used in that section are heavily left-wing sources to the point where they should probably be attributed (RWW and SPLC). There are plenty of WP:GREL sources mixed in there also (Daily Dot, Daily Beast, The Atlantic) but they are among the most left-wing sources that are accepted as GREL. There is no requirement that we include sources from across the political spectrum, but I try to, and I am much more comfortable making strong statements about a BLP subject ("racist troll", "dangerous", etc.) if they are coming from centrist or right-leaning sources as well as left. Perhaps a good-example of this is Laura Loomer. That article describes her as far-right, which is a label BLP subjects often object to, but it is sourced to left-wing sources (The Daily Beast, Vox, SPLC), fairly centrist sources (The Hill, the Associated Press), and right-wing sources (The Washington Times, Fox News).
    All that to say, I think this article could be much improved by basing the "Views" section much more heavily on the GREL sources, rather than the hyperpartisan ones. Introducing some more centrist (even left-center) sources would also probably help. I might take a pass through it this evening when I have more time. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    • GorillaWarfare, thank you very much. This is all very sensible. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• This single-purpose account has already unsuccessfully brought my behavior to ANI (archive link). Drmies, you have also repeatedly warned this user about their aspersions towards me in the past. At what point do they face consequences for this behavior? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • wallyfromdilbert, you are right: I looked at a bunch of things but not their talk page. Let me think. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • TruthBuster21223, after looking through your edits again, and the notes that I've placed on your talk page, I realize we've reached a threshold and maybe we crossed it already. So I am going to tell you something. First of all, you need to read over GorillaWarfare's comment and take that to heart for any future edits. Wallyfromdilbert has just reverted your edit again: leave it be. Second, you are to leave that editor alone. Any time that you revert one of their edits without sufficient warranty (as it did this time, as it turns out), or any time you talk about about them, you are likely to see one of two things happen, depending on your edit/comment/revert: you will be blocked from editing that article, or you will be block for harassment (you're in HOUNDING territory). If I had paid more attention even to my own earlier warnings to you, that might have happened already. If, as you suggested you do, you try to "escalate this issue", then both of these things might happen. I hope I'm clear. In addition, I'm going to put a few relevant notes about discretionary sanctions on your talk page.

    Wallyfromdilbert, my apologies: I should have paid a bit more attention to things beside that article, but clearly my memory needed jogging. Thanks for doing that. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

    • Drmies, no worries at all. I appreciate your assistance. I have tried working with TruthBuster21223, and my personal opinion is that there are many choice words I would agree could be applied to Benjamin, but that does not mean that content is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please let me know if you see any issues with my behavior on the article as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Sure thing. I remember there was some talk about that zoning business, and I commented on RSN and BLPN. I don't think I followed up on what the outcomes were, but judging from the article some middle position was reached. Now, there's one thing you can do: clean up Wally (Dilbert)!Drmies (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
        • It was helpful getting more eyes on the zoning issue, and I think it turned out well, with more neutral language and citations to two decent sources. However, your suggestion that my namesake article needs any cleanup work has now deeply jaded me into not doing any real work. Thanks a lot. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Drmies (or any other adminstrator), can you please take a look at User:BananaYesterday where I am discussed? Is this appropriate? Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I see that as a blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC, and have removed it. I've asked the user not to reinstate it. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 20:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't actually get my head around what their problem with you is. I see they've been blocked a couple of times, had a couple of drafts deleted, and been caught up in an SPI once, but your name doesn't appear in relation to any of that stuff. I'm not interesting in trawling through all their contribs to work out where that's coming from, but it's an obvious accusation of bad faith, and unacceptable. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, thanks. It has to do with the BLP LowTierGod, an individual who is a troll magnet. I have been insisting on adherence to BLP policy and some editors seem unhappy with that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, ah, that makes sense. Just seeing the name of that articles rings bells for me, it's on my watchlist from regular NCP stuff. Troll-magnet-a-gogo. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Correctamundo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen, that was not OK. Thank you Girth Summit. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me use your talk page, Doc. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

You are always welcome to my page--and to our house and our pool. Come as you are. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

OnTalk:Nicholas Wade#Wikilink for lab leak hypothesis, Stonkaments and Bonewah have been refusing to accept a clear consensus of multiple other editors, and repeating false claims. There's also a lot of personal attacks by Bonewah and Terjen in that discussion, which are getting a little tiresome. I'll find you the diffs of those, if you want me to highlight them, but I'm mostly asking for the discussion to be closed in a way that discourages immediately trying to rehash it.

