User talk:Drmies/Archive 96

Hiya, and congrats on how you handled that monster of a dispute on ANI and all of us involved. For the moment, at least, it appears everybody has moved on to constructive editing elsewhere which is of course the best outcome of a conflict. Well done! Keeping that discussion in mind, I raised an eyebrow when accidentally seeing you know which case. If ours was bad (and it was), this is even worse. So if a forum is a reflection of its admins, as I'd say most forums are, I fear we're in for a bumpy ride 2016. But let's hope I'm wrong. In any case, thanks again for your unusually skillful settling of the ANI dispute. Jeppiz (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks Jeppiz, but we'll have to wait and see if anything is really settled. Some folks want ANI threads to end with blocks, since words typically don't have teeth in the way that blocks do. A lot of problems, and that goes for that case too, would be forestalled if we all gave a bit more thought to the words we use. To put it another way, words probably do have teeth. Thanks again, and please help out in any way you can: by calming folks down if they get upset, by mediating if you can, by keeping the focus on content and reliable sources. Everyone will benefit from that. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you leave a message at my talk page and I ping you, you're expected to reply. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Haha, you funny. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure I'm bad at humour. Honestly, I was expecting you to be cooperative but no. If you're not gonna care enough to reply to my message, mention that in your thread and I assure you I won't annoy you with my questions ever again. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I'm cooperative enough, but you're not one of the people who can expect me to jump when they ping me. Let's see. There's Mrs. Drmies...Kelapstick...Jimmy Wales... (I'm kidding; he never pings me). I'm a volunteer here, and your "I'm waiting" was...how shall I put it...well I won't put it any way. This: yes, personal attack; please note L235's subsequent edit, here. L235 is a clerk for ArbCom and as such one of the people we ask to maintain decorum on ArbCom pages. As for "blackballing", I was thinking more of the "bullying" connotation warranted by various online dictionaries, but as it happens the "secret cabal" connotation has an unexpected warrant in the fact that ArbCom asks clerks to keep the house clean. Secretly, of course. Let me add that pissing off the clerks isn't a good way to go; before you know they start imposing that 500-word maximum on your 2000-word statement. Now, is it OK with you if I go do something else? Please? Drmies (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Noted. As for my statement, clerks can do whatever they want with it. I've never been retaliatory (excessively) and I know speaking up on enwiki is like making yourself heard to a deaf audience. As for the I'm waiting, it wasn't true in its literal sense, I was sleeping then. :3 I am yet to see how calling someone unaware could be construed as a PA. It's also surprising that, FPAS' well-worded attack still remains in the statement (pointed out by another ArbCom member too) while what isn't a PA gets removed entirely. I get it that you aren't a clerk or the one in question but you're the one who brought it up on my talkpage. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Because you brought up its restoration. I really can't explain what should be obvious. I don't have much of an opinion on FPaS's statement. I could say that it's hypothetical but that's kind of a cop-out. The problem I had with your comment is that people really shouldn't mess with clerks' edits to begin with. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Got it. Here, have some ☕ (no bacon symbol yet, sadly). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate it. It's been a long day. Also, I'm kind of baconed out. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just started noticing a few of these in my watchlist. I was wondering what they are, and how I can be approved to move them from pending to accepted. (Or even if I can be approved for such a thing. Perhaps that's just a thing for administrators?) Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I gotta run, but maybe Wikipedia:Reviewing answers your question. Briefly: no, not just admins. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for the tip. After leaving the previous message, I was able to figure out some info about pending revisions. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 01:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• There was some controversy about the second "type", I believe--early on in my admin career I protected an article that way and someone started yelling at me. Very confusing, since I was blissfully unaware of the ban on it, and it was just another option in my toolbox. Then it get unbanned; I guess it had served its time. Anyway, I don't really much care for it, but many admins like it for BLPs and for articles that see a lot of "popular" traffic, I think, like Wrestlemania and NFL player transfers, stuff like that. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  The funny thing was, at least one of the pendings (which has now been cleared by someone) was on a long-dead author. Perhaps Oscar Wilde, but I'm not sure of that. I wouldn't think having pending revisions on such an article would serve much purpose. I do think I will throw my hat in the ring to become a reviewer, though, as I think I could be helpful in that area. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 07:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nobody expects the Spanish confiscation. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I had no idea it existed. Thanks for helping out--I had figured out it was a translation of es:Desamortización española, and then saw your translation tag on the talk page. Yes, it's a bit much an essay and needs some other work, but it's very interesting. If you steal from thieves, who do you give it to? Drmies (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I hadn't any idea either. I was defeated by the mangled English- "it experience and seen with pain everywhere". I had a fun half-hour editing the Spanish Wikipedia, which seems to have extra buttons to press… and ¡Hola! to you too! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

hey that sentence "let's get started. we'll let MF do the sfn method, if he ever gets around to this article" was directed towards me. i just I'll take that as that such is, as a cracker yank nonsense towards me, be smart, if your friends are the MF, just tell to their, and make it but do not threaten. ill creating and developing the article, but as you, i consider that is considerably important and still is not in the english wikipedia. is rare, but is you check the spain of history, many articles are too short because the spanish people like be more regionalist than developing articles refereing to the country. and i just trying to help with this and wikipedia--Vvven (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Vvven, "MF" (there was no article) is short for "Malleus Fatuorum", a former editor of many really good (and Featured) articles, who is really good at very technical systems of documentation, including the method that uses Template:Sfn. Also, I am not a "yank", and "cracker" is a racist term. Thanks for contributing the article, and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

ok sorry man i saying that racist terms and ironically im a white in my country, but stillbeing a latino, thats dont care, the thing is that i search in the self wikipedia and mf means really fanatics of computer and sfn method, amethod as said wikipedia, to change a language in a dos language of a computer, sorry the big mistage, and thanks too for help in the article--Vvven (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

and please, forget this and help me if you want for making this article a featured article, we wins a little and win all this, due to the importance of this article, with a next upload youll see a even more important information--Vvven (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Sure thing. I don't know how much I can do for you: it's not really my field of expertise; Xanthomelanoussprog is usually my go-to editor for 18th and 19th-century Spanish topics. But I'll be glad to help any way I can. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

yet miss that a very large amounts of destroyed old and important landmarks were demolished during or consequense of the liberal measures of these confiscations, the buyers demolished these landmarks including Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished during the Spanish confiscation period, but this is just few building of that were demolished.--Vvven (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to both for your interest. I think the article it deserve--Vvven (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm a "go-to editor" for 18th and 19th-century Spanish topics??? Hmm… Some of the English in the article is difficult to understand; it can be rewritten, but there's a danger that it'll move away from the original meaning. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

maybe i can help you to determinate if your contributions are the correct meanings. im a native Spanish speaker, sure. if you want--Vvven (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

and i can read English. but i not yet finished the early translation--Vvven (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

What efforts, really, now im tired, i let you ready to modify, fix and improve it as you want Xanthomelanoussprog. I also let you few notes within the article, due some confusion with a translation, to give the correct meanings .--Vvven (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've been working pretty extensively for the last few months, so I wasn't able to be the rabid college football fan I'd been in previous couple of years, but I was still following it closely, watching all the games that were on when I came home from work (Monday is my day off, generally), including bunches of the bowl games and the semi-finals. I was looking forward to the Clemson-Alabama game...

...And then I completely forgot to watch it. Didn't even realize it until the following evening at dinner. Very strange, I can only chalk it up to being very tired.

I hope you're well, and that you're getting into the swing of the Arbitration thing - I saw that you managed to keep your sense of proportion (and humor) in some of your comments about someone's desysop. Best, BMK (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• You're kidding. You didn't watch it? I can't believe it. I read the numbers were lower than for previous national championship games, but this was an exciting one. Just ask Tide rolls, who I think didn't go back to work until yesterday. So you're busy? That's good. All union jobs, I hope. I saw one of your comments somewhere today, on some block or whatever, and was reminded of how frequently you were so utterly wrong; I'll make sure to pass that along to some functionary or CU and find a reason to screw with you. I'll tell you one thing about ArbCom: it's not all fun and games, although Kelapstick and I had some fun after we poured a bunch of superglue on Gamaliel's desk chair. He had to get out of his pants and walk his bare butt out to his car. DYK he claims to be a USF fan but has a tattoo of Steve Spurrier, visor and all, on his left cheek? We got pictures but we've been told by legal counsel that we can't do anything with them--check your email, though.

  Hey, Bama won it, even without you, though it was no walk in the park. Mrs. Drmies is used to going to sleep at halftime, so she was kind of pissed. Take it easy BMK; always good to hear from you. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• • Do you realize how cold it was out there? And I'm not going to get a tattoo of my alma mater. I paid them enough, they should get a tattoo of me. Gamaliel (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re:

This is a mild admonishment given the nature of the posts, whose reinstatement was unprofessional and uncollegial. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Could the motion please include some description of the nature of the posts? I gather they were revdel'd and that they harassed someone, but in particular, who was the person being harassed? If it was TRM and he wanted to restore harassment against himself, that's less of an issue IMHO than if he restored harassment against some other person. Thanks. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• TRM was not being harassed in that message, and that's all I'm going to say about it now. Also, IP addresses make me nervous--sorry. We've met before, but you know, with no names it's hard to look the other in the eye. It makes me mix my metaphors. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks, that the harassee was another person is the main relevant fact. I think that should be mentioned. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
    • You're welcome to bring that up on the relevant page! Drmies (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

For the love of God, please, please indef me immediately? This would be to protect all parties involved... ;o) Jim1138 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• What do you need, Jim? A hug? A shot of whiskey? You can become an admin instantly by bribing Writ Keeper. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cyanide would likely be as effective and less painful. I shall endeavor to avoid both! Jim1138 (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey Dianna, could you run a CU for me on Evolver53, Bbeard53, and 100.6.59.71. All three have made "perfered version"-edits to the WXDB-LP page over the past couple days. I believe this is a single user, using multiple accounts (and now an IP) to add his/her perfered version to the page. User:Diannaa already semi-protected the page for a week. I actually asked her for the CU, goofing the "D" names due to insomnia and too many yummy pain meds. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• OK, I'll bite and call myself Diannaa. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Sorry, but while I think that they're probably the same editor, I'm hesitant to use my newly acquired superpowers, considering it's a minor issue (I mean in the grand scheme of things). You could ask a "real" CU--since I don't have that much experience, I don't know what a real CU, like Bbb23, would say to such a request. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bbb23 (just in case it didn't work) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Will the real CU please stand up? So, this is beneath you, Drmies? What would I say to such a request? I'm still empathizing with Neutralhomer about insomnia. The two named accounts are   Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I'm not blocking, though, just 'cause. Drmies or Diannaa is welcome to block based on the technical and the behavioral evidence. If they don't block now, I would recommend a block if the disruption continues elsewhere. Now back to my real work, trying to stay awake while I block other socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ijust asked Neutralhomer if he mistook Diannaa for DeltaQuad. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Guess I was wrong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Flyer22 Reborn: Who knows who I meant, I'm on the loopy pills after my carpal tunnel surgery. It's getting colder (blizzard tomorrow) and my hand is killin' me. So I could have meant The Pope, who knows. :) This is why I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak until the 28th, but disruptive editing (not ready to call this vandalism...yet) brought me back. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Bbb23: Well, "possilikely" is good enough and will help later if he/she keeps it up. Diannaa semi-protected the page, so hopefully that keeps them at bay for a couple. I recommend some coffee for the sock blocking snoozes. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Drmies: Come on, kick the tires a little! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Homer, I am not sure what you want me to kick, but I'll be glad to. Bbb, it's not below me--it's just that I'm saving my magic powers. Plus, I take the whole business of privacy seriously, and want to know exactly what I'm doing and why. That's why, Homer, I suggested you ask one of the "regular" CUs, because they have more experience than I do. Plus, if I see something I don't understand, I have to ask Bbb again, and I think Bbb is getting tired of me. The honeymoon is over I think. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You'd better believe it. First, you wouldn't let my mother come with us. Second, when I made a reasonable request for a few flower arrangements in the room, you said I could have no more than two. Finally, you criticized that pretty pink umbrella in my cocktail. You said it was silly. At that point I packed up, took a plane, and went back to live with my mother where I'm treated with the respect and deference I deserve. She certainly had you pegged.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was meaning "kick the tires" of your new found CU powers. I guess (I really don't know) you could "test drive" it on your account, so you don't get into an "accident". When you're ready, you can take the training wheels off and CU (drive, to keep withe puns) like a pro. :)

I promise to never use really bad puns again. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

What happens when some sources say an obviously false thing (like claiming "they were all killed" when actually only about a third of them are known to have been killed and another third are definitely known to have survived) and there are editors wanting to use those faulty sources to insert the false claim into an article. The issue concerns content in the lead of the Armenian Genocide article, which is currently stating "24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and sent to their deaths some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople". There have been earlier versions stating they were "all massacred" or similar, and it is a long running issue. It contradicts the sourced material in the main article Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915 and every editor (there have been at least 4 of them) who has inserted the content has declined to address the contradiction issue. The latter article also has a section listing 222 named individuals who were part of that 24 April 1915 deportation which consisted of some 235 to 270 persons. 77 are listed as having been killed, 81 are listed as having survived, with 44 having unknown fates and 20 dying of natural causes or random accidents. There is another connected issue, that the later 2,345 individuals mentioned in the AG article never actually existed and that this number originated as a misprint in an 1950s Turkish book - a typo error of the 24th April 235 persons figure that was then reproduced without question in scores of later sources, but this part is probably even more intractable and I'll leave it for now because I want to pursue it off Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm. I worked on some related articles (a list of massacres of some kind, I think) a while back. One of the problems frequently is paucity of sourcing, and almost just as frequently poor sourcing. It's in cases like this that, frequently, we do not accept newspapers as sources, since those reporters often report what they hear but what they hear is usually snapshots, hearsay, etc. We had discussions in gun-related articles (Gun legislation in Germany or something like that) and discredited articles from the NYT, if I remember correctly. But if we have sourcing that explicitly denies "all were killed", and no good sources saying "all were killed", then the answer should be easy, no? Drmies (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
• I see that my old partner in crime, Dr.K., is involved with this. So here three sources are added; there are more sources later on. IMO, the Congressional Record is not acceptable as a source since it's a record of someone giving evidence; that person may or may not be right. I also have doubts about HuffPo, and not just because of their irritating video ads--HuffPo, if they're decent journalists, would repeat what the good sources say, and we need to cite the good sources. But this book ought to be pretty reliable; ABC-CLIO is a reputable outfit. Really, all this should be discussed on the talk page; I haven't looked there yet and I may not. The next step, if no agreement is found, is to take them (individually) to RSN--individually because it makes for easier discussion; I certainly wouldn't bring a dozen sources up there in one single post. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

This book is not reliable. It is already suspect because it is an AG recognition tract published in 2015. As a source I don't think the book is acceptable anyway on Wikipedia since it is calling itself a "reference guide". The "mostly later murdered en mass" claim is unreferenced, and the author of the section containing the claim, one Paul G Pierpaoli is not a known academic working in the field of Armenian Studies (he is a professor of history at the Virginia Military Institute and seems to be a specialist in the Korean war). And of course the claim is obviously false, not even those who were killed were killed "en mass", they were killed separately or in small groups over the course of several years Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I don't see why something called "reference guide" should be unacceptable because it calls itself "reference guide". Or that it should be unacceptable because it was published in 2015, or because it is "an AG recognition tract"--and that latter phrase sounds like the kind of put-down that has more rhetorical value than veracity. I also don't know that the claim is "obviously false". I don't know Pierpaoli, but apparently he's a historian, and probably more so than you or me. So, sorry, I don't think these arguments will stand up to scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

But I am arguing for the "sensible choice of sources" by editors who want articles to be accurate. Anyone who knows the literature on the AG and honestly looks at that work will recognize it is just 100th anniversary stuff: low grade, simplified, discardable, for the mass market. We have proper sources, some written just after the event, that actually give the names of those who died, and the names of those who survived. Those sources disprove the sound-bite one line version of history peddled in that book. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Look, this page shouldn't field the discussion over sources, but I simply cannot agree with the basic concept that sources written right after the event would be more reliable than stuff written 100 years later--and published by reliable sources. ABC-CLIO, until I hear otherwise, isn't just reliable, it's pretty much unimpeachable. A "sensible choice of sources" should begin with the best possible sources. So no HuffPo--but discarding a book by ABC-CLIO because it's called "reference guide" or because it supports the statement that the genocide happened or because it's published so many years after the event, that just won't do. Now, I'll agree that the lead doesn't necessarily need sourcing, and that some of the sources are less than great (I'm trying to be diplomatic), and it is entirely possible that some sources are wrong or whatever--but I haven't seen evidence of that. And, again, that's really a matter for RSN, and that some statement is factually untrue, yeah, you'll just have to get consensus for that on the talk page, probably via an RfC. If you get a consensus for your claim there, then you can move on. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• But, my dear Tiptoethrutheminefield, with "I wonder why some editors like them so much?" you're not tiptoeing through the minefield--you're either stepping on one, or setting one up... I understand editorial frustration (believe me--I've edited K-pop articles), but it's probably not a good way to begin the discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm frustrated because I have repeatedly brought up this issue, removed the offending content, seen no argument from any editor to justify retaining the removed content or address the contradiction between that content and that found in sources from the immediate post-genocide period, yet I am repeatedly seeing the same wording being returned. I think the editors involved have been acting badly because they are setting aside the requirement to use sources sensibly. If some sources are saying something that other sources, sources closer to the subject (as well as common sense), indicate to be incorrect, you do not use the faulty sources, even if your pov aim happens to like what the faulty sources claim (for Genocide Recognition some think it is neater to claim they were all killed rather than explain how 1/3rd survived, a lot of AG literature is little more than a series of easy sound bites to give to politicians or journalists engaged in issues involved with political recognition of the AG). About the sources issue - is a possible route to require use of specialist sources, sources that have been written specifically about this particular event rather than general sources on the AG that merely mention this event in passing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Here is an example from the same article showing the sensible use of sources [1]. An otherwise acceptable source, a US newspaper, was claiming something that was actually obviously untrue. So a correct source was eventually found and used [2], resulting in a correctly identified and captioned photo. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doc. Thanks for the ping. I fully agree that the congressional record may not be reliable but that's why I added 7 sources so as to insure the info from source reliability questions. This is a list of all the sources I added. I checked many of them and some are written by experts on the subject who have articles on Wikipedia and are published by university presses including Cambridge. I am definitely amenable to discussion but I will not discuss anything until the interested party voluntarily retracts the PA you so aptly mentioned for reasons I already explained multiple times already in other places. Thank you again, Happy New Year and happy Arbcomming! Dr. K. 21:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

It is of course almost invariably true that the more sources cited to support a piece of lead content, the less valid that content is likely to be. I note your continued refusal to address the issue of how wording like "250 sent to their death" can be justified when sources (like Teotik) published in the immediate aftermath of the genocide and issued to commemorate and mourn those who were killed indicate that at least a third of the April 24 deportees survived, and actually name the survivors. A fabricated big silent sulk in the corner over some words you construe as a personal insult does not remove from you the obligation to discuss content you are adding. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I will not deal with the rest of the nonsense you wrote about the number of sources and what it means but your comment: A fabricated big silent sulk ... is another vicious personal attack. Doing it in any other talkpage would be bad enough but coming on an arb's talkpage to attack me is a measure of your inability to have any semblance of civil discourse in this collaborative project. Your block log is a clear indicator of your continuing problems with personal attacks and harassment. I think you should be blocked for violating NPA repeatedly to the point of harassment. Leave your shaming tactics to yourself and don't expect me to address you again. Dr. K. 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Doc, perhaps as part of your advice, to the above advice-seeker, you could add that adding a section titled "Old Lies" and then asking the rhetorical question "Seems they never die. I wonder why some editors like them so much? [3]." is a bad-faith insult against other editors. Doc, this method of debating is a crude shaming tactic and an attempt to put intellectual pressure and a stigma on his perceived opponents through verbal violence. Discussing under such a section title is like debating under an advertising banner automatically declaring his perceived opponents as liars. This is not befitting our beautiful project, to borrow a phrase from someone I greatly respect. To add insult to injury TTTTM then goes on to accuse his opponents because they don't engage with him/her. Dr. K. 19:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it would have been better titled as "That old lie". The best known Old Lie could be changed for keyboard warriors ardent for pov glory on Wikipedia to "It is sweet and glorious to lie for one's country". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Dr.K., I don't approve of that wording but I don't think it's something I'm going to get all adminny about. What I find is that starting with a title like that is likely to antagonize the opposition rather then win them, so it's very counterproductive. I've probably been guilty of producing not-so diplomatic subject headings myself. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you Doc for your perspective. But there is no "opposition" and you cannot "win over the opposition". There are only reliable sources and reliable sources win all the time through verification. Putting advertising banners attempting to shame one's perceived opposition into submission is not only counterproductive or kindly put "undiplomatic"; it is also disruptive and silly. Because one cannot shame the reliable sources. One can attempt to shame their perceived opponents because one does not have the sources required to rebut the sources other editors present to them. It is an obvious attempt at intimidation. Telling someone that they "like lies" because they brought multiple world-class reliable sources to support their edit shows a total disregard for WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPA. It is also a crude attempt at silencing their opponents while pushing the POV and OR that lurk in the shadows of their intimidating tactics. I object to this kind of editing environment which utterly besmirches the beauty of this project. Dr. K. 02:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re[4]. I don't mean to do anything that even resembles grave dancing but that comment did bring something up which I've thought about before. Taking their claims at face value, what it means it that the user essentially engaged in conducting a non-consensual experiment on unwilling participants. Obviously that raises a whole host of ethical issues (there's a reason why studies on human subjects require IRB approval). I was wondering if there is actually anything in any Wikipedia policy which addresses this. Maybe because it sort of hits close to home (for a number of reasons) but to me it seems that these kinds of actions should be up there with WP:LEGAL and WP:COPYVIO as grounds for immediate indef blocking. I do realize that there may be some shades of gray here but it seems like there ought to be a specific policy which addresses this very possibility. Know of anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I think we're talking about a possibility here--a remote one. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Conducting an experiment on Wikipedia without expressed permission from either Wikipedia or the subjects is a blatant example of WP:POINT.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why is it that every time I see Twinkle in an edit summary, the summary itself reads like some random bullshit which completely misses the mark on explaning the problem? To wit:

Reverted to revision 695000958 by MB298 (talk): Rv: huge revert of unverified, non-neutral BLP information.