This is over that same issue that Stonkaments was edit warring over. Neither of them have done anything other than to regurgitate arguments that have been long-since debunked, and tell bald-faced lies like As near as i can tell, the whole notion that Wade's article = misinformation is original research by you guys (They've been shown at least 8 or 9 sources which debunk Wade's claims).

At least 9 editors have endorsed the use of this link, either at the discussion I linked above, or at the BLPN discussion; Me, NightHeron, Generarelative, RandomCanadian, Alexbrn, Masem, Hob Gadling, Calton and Novem Linguae. Possibly 10, as another editor, Thriley, has just advocated for expanding coverage even further without ever indicating a problem with the link.

Meanwhile, Stonkaments, Bonewah and Terjen have been the only ones supporting this to any real degree. Peter Gulutzan has supported removing the link, but not with any arguments, and has been mostly absent from the discussion. AnimalParty seemed to support removal, but apparently changed their mind, as they stopped arguing after RandomCanadian and I responded, and later, AnimalParty thanked me for the edit in which I told Bonewah that their arguments had all been refuted and I would ask an admin to close the discussion if they continued to refuse to accept the consensus that had emerged. Which might mean the actual count of editors supporting this link is as high as 11.

I know consensus isn't a vote, but that's 9-11 editors supporting keeping the link, and 4-5 opposed to it, at least 1 of whom (and possibly a second in AnimalParty) doesn't seem motivated to actually discuss. I outlined their arguments at the end of my last comment there, if you want to read it. I know I'm hardly a neutral party, but there's not many ways of phrasing "ignore all inconvenient facts, including sources which contradict my claims, and cry WP:OR and WP:BLP repeatedly," that won't look pretty condemnatory.

And thanks in advance. Even if you're not inclined to do this, I appreciate your efforts to tamp down disruption around this question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Given that I blocked Stonkaments, I really don't want to do this: people might cry INVOLVED. You might could ask Daniel Case, who is not directly involved but probably looked at the discussion a bit, or place a note on WP:AN. I understand what you're looking for: this just needs to stop--but I really can't be the one doing that. Really, ask someone on AN: there's always someone willing to have a look. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks. I don't think that using your bit in the topic would qualify you as involved, but I can certainly see where some folks might raise hackles and complain about it, so I'll happily defer to your judgement on that.
  • I'd like to see if Daniel responds to the ping here before I post to AN. Making the request at the dramaboard would be just begging for those three to start trying to re-litigate it there, and I don't want any admin to have to wade through all that before wading into the discussion to make sure I'm accurately describing it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, that's precisely it: I don't want to provide ammunition to one of the sides. No, posting on AN and asking for closure of a discussion doesn't often lead to chaos--wait, I already did that for this discussion: I thought it sounded familiar. No one took it up, so maybe post again, and yes, maybe Daniel Case is willing to do it. There's also Wikipedia:Closure requests, where I see that User:Eggishorn is quite active. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
      • lol if I had known about your request at AN, I'd have commented there instead. In any case, I added a link to my request here; hopefully the new edit to that section will get some eyes on it. If not, I'll try Closure requests. That's assuming Daniel doesn't handle it in the meantime. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Yeah, dumb huh--I forgot. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kid Cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frozen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly another UK IP showed up on the article A Just Russia — Patriots — For Truth which was a favorite of Gordimalo's socks and decided to restore the version to one by a sock from months ago claiming "non-neutral" changes. Now trying to force this down. Right before restoring, they made a minor edit to a random geography-related article, which only reminds of what Gordimalo's socks have done (such as [14]). What do you think? Mellk (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well I think that, unfortunately, there is not much I can see that would confirm that. Maybe the edits themselves can make the point, that is, per DUCK. That edit is pretty big: can you point at specific things in there, besides the obvious implausibility of the edit itself? Drmies (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the fact that the next thing he did was leave a comment on the talk page of My very best wishes (which he's tried to get him to do what he wants before) pretty much confirms this. Mellk (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

See 2001:2D8:E139:54B6:A971:E1A:3F49:23E6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Looks like a 6 month block didn't deter them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Back again under 2001:2D8:213:4F2E:B181:B724:1FA8:2DA4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Materialscientist blocked already--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am reviewing unblock requests and have come across this user. The block itself seems correct and I take no issue with it.

Their response to the block so far seems promising and I have some optimism for the user's future here. They seem to have demonstrated an understanding of out WP:SPAM and WP:COI policies and shown an intent to follow them. Their initial attempts to contribute while misguided did not seem in bad faith.