"Even Ray Charles can see" that the problem here is WP:AUTOBIO. Putting aside those edits, how can anyone claim that this article is neutral? First, it's long been a massive WP:COATRACKtoAlaska political corruption probe instead of a biographical article. Second, it's yet another example of prose backing sources instead of the other way around, in and of itself a coatrack, albeit to other websites. The earliest source is dated January 2006, by which time he had been a state legislator for over a decade. All this assumes we're taking the stance that readers don't need to know anything about his life apart from the political corruption probe. Why would anyone in their right mind take an article which barely avoids violating WP:BLP1E and actively try to maintain it at that level? It makes me wonder what part of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" people feel entitled to exercise veto power over. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mass vandalizing Wilbur Scoville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You beat me by two minutes! Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• That was fun. Ah, glory be to God for dappled things. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow? (You can drag out my quotes, if I can drag out yours!) Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

To the good doctor and their many talk page stalkers - I thought I'd done a sensitive and encyclopaedic job at Maria Britneva (and one more book is waiting for me at the library in case it adds anything), but I have apparently stirred up a hornet's nest. See recent edits self-identified as by one of the sources. It's possible that I was less than ideally neutral despite my best efforts, so I'd like to ask for some fresh eyes on the article. I put Google Books links on the page numbers as I usually do. Thanks in advance. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I looked it over, and restored your version. The IP had broken some formatting and had, in general, made a muck of the article. In my edit summary, I invited the IP to talkpage discussion about what issues they might have with the article. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 15:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Nice job, Yngvadottir; thank you. I'll keep that last sentence in mind for when I meet with my lawyers. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks to both of you, and also Gerda Arendt. I see he has now registered an account, so I was able to ping him in the talk page section I started. I've now also finally got my hands on MacNiven's 2014 bio of Laughlin, where I see a ton of pages under her name in the index, so that will provide an additional source (and unlike my expansion of Víga-Glúms saga, I may be able to do that at work). I really hope I haven't been unfair to the lady. But now I must go back to bed. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

hiKathrynwilliamscaw (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC) you recently deleted work off my wiki page. I don't know why you did that, what authority you have and what reasons . My rikishi page has been written/ changed by someone and I am trying to undo the clumsy layout/ writing... So it is actually a factual and interesting pageReply

• Hello Kathrynwilliamscaw, and thank you for your question. Your edits may have improved the page from your perspective, but not from that of the Wikipedia editor who has a copy of our Manual of Style on their nightstand. I assure you that my edits were as conventional as can be. In addition, I'm sorry to say it's not really "your" page, and if you claim it as such, you obviously have a conflict of interest. My interest here is to have a decent and neutral article; if you can help with that, great--the first thing to do is not to drop names and genres and whatnot in the infobox, but to add reliable sources that verify information in the article. Please see WP:RS. Thank you, and please let me know if I can help. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• (talk page stalker) - Kathrynwilliamscaw, people with conflicts of interest are strongly discouraged from editing articles they are closely tied to. Not surprisingly, people sometimes have difficulty writing objectively about themselves, which often results in fluffy articles that come across as self-promotional. We all want to avoid that here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're the expert. Got anything you want to add to this? Apparently I'm still cleaning up after Rtkat3. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Dude, please don't pull me into the Black Hole of your Teenage Ninja Mutant obsession. Being on ArbCom and having to watch my words is bad enough already. And you want me to add something to your remark? Like, add something in parentheses? Are you playing a meta mindfuck with me? :) No, you're fine--anything to combat the usual excess of detail. Gotta run--pizza is here. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You'll pay for your buck-passing, Drmies!! On a less sinister note, he says he didn't want to overuse commas. That is all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• So they're making choices based on grammar, punctuation, aesthetics--that means they're a keeper. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

For your handling of this case. Wish we had more like you at es.wiki.

Maragm (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies. Not sure how to proceed, but I think LembaGuru may be another WP:DUCK. Same genre of articles being edited and similar uploading of copyrighted images as "own work". Please advice what I should do if you feel this is more than coincidental. Thanks in advance. PS: I posted here based upon comments at User talk:DeltaQuad#User:Gurumayum Arvind -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Marchjuly, if you think there's another sock you should add that to the SPI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Understand. Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Drmies, maybe Someone Somewhere in Summertime or wintertime, has time for 2 questions I have:

(1) If I come across vandalism performed the day before (or earlier) by an IP, and I revert it, does it still make any sense to put a user warning message on such IP's User talkpage, since lots of IPs are not static? The next day, someone else might be assigned that previous IP number, visit WP and not understand what that warning message is about, whereas the actual vandal never sees that message?

(2) As (1), but for IP vandal edits that were tagged "(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)"? Or rather, does a mobile phone have the same IP the whole day, even when the owner travels between different cities (e.g. for school etc.)?

To dig up some mummified stuff :-), as to [5], @Cullen328: you spoke of malleability and reminded me of Sopor Aeternus, maybe you know her music?

And DrMies, as you said (also in the link above) "I came pretty close to blocking you on the spot for that name. :)", I'm glad you didn't, yet every once and a while people would ask me about my username, lately increasingly often, so I figured to put this to bed while I can still do so voluntarily would probably be the best option. I hope this one is more palatable (my old name is still in my archives) :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Horseless Headman, I have never before heard of Sopor Aeternus, although I was present at Alice Cooper's first successful, well-received public performance in the summer of 1969 in Saugatuck, Michigan. Quite remarkable, as I had never heard of him before. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Haha, it's Poepkop! So you dropped the head altogether. Alright, let's see. 1.: the day after, or maybe a few days, sure. If they're dynamic it makes a little less sense, but what it does do is leave a paper trail that suggests "we warned the user plenty of times". That they may not have read the messages left on previous IP talk pages, that's not your fault. Those warnings don't have to go 1, 2, 3, 4, block, of course. As an admin, I prefer if people leave warnings; it means, for instance, that you don't have to say "User has been insufficiently warned", which is one of the options at WP:AIV. BTW, you don't have to start at 1 (right, Mandarax?)--starting at 2 or 3 can be valid, and I've given plenty "only" warnings on a first or second edit, esp. if it's racist or sexist stuff, or if someone says something bad about Jim Kerr. 2. I don't know. I think they change when you travel but I'm not smart enough to really know that well.

  I looked at the Sopor Aeternus page--that is one creepy-ass cover. It's probably more up Cullen's alley than mine: he's quite a bit hipper than me. Thanks for the note. Glad no one else blocked you either. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• HH, if this user, 1.32.72.71, had been warned earlier I could have blocked them immediately. Now I really have to warn, then wait to see if they stay at it. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Which, predictably, they did. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
• I checked IP, lol. I seem to do the same as you, if it is clear vandalism (sexist slur, racist slur, "replaced page content with 'poo'" (to remain a bit in excremental atmospheres, my old name will understand), and have not been warned yet, often level 1, then level 4, then to AIV; sometimes 4im directly (BLP). Otherwise a bit slower, depends on the case. Yes, Sopor is calm atmospheric music (mostly, it is not rock). Sometimes come across a vIP that made 3 or 4 reverted vandal edits, but noone warned IP! But that level 4 warning is crucial for AIV, and yes, as far as I understood myself, no need for all 4 consecutive levels of warning, especially for "blatant" continuing vandalism. PS What? People did bad things to Jim Kerr's page Grrrrr..... Horseless Headman (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC).Reply

I am not hipper; I just happened to stumble into the right places at the right times occasionally. Here is a 2008 Detroit News quote from Mr. Alice Cooper: "We were too intense for L.A., so we said, the first place we play where we get a standing ovation, we’re going to stay there. We played the Saugatuck Pop Festival with Iggy and the MC5, and I said, ‘This is our audience right here!’ Where L.A. didn’t get it, Detroit totally got it."

Other bands there in Saugatuck that weekend included Procul Harum, Muddy Waters, Amboy Dukes, The Crazy World of Arthur Brown, Big Mama Thornton, Bob Seger and Brownsville Station. Also the Chicago blues rock band Rotary Connection featuring as lead singer Maya Rudolph's mother Minnie Riperton, who sadly died very young of breast cancer. That was a very heady weekend for a 17 year old kid from Detroit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• @Cullen328:, Ah, I only know (some work of) Muddy Waters, Procul Harum, Alice Cooper, I'll have to check the others on youtube. Looks like you were the right age at the right concert, albeit "heady" :-) For me those are before my time, though. I would end up talking about 1980s music and late 1970s. I probably started to pay attention to music in this transition time from "mainly rock" to "synthesizer pop". David Bowie included, especially his "Let's Dance" album. Queen, Meatloaf, Toto, and guitars morphed partially or totally into synths with Pet Shop Boys, OMD, what was called "new wave". Sure liked Kate Bush. :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC).Reply

• Geraldo and his Gaucho Tango Orchestra- I'll warrant those legs have never wrapped themselves around prime horseflesh. Geraldo was still playing on tv in the early 1970s, with his Octet. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Hola Xanthomelanoussprog, nice music and video, but, no, what? No electronics? Amplifiers? ;-) Geraldo's discography starts at 1974, like after his death, he never recorded for making LPs during his lifetime? I like this one too What a Difference a Day Made (1934). Horseless Headman (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC).Reply

  That guitarist is a total plant: he's an untenured English prof, moonlighting as a gaucho. Don't think I don't know the type. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Hola Horseless Headman, very smooth! I remember seeing him on the telly, but I never thought to check him up until yesterday. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Hmm, Sopor Aeternus. If you're not familiar, try Songs from the Inverted Womb from 2000. It will either entice you into looking for more or will turn you off completely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Boing! said Zebedee one of my fav Sopor songs It is safe to sleep alone (music video), the video, however, is somewhat "gewöhnungsbedürftig", as the Germans say in a single word (~ 'requires getting used to'). Musically it is relatively light to digest imho, the video itself is very erm, heavy / different. Maybe it needs more cowbell [6] :-). Horseless Headman (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC).Reply

Boing! said Zebedee, I am very disappointed in you. To make up for "this", you will close five RfCs of Cunard's choosing. Remember I'm an ArbCommie, and "conduct unbecoming of an administrator" is the sticky kind of spaghetti that will stick to almost any wall. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Drmies, you are treating Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) far too nicely when you tell him to close five RfCs at WP:ANRFC. Isn't RfC closing supposed to be a pleasurable Wikipedia activity? You don't need to bother trying to get consensus for your viewpoint. As RfC closer, you can just supervote in the RfC close. ;) Cunard (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cunard, I was pinged about closing this, but I wouldn't know what to do with my supervote there. Also, I think it's about an infobox, and ArbCom won't like it if I start messing around with those. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you get spaghetti stuck to your wall, you could always try a slippy slippy slimy bar of soap. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Boing! said Zebedee 1:22 of sheer brilliance! Making smth out of nothing, always +1. There is smth parody-esque (?) about it, though I sure am glad this guy [7] has not "discovered" her music. Yes, this is an interesting contrast :-) PS Am I the only one ending the signature with a period, is that wrong (don't tell me there is a policy bout that, too?). Horseless Headman (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC).Reply

Who, indeed, wouldn't want to purify their mind and their behind? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Boing! said Zebedee, Well, "a dirty mind is a joy forever", so, sure I am not going to purify mine! Mind, that is. Horseless Headman (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC).Reply

Hi thank you for your response... I'm do understand what you mean by my conflict of interest.... But wiki is often a first port of call for people finding out about me within my Career. In no way do I want it to be self promoting or fluffy. But at the moment... It is 7/8 years out of date regarding my life/career. Has no mention of writing songs for their artists ( which has become a big part of my career/ life) It has been written by someone who appears to have no idea iof sentence structure. It focuses on the crayon eyes Al um ( which I believe is someone involved I that record bringing it to the front of my career for their benefit) All in all I want FACTS on my page. Nothing more nothing less. It does not represent me/ my career/ or proper factual information in any way. Also it miss he brief biographical content that most of my favourite pages of other songwriters have. What do I do? How can it be changed? It doesn't have to be me.... Kathrynwilliamscaw (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Hello Kathryn. I don't see any incorrect sentences in the current version. I'm not sure what you mean with the focus on Crayon Eyes--the word doesn't actually occur on the page. What this article needs, for starters, is more reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources that provide, for instance, biographical information, then our article can't have it. That's really what everything starts with. So if you have links to such articles with biographical information, you can add them or drop them on the talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm a designer and administartor of the band's website, and I wrote Biography for the band. So, that's my own words. Do you understand? --Selver88 (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I understand that very well, but there's no proof of that and you would need to file some paperwork to be allowed to copy that. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. But, eh, Selver88, do you understand that this is the English wiki, and that we like our articles to be in English? And that we can't just run what someone put on someone's website, especially not if that person has a conflict of interest with the subject? As I said to someone else, just now (see section above), it all starts with verified information in reliable sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Alrighty then! Cheers. --Selver88 (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You closed my ANI case without punishing anyone and warning only me. I stayed off editing for a couple of days to cool off. The first cleanup I have done now is at Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi. I had nominated the page for deletion but it was kept and an editor left a message on my TP saying that I should be doing cleanups not nominating it for AFD so I went ahead and removed material that was sourced to unreliable sources. I created a TP section discussing my concerns about sources, coatrack, misrepresentation and other issues. Now instead of even talking about what I wrote two users have ganged up to put back the content. They will not even discuss the content on the TP. So what is a person supposed to do? two guys who edit with a pro Shia POV (they have yet to make any substantial edit outside Shia/Iran area) just get together and undo a legit cleanup with discussion started on TP, one of them is a person who himself told me that AFD is not cleanup, meaning that I should cleanup the article instead of nominating for AFD. Perhaps you can help. Kinda frustrating that you spend time looking through sources and people are not even up for a discussion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can you please take a look again? The guy reverting me has agreed on all changes except 4. Now I am trying to make him understand but he seems to lack even basic Islamic knowledge. I am not talking about anything subtle or like that. I am talking about the basic knowledge that Shia guys ans Sunni guys have different books of hadith as is discussed in the Hadith article. Can you pop over to the article when you are online and comment on the new section. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• FreeatlastChitchat, you can't ask me to do this, to get so involved with article content. You really need to find other editors who know this subject matter. I am very loathe to get involved with this content more deeply than I already am. Maybe Doug Weller, who is a real scholar, can advise. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't know enough about this either. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies, is this [8] (off-wiki) harassment? Seems to be pretty recent (last Dec)? Actually the entire blog seems to be anti. Horseless Headman (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC).Reply

• Yeah, typical. One of those people with nothing better to do. Unless we figure out who this is there's little we can do, of course. Zzuuzz, you have a fan out on the internet. For the record, Zzuuzz is one of those cats who has done more to keep this website running than a lot of people I know. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks both. My fan club. I must be improving - I've had entire blogs dedicated to me in the past. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I do kind of need to know if the fan club is official or not--I'm trying to figure out if I can add it to the EL section of your article. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Salted about 8 years ago :) Such is the level ... here's one for you: "What a nobody. Therefore, probably a sockpuppet account. Apparently at least 10% of all administrators are sockpuppets, and maybe more."[9]^{[citation needed]} -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wow zzuuzz, please keep up the good work! Even if that means having fans out there :-( Horseless Headman (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC).Reply

Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would like to archive Talk:Dolly Parton as it's starting to get unwieldy in size but there is a subpage Talk:Dolly Parton/Comments that makes it look like an Archive already exists. Well it doesn't. Not *really*. So I need to know, if I establish automatic archiving on the parent page, where will the to-be-archived content end up? Will having the Comments page mess up the archiving process? When I click on the Archive box on the parent talk page, I end up at this. I asked for help from another admin who had edited the Dolly Parton article in the past and they responded "...Comments is a test page; it is much easier to delete it as such or let it be than merge" but I can't delete it, I'm just a poor 'umble editor. I just need to know if leaving the Comments page alone will interfere with automatic archiving. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I'd love to help but it's pick-up time; I won't be back on for a while. Anyone? Drmies (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply anyway. I just don't want to try to "fix" things and then leave it all in a bigger mess than it was...maybe another admin can lend a hand. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Shearonink, sorry, I forgot to get back to this. I just moved, deleted, and merged: have at it, archive way. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

No apologies necessary, everything is just lovely. I just didn't want to set up archiving and then somehow have that get mangled by the Comments page (heh, I don't even know if the mangling would have happened...) A move/delete/merge makes sense to me - Thanks again, Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, there wasn't much to merge, but I take our mandate (of Preserving Every Single Edit) seriously, haha. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies, You left me a message saying I was not impartial regarding my contributions to "Manuel Pinho's" page... Please reconsider after reading carefully how the page has been used for self-promotion by presumably the subject over the YEARS. I merely sought to restore REFERENCES that are verifiable, unlike Manuel Pinho (or his praisers) who write only positive stuff going to the point of omitting major facts like the circumstances of his resignation that made worldwide news, or who pays for him to be a professor in universities worldwide, which Manuel Pinho likes to show off in the Wikipedia page... If I was "partial" what do you have to say about the hagiography that the page has been over the years and the version he presented after deleting all the controversies information???

• The article is not a hagiography, and you want to start by reading WP:BLP and WP:RS, and that's all I have to say to you right now. You are welcome to share your concerns and seek a wider audience at, for instance, WP:BLPN. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Arbitratusrex, I reverted. Obviously. Please check your phrasing and try to write neutrally. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the edits at Parry Aftab. There is a single purpose IP who wants the article to read like a resume and is attacking me (see talk page) for removing content per WP guidelines. I hope you can help out there from time to time to break the one-on-one tension. Peace!

Okay, thanks for the note. Laberinto16 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I thought you might enjoy this edit history: [10]. Required real restraint not to ask for a block, but even the benefit of the doubt fails me on this one. Best regards, 99. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's not a good idea to add anything to an archived case except to reopen it. It creates structural problems later. I therefore restored the version prior to all the disruption followed by your and MarnetteD's edits. That doesn't mean you have to reopen it, either. You may block outside of the SPI without noting it "for the record". I'm off to bed now, so if you have any questions, I won't be around to answer them until tomorrow or sometime in the middle of the night if I follow my usual insomniac habits.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Wake up! Haha, only me. Oh, there was more disruption? That's exciting! Someone must have been sent home from school... I did want a record, of course. I actually tried to open a new case, but I got a weird message that said, if I remember correctly, that there was already an SPI open. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• No need to shout; I'm awake. :-) I'm not familiar with that message. Was it perhaps "You are about to add a second or subsequent request to the previous existing cases on:"? (This is when you're using the standard way of opening at WP:SPI.) No disruption after your edit. The disruption was before. My phrasing above was ambiguous and could be interpreted in two ways. You obviously chose the wrong one.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Wakey wakey, eggs and bacey... I totally blame you. Can you believe they had the nerve to revert me? Hmm--maybe that was what I saw. Odd--it never struck me before as something worth paying attention to. But that was on a different computer, where somehow everything seems strange. I hope you have a great day, Bbb. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Shoot Ipigott, does this never end? I thought racism and sexism were over? Are you telling me Donald Trump is wrong?? (I'm sure he said that, cause that's what his constituency wants to hear.) Drmies (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's all part of our balancing act. No compulsion to join in every time. In this round, though, spades are trumps. Hearts again in March!--Ipigott (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• DGG, is that you in there? Drmies (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

striped shirt in the center.

and this, like all the nyc editathons, is very much open to people working on other topics also. Having a theme helps people focus on articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're such a cosmopolitan. Nice to see you again--I feel like we haven't talked in ages. I'm not counting our secret messages in our secret cabal, of course. I forwarded this information to a colleague professor, in sociology, to see if she can help me with some topics, and maybe get her whole class involved. Thanks David, Drmies (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Drmies for helping :)49.150.146.60 (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Sure thing! Drmies (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Having figured out (I think) what you said at ANI about worms and the pores in their skins, I thought I would point out humorously that brittle stars take it a step further. Talk about not knowing one end from the other! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank goodness they don't have elbows. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Reply

• Ha, I knew there had to be an animal that had two in one. Thanks for that! BTW, I most certainly was not talking about you, Tryptofish. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I should hope not! (Although I did have a brief moment of pause. Then again, I had a brief moment of thinking that you were talking about WormthatTurned. So who knows where my head is stuck?) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Drmies: Being that your name was recently mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dennis_Bratland_reported_by_User:Skyring_.28Result:_.29, and Dirtlawyer1 pinged both of us on that Mariota thread, I think that's my sign to invite you to close (or at least comment) at that AN3 thread :-) Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, I really want to get in between those two. I'd rather camp out on the talk page of the ArbCom noticeboard to get yelled at. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Bagumba (talk · contribs) and Drmies, Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now hounded me to a new article I created -- in the hopes of putting the drama behind me and doing some thing productive. He is deliberately trying to provoke new fights about winningest -- with word-battles of words only related to winningest. Do I have to spend an hour collecting diffs to get an interaction ban to make this stop? You're both well aware what a stupid, lame conflict this has been and I'm trying to put it behind me, but I need help. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I kind of wish I had seen this a few days ago. It's particularly unsatisfying to get in afterwards and do nothing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks Coffee--always nice to see you. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • You're welcome; good to see you too! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your wish is my command. See this. Tom aka Thomas.W ^talk 17:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Well done Thomas. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Doc, I'm gonna ask you to please reconsider her block. I agree with her completely. There is nothing offensive about her username. If she wants to refer to herself as a whore, that is kinda her business, isn't it? There is nothing inherently disruptive about the term "whore", unless you direct it at your ex-wife (I know that from experience). FYI, at least in the US, that is the term prostitutes use to refer to each other. It is only derogatory if it is directed at another, which this isn't. We have much worse usernames here. John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• John from Idegon, I know what "whore" means. As far as I know, prostitutes in the US and all over the world call each other by their name. But even if that were true, it wouldn't make it an acceptable term. Surely I don't have to explain to you how many people use the n-word, even among friends, and how unacceptable it would be as a user name. So no, that's not her business, nor is it the business of the activist friend who comes out of nowhere. What an enormous waste of time--and note that there isn't an admin who agreed with it. What's funny is that your revert actually undid the editor's work, and I get to suck up the usual "censorship" accusations. I would really like for you to look at that edit again, and then the NYT article, and reconsider that edit. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Another editor has taken care of my concerns, there is a consensus at the talk page now I think. My objection was to the separate subsection and the PR-speak title. Those have been addressed. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Let me suggest then that next time you find a place to put it, somewhere in that article, rather than just removing it. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you (or one of your vassals) have any knowledge about investment companies and in particular Greylock Partners? I see a storm brewing there and I like to exclude the option that I am screwing up... The Banner talk 22:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry, above my pay scale. What is the problem with that content? Drmies (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I am mainly cautious because it seems that someone thinks that nearly every investment is historically relevant, especially towards present well known companies. I disagree with that but I do not know where to turn for more eyes. And I know I can bribe you with a bitterbal.   The Banner talk 00:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
    • Oh, I'm easy. And let me remind you and everybody else that it's Mardi Gras, which means that one year ago I made bitterballen with my oldest daughter, who had been naughty and did not get to go to the parades. Her punishment was to stay home with me and make bitterballen, which she loves. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Drmies, you recently blocked the/my account Joobo with the mere explanation of "(Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia)" but this is a very false reason. i contributed to the website "list of islamist terrorist attacks" a lot of content, and im very active in other Wikipedia especially in other language wikipedia with a lot of good valuable content. i know that regarding the very harsh discussion on the talkpage of the article it might have seemed that my language was not appropriate all the time, however it seems very likely, it might be wrong, that you didnt really read everything from the top to the bottom and hence didnt understand whats this about. moreover you heard about this wikipedia guidline "Cool-down blocks — Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used," yet this seems very much the case. i was blocked because you or maybe others didnt want to deal with my intense argumentation and language etc. but the point i would misuse wikipedia and would not use it to create value is simply wrong, and that was your mere point and it was very quick. before even considering blocking someone maybe its neccessary initially trying to udnerstand the whole situation of a fight and figure out whats all about. regarding the one user i was in severe quarrel and tried to expose his true intentions with the only logical explanation. if you cant even critizise a user for his untrueful and unlogical actions then why even discuss? then why even argue if its just about a bubble. my points, in all humbleness are simply more logical than his, of alleged "original research". but again it becomes all more understandable if one reads the complete talkpage from the beginning to the end regarding thisissue .if you are a genuine admin, please explain detailed what your point is, and why you blocked me only "to cool me down". i know i used harsh language but after such an amount of time and discussions and disruptive and unlogical behavior of some users , sorry but then it can boil over. anyway im waiting to a hones response Drmies. greets. Ooboj (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) See this thread, which contains: [11][12][13][14][15]. GAB^Hello! 01:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• My dear Ooboj, thank you for the note. I would say that most if not all of your recent edits, and many of your total edits, consist of edit warring on List of Islamist terrorist attacks and fighting with other editors on the talk page (and a similar pattern on Immigration to Germany, for instance). It's the personal attacks, capped with this one, that led me to conclude that you are not here to improve our beautiful project. You can't talk to people like that.