I have asked them to provide examples of the types of improvements they will make if unblocked. Assuming they give a competent answer how to do feel about me unblocking the user and keeping an eye on their talk page going forward? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• User:HighInBC, I appreciate your optimism and what you propose sounds fair to me. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

also trying to spread sunshine - with thanks for diligent reviewing, exposing good people and fighting strange behaviour --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Gerda Arendt, thank you--and thank you also for your content creation. It is truly impressive and I appreciate it very much. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you! I added: missing SlimVirgin, and RMF festival opening --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Feel like it's time I take a few days or weeks to clean my mind of all the drama (24 hours notice here). Mind taking a look at my talk page in case any of the usually disruptive editors come back to it to make yet another post about how I'm "censoring" (...their unreliable sources) or how I'm being "uncivil" (...by telling them that my talk page is not the right place to discuss article content)? I've tried to change my mind by writing about something I've not even read. Thanks, and see you soon, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hang in there. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you block this IP please? Theyre constantly harassing me on my talk page (as well as theirs)Drill it (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam did it already Drill it (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

That is so childish. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I find this content disturbing. Do you think that it violates WP:POLEMIC? This editor came to my attention because they think that it is important to add to Surfside condominium building collapse the fact that the developers of this building 40 years ago were Canadian Jews. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? Oh, you're not kidding. Well, Drmies is going off to bed, to watch some more Resurrection: Ertugrul, but that entire swath of text violates NOTWEBHOST and it smells overwhelmingly of some specific kind of antisemitism. Combine that with the Surfside edits, and that editor needs to either be blocked (depending on the rest of their work) or simply topic-banned from anything to do with with Jews. Like, they shouldn't even be allowed to mention the word. I'm sorry, Cullen, that I can't take care of those matters myself, and I don't know what quick action you can take, under what discretionary sanctions, but I don't want that kind of BS anywhere here. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, "I will be safe from sanctions, to develop evidence and specific arguments for possible future edits on Wikipedia pages concerning the Palestine-Israel conflict"--surely someone has a few minutes to formulate an Arab-Israeli topic ban. I'm going to go blank that section since I find it revolting. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree, and relieved that others finally seem to be noticing it. Their suggested edits at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism ("The first Politburo had seven members, five were Jews, Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Sokolnikov.... Communism killed an estimated 100 million people worldwide, dwarfing the Holocaust and all other genocides combined.") are pretty telling as to the narrative they would like to push. Strongly agree that they should be topic banned from anything related to Jews. Also many, many of their edits continue to break ARBPIA sanctions, as they are still not extended-confirmed, despite multiple warnings. I had lost hope anyone would notice or care after I pointed out to the admin who blocked them (for violating ARBPIA) that in their unblock request, they said of multiple editors, including myself, "They are probably Israeli or Zionist trained SockPuppet civilians", and no further action was taken. I continue to feel that this editor is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. NonReproBlue (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Bradv, I saw your edits and appreciate them--but they were already alerted to ARBPIA sanctions, and were blocked for an infraction by Fences and windows, with an unblock request denied by 331dot. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I did find it hard to believe they hadn't already been alerted, but the log didn't show anything. I took another look and it turns out that the diff of that alert was oversighted which is why it didn't show in the logs. So now they have two alerts, which I'm sure will be twice as effective. – bradv🍁 15:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Aha, interesting--I never think to check a log, but I went through their talk page history. I don't know how many special pairs glasses you have, but that oversight--well, that was absolutely necessary. In the meantime I had been writing up a proposal for a topic ban, but when I ran into that stuff I found sufficient reason for a NOTHERE ban. Oh, I'm not sure I pinged you, sorry, in the AN post. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