  Now, I see you got yourself blocked again because you couldn't refrain from commenting on that article talk page--that was foolish. If all you'd done was comment here, that might not have happened. At any rate, continuing a conflict with a new account is seriously frowned upon. If you ever wish to get unblocked you will have to address not just the unacceptable comments you made to Malik, but also your rather aggressive behavior on those talk pages and, of course, the edit warring. You will have to do so from your Joobo account. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

— TransversalAngle, 22:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC) on Talk:Censorship in China.

(They were all blocked as socks.) GAB^Hello! 01:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• That's hilarious. BTW, they're probably all socks of The Banner; just look "leugen" up in the Dutch dictionary. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
• And that was a fun SPI. No wonder Bbb23 is kept up at night. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• It helps to know more languages than just French. I do have a smattering of other romance languages and German, but it ain't much. Dutch, of course, is absolutely incomprehensible. You should e-mail me an audio recording of you speaking in Dutch. I can play it at night when I can't sleep. I'm sure it'll put me right under.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• LOL. I have never problems with Dutch. But to make you happy: here is the spoken version of the Dutch article about the city of Groningen (the city where I used to live before escaping to Ireland). It is about 62 minutes long. Nl-Groningen (stad)-article.ogg. Have fun! The Banner talk 22:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• @The Banner: First, I can't play .ogg files on my player. I did a little poking around on how to play them, but it got so complicated I gave up. Second, I want to hear Drmies speak Dutch, not just some nameless voice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I lasted all of 57 seconds. I hope the city is more exciting than that. It is sad, of course, that dazzling urbanites like Randykitty and myself have such a poor opinion of one of the oldest cities of that lovely country. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm pampered, because I'm used to Starship9000 socks just giving themselves away to me. This one took more work. If these guys were a bit less obvious, they might actually be of some interest to the 50 Cent Party. I know Italian, but it's just too rusty. I'm also partial to socks mislabeling me as an admin, because it helps boost my oversize ego. GAB^Hello! 02:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Bbb23, if you think Dutch might put you asleep, ask someone from the North of the Netherlands to pronounce the following sentence with some emphasis on the "g" sounds: "Een groot gezelschap gevaarlijke gekken gemeenschappelijk voor een gevel in Groningen". I guarantee you'll never be the same after that! :-) Drmies, I've been a few times to Haaren (and once even spent the night there), but I think I only once visited the center of Groningen and had a beer on the big square, so I have absolutely no opinion about it... --Randykitty (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • You're playing it safe--I understand. Did you tell Bbb that the g-rich phrase you dropped is just a fragment? Next time, only complete sentences please--it's a matter of decorum. Bbb, that ogg file played on my PC, almost miraculously I suppose, and yeah, it's Dutch, sure. My Dutch, of course, is like poetry, like 26-month aged Beemster: salty and tasty, deep and rich. Sonorous, yet not without that slant of light over the West-Frisian fields after a rain. My English sounds like shit, like someone half-boiled a chunk of gristly meat and ran it through a dull grinder. That I ever got a date on this side of the Atlantic is a miracle. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• "Een groot gezelschap gevaarlijke gekken glunderen gemeenschappelijk voor een gevel in Groningen". Better? :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Randykitty Shouldn't that be "Een groot gezelschap ... glundert ...."? Horseless Headman (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

• Sure--if you think that we should use a kind of collective plural (see synesis) there. I mean, I don't want to be picky...maar we moeten natuurlijk wel het goede voorbeeld geven voor de kleintjes... Which reminds me, I was pinged from Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_31#Nederlands. Maybe you have something to add. Bonne weekend, Drmies (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Oh dear, I went to fat. "Glundert", of course. And me always correcting others about this... I came up with that phrase to shock foreign friends of mine. Common reactions vary from "that's a bad cold" to a more concerned "does that hurt"? The weekend is not very "bonne", I'm afraid. After finally getting rid of a 3-week migraine last Monday, I got felled by a flu Friday evening. I'm so stuffed up that my wife is sleeping in the guest room, because of my sniffing and snoring. My head's all fogged up and I don't understand anything written at that RfD. I speak languages, I don't claim to understand them... --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Actually, it's bon weekend. Your French is getting rusty, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

This reminds me of when David Suchet said "Bon chance!" on Poirot several years ago, forever proving that he is not French, despite the faux-French surname. Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Randykitty try some magnesium supplement tablets (and possibly zinc). I got myself some Mg oxide tablets, which shifted a fortnight-long malaise, after reading some anecdotal stuff on 'em. Mg glyconate is supposed to be more "bioavailable". I moderation apparently harmless, but slightly laxative. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed this on my drive-by visit to this page. Mg supplements are very very complicated because of their hygroscopic and laxative nature. I've researched this issue thoroughly, and the only ones that avoid the laxative effect are unbuffered ("buffered" is, oddly, the term they use for "adulterated with non-chelated Mg") amino-acid chelates, and the only ones I've found thus far are this and this. The former is the lowest dosage (despite the label the first is half the dosage of the second) so it's the best to use. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, but I doubt I have something useful to say there. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunate edit-warring over the "Religion" parameter on Bernie Sanders infobox. Would like to see this calm down before it escalates further. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, but you've already inserted yourself in the debate, so what should I do? I'll just set my admin hat aside and get to warring. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

My presence there does not preclude your own, unless we are sockpuppets of one another. I was mainly concerned that Malik was sadly starting to tarnish himself again, which would be unfortunate, and puzzling. That's why I stepped in immediately to stem the warring and name-calling. I suspect the article as a whole is going to need a lot of eyes on it as Sanders comes closer to the Democratic nomination and so forth, and that the Religion thing may even need an RfC. Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I am not happy he called the other editor a troll, but I gotta say, Guy's revert was a bit...not so great. I'm not going to template or warn User:Malik Shabazz for that since he knows he shouldn't have. But the other revert was problematic too, by an editor who suggested Malik join a discussion he was already in but couldn't be bothered to participate themselves. BTW, I got email today from someone claiming to be someone else and saying some things about Malik. There are few editors who get slandered like that. I do agree on the RfC thing, in principle, but Malik (on the infobox talk page) linked to earlier discussions; one of them may be an RfC. Anyway, let's fight over on the Sanders talk page, where Cullen has just girded his loins, and then we can chat about merrier things here. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, but that's pretty cool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, the useful stuff I've learned on Wikipedia! Now I know how to gird my loins.  

I stepped away from the Sanders article because I believe another editor is acting like a professional provocateur, and I have better things to do with my time than be his foil. I've posted the relevant links, and if other editors want to indulge him and allow him to pursue his WP:POINTy behavior season after season, that's their business.

And maybe I was too quick to call him a troll, but if it walks like a troll and quacks like a troll.... — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Trolls don't quack, but they do crack if they're not in their caves before sunrise.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) After writing my earlier comment, I took a look at the Sanders talk page to see what's developed since I stopped watching it, and I saw your comment, Softlavender. Unfortunately, experience has shown me that moving "Jewish" to ethnicity won't solve a thing. It seems to me that both Jews and antisemites know that being Jewish is an ethnic "thing" as well as a religious "thing". Too bad the editors of Wikipedia can't wrap their heads around that concept. If only our article about Jews said it... oh wait, it does: "The Jews ... are an ethnoreligious group" with only six sources to support it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Holy fuck, I thought the link was just to Cullen's post so I didn't click it until now. So "girding one's loins" is "a thing", to use the modern parlance? That is excessively cool, to use nerdspeak. :-) Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I went to read that discussion expecting to have one opinion, but ending up with another. If his own literature says "religion=Jewish", then his religion is Jewish. That there is still an argument is weird to me. LadyofShalott 18:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I felt very much the same way. I mean, that's the most visible resume one can imagine. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

IP vandalism creates havoc, and I would like to better understand why my followings suggestions wouldn't work:

1. Semi-protect all C thru GA class articles;
2. Either add full PP or add PRVW protection to all FAs which basically affords them similar protection to our PAGs;
3. If possible, embed a code into the sigs of qualified veteran editors (with criteria that they must have contributed to at least 1 FA) so qualified editors can by-pass pending changes reviews for protected articles;

My thinking is that with the above suggestions, WP still lives up to its reputation as the encyclopedia anyone can edit...except for vandals and arses. Yes...no? It certainly would cut down on a butt-load of work for our admins. Atsme^📞📧 19:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Could be this belongs at the Pump proposals page. Just sayin', is all. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe so, but I wanted to get some input from an admin or two who are in the trenches before I took it to a larger venue. You know - it's kinda like putting your big toe in the water first before you jump in over your head. Atsme^📞📧 05:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Wow. You know that will never fly. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
• I don't know, Atsme. My opinion depends on the time of day. When school gets out or rassling is over on the TV, I'm all for locking stuff down. Or when I rev/delete a bunch of racist shit. At other times, when I see IPs revert vandalism and add to articles, yeah, not so much. We've gotten big without requiring editors to sign up, of course. Now, FAs that are on the main page, I want those semi-protected, yes; maybe all FAs. I have a pretty low opinion of Pending Changes; I find it cumbersome and it doesn't prevent vandalism, not really.

  Now, the selection criteria for who gets to edit, that's going to be the hardest thing to get accomplished: as you know, not everyone wants...well, fill in the blank. You'll hear people say that it is elitist, etc. And that may be true, to an extent. I do think it's true that such kinds of ... limiting will cut down on admin time; then again, much of that work is done with the help of "regular" editors, who report and revert, and much of our time is taken up with more complicated conflicts.