          Yeah, if they're only interested in contributing in one area a topic ban isn't really of much use, as the point of lesser sanctions is to preserve the good contributions while stopping the disruptive ones. Good block. – bradv🍁 16:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for this, Drmies and Cullen328. I had little hope that SteveBenassi would reform, but I gave him the opportunity. I doubt he will be able to appeal this block after firmly showing his true colours. Fences&Windows 16:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It's Cullen's due diligence that deserves appreciation. Thanks F&W. I'm sure there's plenty more of these. A lady at swim practice this morning asked me about editing Wikipedia, and I said that if there's a problem in the world you can find it on Wikipedia, and this one proved that again. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Wow -- I came here to report this guy, after reading the same Surfside Condo edit that disturbed Cullen, and then reading all the antisemitic nonsense on his talk page -- but you guys are WAY ahead of me. Good block. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
      • But why did you come here? WP:ANI 2.0 was deleted years ago. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Last time you linked that, I clicked the link to see who had actually been crazy enough to create it in the first place.
          You can see the deleted revisions, so you won't even have to click through to the RfD to figure out why that's funny. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Tamzin, thank you; you truly did improve the project, and I say that with full knowledge of your more edgy contributions like Masshole and Fake orgasms. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
            • Ha, I'd forgotten about Masshole. Thinking back, I remember being shocked it hadn't been created yet. (Not sure if I want to give a trout or a barnstar to the user who retargeted it to Driving etiquette#Examples of bad driving etiquette for a year.) If we're talking about my most questionable-looking redirect, though, that has to be my recent creation of Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything, which I promise is a valid search term (and has the added benefit of potentially educating bored students who type in the first two words in an effort to avoid learning anything). I did do penance, though, by RfDing a bunch of weirder "fuck" redirects like fuck scholarship. Hope to be able to say I'm net-negative on the amount of profanity contributed to mainspace. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Isn't that funny? We have F&W's British English here, Cullen's West-Coast American English, Bradv's Canadian English, and my steenkolenengels. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker)Just chiming in to represent the Souf because I reckon y'all ain't fixin' to show off all y'all's fancy accents and suchlike without having a right good example of ole Dixie in the mix. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
      • That so? Where you from? Drmies (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Florida, but I've got family all over the South, mostly in Alabama and Georgia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
          • Florida--that better be the panhandle, cause the rest isn't South! Drmies (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
            • You should pay a visit to Okeechobee, Florida. Bet you'll change your mind.
            • Even on the coasts, where there's plenty of snowbirds yankee-ing up the joint, at least half the population are wannabe rednecks. (Meaning they look and act like real rednecks, but mostly work in offices and wouldn't know which end of a moonshine still the good stuff comes out of.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I had the user talk for 64.121.83.151 (talk · contribs) watch listed and noticed they removed a sock puppet tag. That's not a really big deal but checking their block log I noticed they just came off of a lengthy checkuser block. The blocking admin hasn't been around recently so I'm stopping buy to see if there's anything that needs to be done. It would appear that the editing pattern hasn't changed since 2018. Take a look when you can; act as you think the situation requires. Roll Tide. Tiderolls 12:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Bonadea, look who's back! Yes, Tide, that must be that one and I blocked for another three years, but it's not a CU block: seems obvious enough. Note that because it's not a CU block (I didn't check before I blocked) I could drop the SPI in the log. Yes, Roll Tide. Hope you're keeping it cool. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help, Professor. I didn't want to barge in with a duck block if there were background circumstances that might complicate the issue. Sure, keeping it cool...just watching the tropics :^) Tiderolls 18:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah man, same here--there's a dozen people working on our roof so this is the one week I don't want any rain, haha. Take care, Drmies (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I came across an article a few months ago that looked like it's being bloated with promo-stuff but I didn't look into it further. Today it popped up in my Watchlist and I decided to clean it up a bit. However, got reverted right away. Before ending up in an edit-war or dragging it to COIN, could you have a quick look at it, and let me know what you think? The article in question is Reversal theory, and a related one is Michael Apter. – NJD-DE (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. As you saw I dealt with the editor, but not the articles. I don't think you need to take this by COIN, but if the editor places any comments on the talk page that require discussion, that's still an option at that point. It's funny how COI editors have a habit of denying the obvious truth and then applying a bit of reversal and, in this case, accusing me of needless escalation. Thanks for pointing me in this direction, and did you see how good an admin and editor Ohnoitsjamie is? And they've been here longer than me! Drmies (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Aw shucks, thanks! Just trying to pitch in a bit on the workload here and at our IPV6-friend's talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course I noticed that, but so are you !! Thanks to both of you !! Sometimes I don't know if I should laugh or just shake my head when talking with COI/UPE editors. Came across an article about an Emarati politician and a COIN post recently. It's very obvious that even though one of the users claims to be the photographer, they are not the photographer of nearly 40 images uploaded to Commons. So I nominated them for deletion, one of the reasons was EXIF data crediting other photographers. Now they are concerned about Commons legal guidelines and harassment policy because I was "posting another editor's personal information". I guess they didn't ask themselves who made that public in the first place.. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofCommissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

  Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• AnRfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

  Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

  Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

[15]

Filter is still a bit of a work in progress... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, thank you so much! You filter editors are among the unsung heroes of Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Lovely filter editor