  The Village Pump will tell you quickly whether there's data available to support or criticize your arguments. You'll get some ridicule, no doubt. But I can't help but think that, in the long run, we will need to do something, esp. given how much trouble can be caused by long-term vandals. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Would you need a qualification, a stamp of some sort, to approve edits made to protected articles? And surely someone would need to judge whether your FA contributions are enough to warrant the stamp, right? Kind of like we assign rollbacker status now, I guess. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Example - with PP FAs, we'd have qualified/approved FA stewards (which already exist but not officially) - kinda like having rollback rights and pending changes reviewer qualifications which are admin approved. It won't prevent open editing - it will just help filter the vandals. In my experiences, some of the articles (not sure of the number) that are featured on the main page either as a DYK or a new FA are immediately targeted by vandals. They really do need semi-protection at a minimum. I also just witnessed an IP causing havoc to an article and it took 3 or 4 reverts at different times before a block was finally imposed which means the article contained the vandalized edits for a length of time and it's very possible that during that time frame, a reader or two may have happened across the article and saw it in the vandalized state. The whole mess could easily have been avoided by semi-protection. Atsme^📞📧 05:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Also, we might even be able to present our protected GAs and FAs as "certified trustworthy" or some other form of seal of approval for academic purposes, and mark them as such. That would also help build credibility to the encyclopedia as a trusted reference over time and provide incentive for more editors to strive for FA status. Atsme^📞📧 05:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Drmies, I really believe that I'm to something here and hope you will bear with me if I fumble around somewhat at first while getting my thoughts together before I take the next big step. Here's what I've done so far based on my initial thoughts regarding project goals and ultimately, protection of articles that have been promoted and "sealed" with our project seal indicated the highest level of promotion. What I'm proposing would be an excellent means for countering vandalism, and also protecting against inaccuracies by establishing qualifying editorial teams to fact-check the criteria. Once promoted, reviewed and approved for accuracy (RAAFA) sealed articles could be protected in much the same way special permissions pages are protected in that you have to be qualified and approved to edit that level of article. If you're not, when you click on "edit", you will get a message that you don't have permission to edit at that level along with a polite and encouraging explanation of how to get approval - sorta like captcha protection in a way. Our project's qualifying participants could also include approved, qualified members of other WikiProjects with established criteria, such as WP:WikiProject Medicine. The preliminary editing steps for non-qualified editors and IPs who want to edit RAAFA promoted articles that are protected would be similar to that of semi-protection with pending changes review, (until someone comes forward with a better idea) so we're still maintaining the original intent of WP to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We're simply adding safeguards against vandalism and potential inaccuracies. Further, the inclusion of our Project Accuracy seal at the top of the promoted page will help establish and solidify WP articles as not only accurate, but trustworthy in that they have been peer-reviewed and/or have undergone editorial review - something we can promote to academics and researchers and spread the word via an outreach incentive. What do you think? I'm headed over to share my thoughts with Doc James now. Atsme^📞📧 17:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

...but it looks like you may have missed one here. Hope all is well in Drmies' world!   Scr★pIron^IV 19:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey Drmies, The IP has made some additions to the lead. Some of the additions may be legitimate, others maybe not. I'm not sure at this point. Would you mind taking a look at the lead and editing (or not) as needed? I'm going to take a hands off approach at this point. Thanks so much. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. I reverted and dropped a warning: it's time this stops. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Much appreciated!  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I wanted to follow-up on this, User talk:Rosiestep#New user blocked. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Drmies and/or stalkers, I'd like a second (or more) opinion about the Username User:HotNazi420, reported to UAA [16] and considered "not a blatant violation.." with the motivation "How is it any worse than "Soup Nazi" or other variations?" [17] (the part at "line 89"). I put this here since this discussion would only make UAA longer than it is already.

I have to say I am flabbergasted at the reaction, but let's focus on arguments. Some good reasons to block may be the following nine such "other variations", all blocked per Username (includes one "Soupnazi", indeed): [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].

- I would tend to believe, that the term "nazi" (in the username capitalised so intended by creator as not to be misunderstood) is too historically loaded [27] (NSFW) to be even considered to be okay for a username (unless it is accidentally part of a string in one's real name etc.)?

- I doubt it would be good PR for WP, when some investigative journalist or blogger is ever going to dig into Usernames, and say, hey look, at WP they are explicitly allowing usernames with "nazi" in it!

- The "soup nazi" was a sketch in the sitcom Seinfeld [28], showing that the word "nazi" is also used in English language countries to signify a very intolerant / not nice person. Nonetheless, I fail to see any relation between the sketch and nazis as referred to intentionally by creator? A User Soupnazi was actually blocked (the first one listed above).

- I am not Jewish, but I could imagine most Jewish contributors (or anyone else, for that matter) would find it difficult to cooperate harmoniously with such editor. Mind you, I am European, maybe Americans look at this differently, but for me, names with Nazi are a definite no-no, this is way beyond an accidental "fuck..." or "ass..." slipping through. But then, I am not an admin :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

• (disclaimer: I am German). Second opinion: perhaps I am being very teutsch now, but I concur: *Hotnazi* is indeed a blatant username violation (btw: DYK that Klaus Barbie was a great wine lover?). Lectonar (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Disagree... I think we should wait and see how this person edits in order to interpret his username. I once met somebody whose first name was abbreviated "nazi" (not a person of European origin and not having a European language as first language - don(t remember exactly, but could have been Turkish) and quite obviously this was not a reference to national socialism. Perhaps something like that is going on here, too. For the moment I'd be inclined to AGF here. If you don't want to wait, ask them on their talk page (but perhaps the whole issue is moot: the account was made yesterday and there has not been single edit made, either live or deleted). --Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nazi is indeed a persian female name...Lectonar (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, it's offensive and we should block. I disagree with Amatulic and even with Randykitty: it is different from Soup Nazi (BTW, User:SoupNazi322 was blocked with "No NSDAP names allowed" as rationale (thank you DragonflySixtyseven)), and the "Hot" and "420" parts are indicative enough of this person a. not choosing a Persian name and b. being up to no good. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

What's with the "420", does that mean anything? --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

April 20th is Hitler's birthday. I really have to agree with this username block, it is not just disruptive but intentionally so. HighInBC 17:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ah, 20/4 in reverse (I use the European way of noting dates :-). I see your point and missed that. Agree, this is unlikely to be a good faith editor named Nazi and thinking (s)he is hot... --Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Even if it wasn't Hitler's birth date, there is the contemporary use of the number to consider. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I actually didn't know about the birthday. Randy and I, like good Dutchmen, have a birthday calendar hanging on the wall of the toilet, but A.H. isn't on it. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• AhLectonar, I did not know that, being a name for a girl in Farsi, thanks for pointing it out. Apparently it is short [29] for Nazanin, plenty of which seem to exist [30]. Well, case closed then I guess, thank you all for your time. If this ever comes about in the future, would it be an option to ask such Users to - if they insist on using their real name as Username - to type it in Farsi: she can still use her real name, as she wants, and likely nobody on WP would be offended due to a wrong interpretation of her name, as here on the English WP those relatively few people who do understand Farsi, possibly already know "nazi" can be used as a girl's name too? Horseless Headman (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

Drmies, were you planning to return to this review now that additional hooks have been suggested and a second source added? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't actually have a go-to editor for science questions. Once upon a time I had one for medical article questions, but SandyGeorgia hasn't been active for quite a long time; I don't think I've made a query there for a year or two. Sorry I can't be more help. Perhaps the related WikiProject might have someone who'd know? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I thought you'd like to know that the lead image of this article should at least have a chance at featured picture candidates. I thought it better to give you the chance to nominate it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• It has a chance? But Adam, I had nothing to do with any of it--I just wrote the article. I can't take credit for a picture I didn't take... Drmies (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • It's quite common to nominate images you didn't create at FPC. Otherwise it'd be basically impossible to cover entire classes of material. FPC doesn't work like other featured content. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please see this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Did you know ... that if you right-click on the word "desysopped" in an edit window on Google Chrome, it suggests it's a typo of "poppyseed". Isn't that nicer? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Poppyseed Lectonar (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mine says "eavesdropped". It also says that "poppyseed" is a typo, which should read "opposed". My, one can play this game all day! Softlavender (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Clearly you have been !voting "oppose" so often so the browser is starting to correct you, Pavlovian style. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I resemble that remark! Softlavender (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well now, such amusement early in the morning. I'm glad someone is having a good time. Lectonar, kindly refrain from abusing your editorial privileges. DYK that the best poppyseed comes from the motherland? And DYK that...

-- Drmies (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just created a more than pausible redirect, recognizing the augmenting use of google chrome. But I stand ashamed properly, in the middle of the Place du Luxembourg Lectonar (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Wow...enjoy! Drmies (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I feel stupid giving a person a "final warning" for vandalism after he's already received a final warning. See User talk:165.138.120.251 Can you please make me feel less stupid? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Sure. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thx. Take that, Indiana Department of Education.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand it. I think I'm going to give up on discretionary sanctions. Why are some Arab-Israeli conflict sanctions recorded here, up to and including 2016, and some in the central log? I logged my indef block of HistoryWrite, which I framed as a discretionary sanction per this discussion, at the last-mentioned page. Should it rather have been at the first? How do I make the choice? [Tearing my hair out. Throwing it on the ground and jumping up and down on it.] Is the Minotaur at the heart of the labyrinth? Bishonen | talk 17:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

• Oh, I know for a fact that heavy hitters like GorillaWarfare, Doug Weller, Keilana, DGG, and especially Opabinia regalis are very interested in your labyrinthine pursuits and queries. Me, I promised not to chat up Ariadne again until I had caught up on sleep. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Well, the reason I picked you was that you have pretty recently logged a sanction yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. You have to be their expert, surely? Bishonen | talk 18:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

• Oh God no--the reason I pinged a bunch of folks is that they saw me embarrassingly confused on our Secret Mailing List. I'm not going to take up this subject matter until I've had at least two good naps in the space of three days. So Saturday at the earliest. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Well, at least one person in the Secret Clubhouse is confused; that doesn't mean it's you ;) I thought I knew the answer to this - that the recent PIA topic ban would have been better placed in the DS log - but as anyone who knows me in real life could tell you, my strategy for dealing with paperwork is "make guesses about what to do, give up, throw the whole mess at someone competent, promise them cookies later". So, uh, here's my official response to this matter. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• OMG, Oppie, what a frightening-looking "cookie". Something you'd glimpse in a nightmare. Don't you like Dr Mies? Anyway, I think I may be one of the very last admins still standing in the discretionary sanctions quicksand or mathmos ("a liquid essence of evil"). Soon I'll sink to my knees and be swallowed by the malignant thixotropic substance, and there'll be nobody. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

• Well, yeah, arbcom is the Great Tyrant. Just ask at WT:ACN!Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I consider our enforcement mechanisms ridiculous, both over-complicated and erratic, but I have nothing better to propose that is likely to gain acceptance. (I have thought about replacing DS and Arb Enforcement altogether by perhaps 2 or 3 arbs assigned to themselves enforce each case's sanctions, on the principle "The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword") DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure. You and Drmies get the PIA series and I'll take, uhh, tree shaping. Hope you two never take a vacation at the same time... ;)

But we can probably at least make the logs usable. Quick, somebody have a smart idea on how to organize them, while there's no open cases, requests, ARCAs, or OMGWTFBBQs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The DSLOG is the work of Arbcom. Most likely there should be a 'logging guide' that regular admins can use, though I see that User:Bishonen got it right. Some ARBPIA sanctions for 2015 were evidently still logged in the old location, and ought to be moved. I left a note for User:Callanecc and he said he would post something to the clerks list. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• So I got it wrong: I should have logged my ARBPIA topic banatWikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016. But really, all the 2015 bans (including those by Bbb23, Boing! said Zebedee, Jayron32) should have been placed there already. Do we move them, Ed? Drmies (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wait, what? --Jayron32 20:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why not wait and see if a clerk is available to do it? It will be good education for them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, sure, but here's the thing: I need to be educated also! Drmies (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• (edit conflict) By the power vested in me by who-the-hell-knows-who, nothing I do can be moved. In this area, it's a badge of honor to be wrong. A coin toss is as good as anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)Thank you, Ed, but are you sure? The central log was established in May 2014, and 25 PIA sanctions have been logged since then in the putatively "old location" — on the casepage — including by arbs and clerks, and including one in 2016. I thought it had to be a special case somehow. The other casepages that I've seen do stop logging sanctions after the central log was supposed to take over. Did the Mathmos get hold of the PIA case? Bishonen | talk 17:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

I'm also not sure about the cutoff date. The WP:ARBPIA case log includes sanctions going back to 2010. Are they *all* in the wrong place? I don't want to move other people's sanctions unless it was a trivial mistake. Perhaps there should be an edit notice on each arb case telling unwary admins not to log in the case itself. This thread proves the new system isn't widely understood. If a clerk does it then there won't be any 'edit wars' to do the fixes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I would love to replace DS with something that I don't need to call my lawyer friends to figure out what is says --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why isn't User:me_and an administrator? Should we nominate User:me_and?The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I don't know--I do notice that unlike me they are not a member of Category:Wikipedian sex workers, and that's never a good sign for a wannabe-admin. Do they have good sense? Have they made more friends than enemies? Do they write articles and create content, or just the other way around? So many questions, so few answers... Drmies (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there an invite-template for Category:Wikipedian sex workers? I would quite like to join myself (if the membership fee isn't too high)! Can I? I am no expert on the adminstuff (thats why I am here asking for your expert opinion), but me_and seems to have just the right mix of sanity and insanity. I haven't noticed any enemies yet (boring, I know), and me_and seems to create articles and help newbies and all that stuff. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Eh, I think there's something, yeah--if there is, Kudpung probably knows about it, I think. I am not familiar with your me_and, so I really can't say anything useful, besides of course "sure".

  Personally, I don't think that RfA is so torturous; I do think that if you go up you should be ready for tough questions. If someone can't handle tough questions, well. You may have heard of this guy who's running for political office and was asked about some shit he said by a media person; he thought it was unprofessional that she asked him about it. That person should probably not run for president or for admin. Editors who have done good work in a collaborative manner I think do well at RfA. But go ahead and ask them...I think it's quite flattering to be asked, and if you really mean it, it's a nice thing to do since it means you trust their judgment. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Look at the userboxes me_and has created! Me_and has excellent taste. I'll just leave a ping here so me_and can read our conversation. One thing me_and does not have is editcountitis, but it should be easy to ensure that that isn't an issue by making a couple thousand typofixes. @Me and: yo! we are talking about you behind your back... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Potato started it. Can't trust starch. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

That is racist. I am the exception that proves the rule, but most taters are trustworthy. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I've been at a conference most of the day, so haven't had a chance to sit down and type out a reply until now. I'm honoured (and slightly baffled) at the suggestion of being nominated. I mean, I'm interested in adminship – I expect I'd enjoy dealing with stuff at UAA and AIV and so forth, and I'd like to think I'm reasonably good at the sort of conflict resolution the job would require – but I'd kinda expected I'd need more experience. Despite hanging around here for ten years, I don't have the massive number of edits under my belt that some people seem to have, and it's only quite recently that I've started paying active attention to things like the Teahouse. —me_and 23:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Ah! The Teahouse! Well, maybe that's a good occasion to ask Cullen328 if they have an opinion--from one old time to another, so to speak. Hanging out there and asking questions, that's good and helpful stuff. The real measure of longevity, of course, is your Mandarax-interaction factor: how many article intersections do you have with Mandarax/1000. My M-factor is 4.267; yours is at .104, which probably means...nothing at all, but it's a nice opportunity to ping my old friend Mandarax.

  I'm sure you know the rules by know, but conflict resolution, as far as I'm concerned, is the best skill an admin can have. Most everything else can be done by robots or peons like me. And you got a decent number of edits, you created articles...so yeah, I suppose you should give this some thought. If you like. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Me and: Open this link in a new tab, then continue reading. Quality is more important than quantity. If you want to you can make 1000+ edits per day, without using (semi)automated tools, and every single edit will be an improvement. Most of the edits I make are typofixes. Here is an example of what my contribs look like when fixing typos of the word significant(ly). On this page you can find a list of the 10.000 most frequently used words on Wikipedia. The search engine allows us to use fuzzy search.

Lets use the word "communities" as an example. If we want to find misspellings of this word we can use a searchquery like: "communities~0.1 -communities". The search results (5205) are full of words that are similar, and of course many of those are real words, so we gotta exclude those. So, I look at the first page of results for words to exclude (and I repeat this step if necessary). My new search query looks like this: "communities~0.1 -communities -communistes -Communiqué -Communiqués -commodities -Communité -Commonties -Communitas -communalities -communition -Communiones -communiter -Communitates -Commities". Most of those results are typos. I use Firefox and the built-in typocheck dictionaries (I use both UK and US English) allow me to rightclick words and select the correct one out of a list. If you see {{notatypo}}or{{sic}} or if the typo is inside a quote it is probably best to ignore it. At the moment, some people may oppose because they think you haven't made enough edits, but if you follow the strategy described above you can quickly increase your editcount. After you've increased your editcount you should probably do some vandalfighting, so that people who look at your most recent contribs can see that you need the blockbutton. To me, the amount of experience you have is not very important. You need to be the right kind of person. My gut tells me you should be an admin, and it speaks Truthiness. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Voters at RfA will notice that the nominee has made less than 5,600 edits in nearly eleven long years, and that there have been six sporadic years with less than two hundred edits, and that their two most edited articles are about the nominee's employer and about a corporate executive. And they will express doubts. I am not saying what my decision would be in the end, but I am just noting potential problems at a quick glance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Touché. Well, at least it is clear what me_and needs to do if me_and really wants to be an admin! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Huh. I'm not massively surprised by having Metaswitch appear near the top; I am surprised Anthony G. Watson is, though. I started that latter article purely because I've been working my way through people on the "Rainbow Lists" who didn't already have articles or who only had stubs; the closest to personal involvement I've had with him is emailing one of his companies to ask for a photo with copyright release to use on the article. I guess I made more edits there just because there were considerably more sources about him than in most of the articles I've started on similar grounds. —me_and 10:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Me and: Your username strongly suggests that you have a sockpuppet somewhere, never a good thing for a prospective admin. Or, worse still, that it is a shared account. You are expected to reveal all your significant others to the RfA-voting community so that they we could decide if your head need to be quartered before or after hanging. No such user (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Aha. Good point. Hadn't thought of that. I've been using this handle online for something in the region of 18 years now, but I can see how the confusion could arise. I'll drop a note on my user page to (hopefully) dispel any concerns there. —me_and 13:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Don't know how often you check your Wikipedia email, but I sent you a message. Mike V • Talk 18:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I saw. It was really not all that exciting, Mike. Next time, I want it to contain pictures of Ukranian bachelors or offers for circuit boards printed by the millions. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm fresh out of those but maybe next time? For now, I can certainly put you in contact with my Nigerian noble who has a prosperous offer for you. Mike V • Talk 18:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd appreciate that, Mike. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I now know that you enjoy bulk purchases, Drmies. If you are interested in buying a shipping container full of cheap Chinese "granite" countertops, I can put you in touch with 17 different companies. Coincidentally, every one has female salespeople, with names like "Cindy Yang" or "Kim Wong". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input on the AFD. If you have the time, would you also give a careful, detailed response to "Gaming at WP:MOS"? Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I saw that and ran like hell. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Phew. OK, I don't know what edit is supposed to "taint" something. I think the best thing is to ban all four from commenting in any new discussion per Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you--Talk:MOS doesn't need them for every single discussion. The next best thing is to allow each of them to speak their mind once, and to answer needling and gaming with a short block. They need to remember that the iBan isn't there to let them get away with stuff or hinder the others: it's there to prevent everyone else from being bothered by them. Also, holy moly those are some long posts. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the pointer about the emails, by the way; I routinely ignore emails that I didn't know about. I'd forgotten to check that email account for several days (it's definitely not my primary account), so I didn't know that he'd emailed me at all. I'll get back to him now. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I was wondering why you weren't interested in a Cruise Of The Caribbean Totally Free Of Charge. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Would you mind blocking 72bikers? WP:BANEX makes an exception for asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation). After the fourth such request by 72bikers against Dennis Brantland (all of which I rejected), I left a reminder that he'd already gone past the BANEX maximum, but in response I got a fifth message repeating the allegations of Dennis stalking him in an effort to get him blocked. 72bikers has admitted the copyright infringement that Dennis mentioned (he says that his additions aren't infringement, but his example of innocent behavior is definitely a violation), so I've reverted his additions, and he's persistently complained about that; I'm afraid that enforcing the interaction ban would get me into INVOLVED territory. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wait; why *is* User:Dennis Bratland reporting 72bikers for copyright issues? Was his email sent before the ban took effect? Even if so, he shouldn't be pursuing this anymore. I disagree with you here, Nyttend; following someone you're i-banned from discussing, and reporting their non-vandalism, non-BLP violations by email, that's not solving the problem the i-ban was meant to achieve, and is not allowed per WP:BANEX. That email was not "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban". 72bikers is not Bratland's problem anymore. He should not be following edits, he should not be reporting misdeeds. I really think you ought to put a stop to that, Nyttend. This goes against WP:BANEX, and just takes the dispute underground.

I suggest a final warning for each editor, and a longish block if any more emails are sent, or if any more repetitive complaints are raised. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Ah, here's one of the problems with iBans. I am aware of the copyvio allegations; he emailed me as well. The comments by 72bikers are an obvious on-wiki violation of the iBan, but Floq is right, by the same token Dennis Bratland shouldn't be emailing about 72bikers. I guess I contributed a bit to this, mentioning the email to Nyttend--I was just thinking about the copyvio issue, not even considering that it was the other editor who allegedly committed them. (I told Dennis, by the way, that I looked at them but didn't really see it.)

  Yes, as usual Floq is right: we can't block the one for doing on-wiki what the other did off-wiki. Final warnings all around--another round of final warnings. Thank you Floq, and Nyttend, I do not envy your situation of being sort of in between here (thanks for dragging me in there, pal!). Dennis Bratland, 72bikers, you run the risk of anyone just jumping in and blocking one or both of you just for the hell of it, to put an end to this. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies, I thought of you as I started a discussion at the COI noticeboard about these articles, then I noticed you edited the bio years ago. Any assistance you can render, especially regarding whether large sections of content added to the Papers article in recent months constitute copyright violations, will be much appreciated. As always, very best regards. Snow day here. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B095:6CD9:12FD:9C11 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm yes, I see--but is there nothing worth saving there? The biography as I left it was very, very cursory. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Agreed, but they provided no sources. Even if the content was valid, I hate when sourced text is removed and no references are added to support the new passages. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B095:6CD9:12FD:9C11 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
• But of more concern to me is the possibility of copyvio in the other article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B095:6CD9:12FD:9C11 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, I hadn't looked at the other article... Drmies (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies,

You've asked me not to edit templates to add links, but I am making them consistent with CJK Unified Ideographs and CJK Unified Ideographs Extension A, which both already have links (and are similarly very large). It makes no sense to revert these edits on small templates such as Extension D. Theknightwho (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I replied at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Johnuniq, don't you think this is odd? Drmies (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, it's odd, but stranger things have happened. I tried to get an informed view here but the user hasn't been active for nearly three weeks. Looking at these contribs shows BabelStone reverting with edit summary it's no help to the reader to be directed to a page which says "Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for xxx" which is pretty conclusive, although not entirely accurate as some entries do exist such as wikt:𫝀. A link which goes to a non-existent page is wikt:𫞖; perhaps the user wanted zh:wikt:𫞖 which works. At any rate, I think there would need to be a good reason for the links before they are added, despite the fact that apparently some pages have had such links for a long time (example). Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Drmies, Despite being warned by you to stop interfering with some else's User talk page, this guy just doesn't want to back down! He is at it again, but this time at Commons. He wants to use an administrator there Thibaut120094 as tool for revenge of decission you took against him for ignoring the Wikipedia user talk page guidelines. Hi Thibaut, I'm Taichi from Spanish Wikipedia. I'm notifying you about the constant blankings from the user Mona778, in his archive, including a message sending by you few days ago. The user believes that blanking all the messages is OK in Commons, but I don't find any policy or rule that permits the blanking as "courtesy". If I'm wrong please tell me, because the user persists about blanking all the messages. Thanks. --Taichi (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC) I'm really fed up of these people, you asked him to apologize for his mistakes and move on. You know, I don't want his apology the only thing I want is to leave me alone, that's all. So, please do something about these provocations, and harassments.---Thank You (Mona778 (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC))Reply

P.S. by the way, you don't believe if I tell you they promote a suckpuppet at English project, to a patroller, and rollbacker! See here [31] It's unbelievable! the Spanish project is run like a jungle!