  May I enquire discreetly

  When are you free to take some tea with me

  etc. ? --JBL (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to CriticalDrinker and Morningcoffee12, there's also SepticSceptic. I'm pretty sure anyone using song lyrics as edit summaries is going to get blocked soon enough anyway, but perhaps someone has the time to make sense of this all and put together a file. Or link them to an existing one. – bradv^🍁 04:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe--but I see that Oshwah probably knows more than me. You can tell from my log that I dropped a couple CU blocks related to Monrningcoffee; there were two IPs, and I blocked all of them on the one, new accounts, and on the other there were a few accounts that were already blocked. I think they picked on Alexbrn over some simple revert, but I don't know if they have a longterm conflict with them--same with Chiswick Chap. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • There have been several outbreaks of the "song lyric troll". Is there some topic Chiswick Chap and I have in common that might be origin of the problem I wonder. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Not that I know of. From my side it seems to have brewed up very recently, though I now see that SepticSceptic was doing exactly the same for other editors months ago. I wondered if there was a connection with Talk:The Man in the Moon Stayed Up Too Late/GA2, you could check the IP address of the reviewer there, I guess. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
      • That reviewer has been here as long as I have... Alex, you could run the interaction tool and see if anything rings a bell, but I'm not sure it's really worth your time. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a disruptive IP user 115.64.99.227 who has been repeatedly warned by myself and others not to vandalise pages such as Corey Norman and Kaide Ellis by adding duplicate/false information. Is there a way we can put a block on this IP Address?.Sully198787 (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sully198787, is WP:AIV not working? Drmies (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This is WP:AIV 2.0. – bradv^🍁 00:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, and ANI 2.0, and SPI 2.0. I should charge admission. Hey, I saw you supported BusterD--good! Drmies (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

      I sure did. I actually reached out to him a while ago to encourage him to run, and it turns out you were already on his case. Great nom! – bradv^🍁 00:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your post at User talk:KamranBhatti4013: Might wanna see User talk:GeneralNotability § Sock, or just coincidental name? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• I saw your post on that talk page. It's odd. I've seen accounts like this before, doing weird technical edits that make no sense. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I get a special-interest vibe. I see how those edits could make sense in someone's head if their mind worked a very particular way. Sadly I'm not sure there's a way to translate that to something beneficial to others. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Same here. Moving that user page and talk page, that's the kind of disruptive experimenting that I just don't know how to read: over the years I've run into that kind of disruption but I've never really seen that pan out into a consistent set of edits that I could pin on a specific account. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
      • This is probably the weirdest edit I've seen from them. But I don't think we're dealing with the tip of the iceberg of some more prolific sockmaster. They check off a few boxen on the "probably-neurodivergent sockmaster" checklist, including interest in corporations (but in a special-interest way, not a "Jesus was a capitalist" way) and in Roblox, as well as strong disconnect between tech skills and communication skills (probably more than can be explained just by a language barrier) and a love for, well, clicking a lot of buttons even when they might not be the right buttons to click. If there's occasionally other accounts like that (and I've seen ones that are at least somewhat similar myself), my guess is convergent behavior.
        On the other hand, I remain convinced that there's at least some coördination among the IPs from all around the world that will vandalize trans and nonbinary people's pronouns with summaries like "correcting grammar", which others have suggested is naïveté on my part, so... socks work in mysterious ways. And, ironically, are often undone by the same kind of above-average pattern-recognition skills that make some of them such a nuisance. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2900 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creationat21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

didn't want to mess with stuff in your space, but User talk:Drmies/Ched and me can be deleted. I copied everything over to the article talk. — Ched (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

... at this posting on WP:ANI. This user is being very troublesome and it has been going on for some time. He has been repeatedly (and repeatedly) warned for his WP:DISRUPTION of various kinds by various editors over the past weeks. Thanks in anticipation ... Johnnie Bob (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You reverted sourced edits. I will add back everything but the table because these are not ads. I am still considering it. 26zhangi (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• No, I removed material that lacked secondary sourcing. I encourage you to read WP:SECONDARY. You have 34 edits in main space and seem to lack some experience, so please don't make this into a fight over primary material in a WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have removed added section claiming it to be lengthy and undue Lengthy : this is required to state the issue clearly as you can find in different pages Undue: Controversies section needed as you can find it here, Sudhir Chaudhary So it should be added , any recommendation are welcome. Thank you (This is me Jarvis (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC))

• Thank you--you meant Sudhir Chaudhary (journalist), no doubt? I cleaned that up some. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you much for this. It is now clear that controversies sections are discouraged, but can you even please look to Arnab Goswami, Zee News, Republic TV as any correction by me will get removed but not yours being an administrator.(This is me Jarvis (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC))

HiDrmies can you please clean up Zee News , section have become a mess. Highly appreciable if you go through my previously suggested pages dt. 9 July. Thank you.(This is me Jarvis (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC))

• I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm OK with this edit, and you could said that this is inappropriate for the lead also. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)