• I see that about ConnieGB--funny. They should have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eliluu/Archive. On the bright side, Eliluu and Connie have not been editing on the Spanish wiki in the same period. OK, I don't have power on Commons, far from it. SlimVirgin is not an administrator there, but she knows the joint better than me, and maybe she has the time to look into it. Hey, Commons folks, please look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive911#Bad_behavior_from_User:Mona778. Also, Taichi, can you drop this matter please? Drmies (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Hello there, case closed. He lost again![32] But I'm not sure if they'll stop (Taichi and (Yeza) their menace? Nor Taichi is ready to finally calls it quits.---Greetings, and have a nice weekend with a very warm hug! (Mona778 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC))Reply

• Dear Drmies, I knew he wouldn't disappoint me, and he didn't! It looks like he is using one of his pals at Commons to do his dirty works for him, filing at Commmon's Administrators' noticeboard after the case was reviewed and closed by an administrator![33] The strange part is, the one who notified the board didn't even mention the final blanking was made by the very person who handled the case, the administrator! This is a clear case of cross-wiki hounding now, what do you say?

(Mona778 (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC))Reply

@Mona778: I am very sorry if I had raised the issue on COM:AN, I think that made your problem with Taichi and Yeza much bigger when I raised that issue at Commons. It was meant to be asking for an advice from an admin, not for making an admin action against you. To be clear, I am not supporting any of you three. Well, the thread I opened at COM:AN has been closed by Riley, and I have no problem with that. I apologize. Pokéfan95 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Pokéfan95: Hi, no need to apologize. I presume you were just doing your job with no harm intended. I myself apologize if I hurt your feelings, or questioned your intention because I thought you might be their accomplice. Anyway, I hope there won't be any hard feelings.---Have a nice weekend (Mona778 (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC))Reply

Now also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incident with user Mona778. MPS1992 (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Drmies: Dear Drmies, may I ask you to look in to this new case brought up by the same people, and for the same purposes from Wiki Spain?---Thanks (Mona778 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC))Reply

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• The Banner, thanks again from correcting me in that nomination--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • You're welcome. The Banner talk 20:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Drmies and stalkers, does anyone have an opinion about the following: Do usernames like the ones mentioned need to be reported to UAA (I am assuming school age kids as creators, intentionally). Today e.g. there was [34] and [35], and two old ones underlining the naming principle: [36] and [37]. Unless they are jokes among friends, I assume kids make such Usernames to bully their victims, though of course I cannot tell if victim ever sees that Username. Can such "victim" ask for it to be blocked / inactivated, if he is sure it was intended for him by a "bully-er" (e.g. by showing the victim or bragging about it)? ing Does it make a diff (pun intended :-) if there is only a first name in the username, or if username is both first name + family name? E.g. "Johnisugly" versus "JohnCooperisugly" (assuming John Cooper is not also a public figure)? John Cooper, of which there may be many, may or may not find out this account exists? Horseless Headman (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

• Yes, they need to be reported and blocked. Yes, if the names actually identify someone, they can be squashed, that is, removed. You can ask a crat, and a crat will say "Oh you moron you should report that at WP:INSERTBLUELINKHERE" or words to that effect. At least that's what Writ Keeper used to tell me, before he forgot about me altogether. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Oh Doc, I would never forget about you. Now, forgetting my password, on the other hand...

    As for the question, the answer is "Oh you wonderful person you should report that at WP:UAA", which you already know, of course.

    If it's *really* bad, like "this absolutely must vanish off the pedia immediately because it breaches privacy or whatever", you can report it to oversight, who can then completely remove it from the logs. Our esteemed Doctor Mies can do that themself, actually, thanks to the OS bit that comes with his shiny badge of Arbcom office. I don't want to discourage you from reporting things to oversight--it's much better to over-report than under-report and the oversighters are a pretty friendly bunch--but oversight is usually reserved only for things that absoultely *must* go, so the vast majority of things don't need to be reported there. The garden variety stuff, like " John(cooper)isugly", can just go through UAA and get blocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

    • Thanks WK--I appreciate the comprehensive note. Yes, I do have that badge, but I need to practice a bit more so, Headless Horseman, report it the way WK suggests.

      Hey, Writ Keeper, I'm watching the Republican debate! It's almost fascinating! It's like...I don't know what it's like, I really don't. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

      • Hello Writ Keeper and Drmies, okay, thanks for the explanations and they (I so far only recall the garden varieties) will go to UAA, and whatever "must", will go via oversight, as explained above. Case by case basis. Yes, having ticked the preferred option my favourite formulation would be

( ) “Oh you moron you should … “

(X) “Oh you wonderful person you should …”. :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

I'm asking here as I don't want to fill up the notice board with a more general question. Firstly, many thanks for your help and for your gentle suggestion that I report more carefully in future. :) My apologies for incorrect reporting, I will be more careful in future. Secondly, looking more carefully (as I should have before), it appears WP:NPOVN might be the correct forum that I should have reported to, is this correct?. Chrisw80 (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Well, Chris, thanks for your note--I think that in this case the report could have ended up at AIV, if preceded by warnings for adding unsourced information (or NPOV, or whatever; I don't know if that's what you and others did or not). I think people forget that there are warnings for those things, and that one can report editors for that. And it's a much easier thing to do, in a way, since "adding unsourced information" is easier to establish. If you want to get strict about it, it was you guys who were reverting...! But in this case, I don't think you have to go to a noticeboard: this was, clearly enough, a kind of disruption. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the additional information! I warned the IP user on their talk page (four vandal progressive warnings) and was reverting based on vandalism guidelines (ie: IAR for vandalism), then I got to AIV and the verbiage seemed to imply that I might not be dealing with strictly vandalism. I was concerned about the lack of communication and repeated re-additions of the unsourced content, so I felt it important to report it somewhere. I certainly erred in several ways myself, will seek to improve, and I have taken to heart your comment "...it was you guys who were reverting...!" and will seek appropriate guidance earlier in the process in future without reverting so much. :) Again, thank you for your time and patience. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Haha, but wait: I didn't say your reverts were wrong or against policy or something like that. What you want to consider is WP:3RRNO--and then think carefully about whether your revert falls in one of those categories. Admins who look at edit warring cases are always interested in whether edits/reverts have decent explanations to go along with them, so my general advice is to think before you revert. 3RR is not a license to revert three times, but if you revert crap edits three times (and if you can argue, of course, that the edits are crap and should be exempt) then you should be OK. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

this. I say no more here, and I shall write no more on the thread. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I saw earlier that you got written up again, but haven't looked at it--that's exciting! Maybe you should try to keep out of trouble! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

seems like an admin closed it. I wanted to call out for a boomerang or at least someone warning the nom, but meh too late. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies, just noticed that Sm Sangeeth is not blocked indefinitely, though the template on his page says that he is. I assume this was an oversight, but I didn't wanna step on your toes, just in case. This was related to the socking situation that included Uploader & Solver and a few others. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. I thought I checked them all but I missed this one. Thanks. What happens is that the default for a checkuserblock (inexplicably) is 31 hours. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• There is actually a reason for that 31 hour default, albeit not a particularly good one. Back in the days before the institutional sockpuppet paranoia was so pronounced, the purpose of blocks in cases that didn't involve actual abuse was to fire a warning shot, rather than to declare editors automatic nonpersons. 31 hours covers the rest of the day and the next school day also, meaning that the bored schoolchildren who historically provided Wikipedia's vandal reservoir had enough time to forget Wikipedia and find something else to do, but not such a long time that people who set up multiple accounts in good faith ("I'm going to use one account for my edits on my work, another for edits on my hobbies, and a third for my potentially embarrassing interest in donkey pornography, to keep the accounts separate") were kicked off Wikipedia forever for an unintentional breach of policy. ‑ Iridescent 17:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I think the user may have just showed up again in sock form: The U Editor renominated Premam at GAN—the article which sock Uploader & Solver nominated, reviewed, and promoted before being caught and the actions unwound—on their very first day of editing. (A similarly named account, The U Imager, showed up a couple of days ago, and has also edited Premam. I've reverted the new nomination, since LadyofShalott added a cleanup template to the article three days ago, right after the GA mess was cleaned up, and it clearly isn't ready for prime time. Once it's blocked, I'm happy to revert another GAN that The U Editor opened today... (PS: I always wondered about the 31 hour period; good to know the logic behind it!) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Cyphoidbomb submitted The U Editor under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sm Sangeeth Sm77 about an hour ago, so it has been reported and is awaiting a CheckUser. I added The U Imager to it, since I can't imagine the two aren't the same person. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Iridescent, that can't have been that long ago, right? I mean, didn't we get this automated stuff only recently, within the last year or so? BTW, I'm all for it--having to pick the right reason for the block and then the right template seems easy, but in practice wasn't always so easy, since the names for templates and reasons didn't always line up perfectly. Anyhoo, I just noticed (cause I had to go back and redo the blocks I just made for BlueMoonset) or remembered that those templated blocks also don't autoblock as a default, and that really should be a given. If you know who runs that department, please pass this on. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, Drmies, for the prompt action. I've now reverted the Mohanlal GA nomination (I reverted the one for Premam when I saw it), so the GAN space is all set (or will be when the speedy deletion on Talk:Premam/GA1, the Uploader & Solver self-review, has been completed). BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• The one-click automation in MediaWiki is new, but its implementation on en-wiki is inherited from the changes in the blocking routines back circa 2007-08 when Huggle (with its automated warn-and-block scripts) was introduced. If you really like raking through the past, MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions#31/36 hour block poll was where it all began. If you want changes to the software, Fluffernutter can probably point you towards who you need to speak to (or just post at WP:VPT and someone will turn up); be aware that any change to the interface, no matter how sensible, will provoke Wailing And Gnashing Of Teeth directed at the proposer. ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, I so like the sound of that! Drmies (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hola! Could I trouble you to please take a look at this AfD and determine whether or not a speedy delete and a salting of the article is warranted? Who am I kidding--of course it is, per this prior AfD. Basically, some sock operator has decided to try to to set up at least three articles on a possibly fake (and most certainly non-notable) actor named Prem Khan. (The other articles are Prem Khan, Prem Khan (actor), and a tangential article, Homing Pigeons, which claims Prem Khan will be starring in an upcoming film. Of course the only references in the article are from 2008, making it unlikely that the film is upcoming.) Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply