Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 103

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105→Archive 110

could you please explain...

Drmies has some 'splainin to do.
Softlavender (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the {{prod}}s you placed on LITPACK and DHI (company), can you reconcile those placements with WP:PROD, which says: "By the same logic, PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for articles PRODed before or previously discussed on AfD." Geo Swan (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I probably could, yes. Drmies (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I mean, I could certainly try. Human nature being what it is, it's not a given, of course. One tries, one has intentions, one means to do what's right, but the frailty of the body or the limited constraints of the human intellect are as powerful, if not more powerful, than the will. And that's before you even get to the demands of the clock, the calendar, the family, the school hours, the demand of work. I mean, I could try to fulfill your desire right now, in fact, I am trying to do that, and what do I find? Nature calls. Drmies (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
ooh, shame. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Fire and rescue services?

Great to see your pruning is as crisp as ever. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Can't teach an old dog new tricks. "Oh please" of course means something like "lists of inventory, while they are (understandably, even if fetishistically) of interest to some, are not of encyclopedic interest". Drmies (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Hope you enjoy chewing over the crisps. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Protection for WWE Universal Championship

Hello, I was wondering if you would put some temporary protection on that page. It concerns a championship in the pay per view tonight, and the vandalism has been picking up lately. Thanks. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you NeilN. I am grateful to all those editors who will make sure that the world will never forget that the color red in the strap of the belt means that the strap of the belt is exclusive to Raw. I'm glad I don't have a belt with a red strap, or I'd have to get rid of it. Or are straps in general exclusive to Raw? I foresee lots of pants falling down to ankles if this is true. Johnsmith2116, I hope you can fix that awful sentence before Martinevans123 or Xanthomelanoussprog come by to make fun of all of us, with small print, erudition, or both. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Alas, WWE is just too hot me and all talk of "Raw" leaves me Pretty Vacant. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
LOL Neil, that edit-war may be a 24-hour World Record. Softlavender (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:VANISHED

My kind fellow user,

I'd like for this account to vanish into thin air too if possible, this one is IT as they say. If you don't want to bother nevermind, all I have to do is never log in again.

All the best --Be Quiet AL (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Just life weariness in general. Thanks, you too! --Be Quiet AL (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's just going to Special:GlobalRenameRequest and putting in something random as your desired username. Probably put something to the effect of "request for courtesy vanish per WP:VANISH" as your reason. Sad to see you go, AL, but I know how it is; always better to do something that gives you joy, even if it's not Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Turning myself in in advance

This page is watched by many admins and other experienced editors. I find myself enmeshed in an edit war at Indecline. I have given my reasoning on the talk page for rejecting the latest changes—a section that I consider utterly undue, including a massive video image link, wording changes that unless I am going senile include a usage error, and banishing the official website link to Wikidata where anyone can change it unobserved to something naughty. I cannot see any justification for these changes. Someone either block me before I make my third revert and get rude in my edit summary, explain to me why this coatracking is good, or get the other editor to stop. It's obviously not vandalism. Maybe I'm wrong. So far their only explanation has amounted to "Any increase in the size of the article is good." Yngvadottir (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Note: On the article's talk page, I have queried Checkingfax about the inflammatory text he added without edit-summary mention, done while adding linespacing so the edit would be invisible. (From some of Yngvy's other corrections I note he made other stealth textual changes as well.) I think it's time Checkingfax's problematic behaviors, of which this is one example, were dealt with. Softlavender (talk)
I've given my perspective there. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well put

Good edit summary![2] Bishzilla has kissed you! Bishonen | talk 03:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingdom_of_North_Sudan

What do you mean that the Kingdom of North Sudan isn't recognized by 'anyone of importance'? What does 'of importance' even mean there? Who may be important to you may not be important to someone else and vice versa. Can you give me an example of who is of importance and who is not of importance? --Turkeybutt (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Eyes/opinions/help needed

I think I originally saw the article Robert Perless mentioned on Binksternet's talkpage, in a thread opened by Eperless, and the identical names caught my eye. This is how I found the article: [3]. It looks like a giant advertisement to me. I took out the Bibliiography just to trim it down a little, and Eperless is edit-warring to add it back even though there is an obvious COI there. Need some sort of help in deciding what to do with this article, which looks more like a personal webpage than a Wikipedia article. Any help from anyone would be appreciated. (I think I'm going to run this by DGG as well.) Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert Perless has been the subject of multiple articles in prominent newspapers and magazines. I wouldn't harm his biography because of his wife who is pushing to have it be as grand as possible. A little trimming can't hurt, especially if quotes are too long, or the prose gets too florid. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I wandered through that article, using a machete and the {{cn}} tag. The overtly promotional language was . . . abundant. Isn't a neutral description of this artist's decades of work enough? Is it really necessary to try to cram brochure language into an encyclopedia article? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I checked out his website. His bibliography refers to 21 articles over the period 1983 to 2006; he has three current commissions on the go, which are for sculptures in a school, a hospital and at 30 Wall Street, New York, USA . The ground through to fourth floors of No. 30 are available for rent, so presumably the sculpture's destined for a higher ground. His wife is a poet and advertising writer. Under "models and presentations" there's a "Sun Dagger" which is going to be located on the campus of UVSC in the Wasatch mountains. UVSC has apparently not been called "UVSC" since 2008, so presumably this dagger's been installed (or maybe not- something financial happened in 2008). His bio is written entirely in the present tense (RP "is born in Brooklyn in 1938 and grows up across from Sheepshead Bay"), which style is reminiscent of the hacks who write books for Dan Cruikshank and Michael Palin. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm yeah. I can't argue with the edits made by Softlavender and Cullen. I would probably also cut the "Selected exhibitions" section since, unverified, it is puffy and adds to the resume-quality of the article (a quality reinforced by style as noted by Xanthomelanoussprog). I left a short note for the editor as well; let's hope they see that WP:RS is not optional, and neither is WP:NPOV. I personally don't care much for the COI; the edits need to be neutral either way. And in this case a COI may well mean we can get access to sources we otherwise can't see. For instance, his wife may have a stack of catalogs which aren't available in Google Books. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record, Eperless did not write the Robert Perless article (nor has she done more than a tiny bit of editing on it: [4]) -- at least she didn't post it, although conceivably since she's an advertising writer she could have ghost-written it. The article was created by Jmoskowitz (a colleague of Robert Perless who has co-patented something with him) via AfC. Eperless has written a different article, Joseph Fuller, which is in fact a much better article (whether or not she has a connection to that person). Anyway, thanks everyone for your help; I just wanted to clarify who posted the article. Softlavender (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC); edited 19:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC): re-edited 22:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Question for Cullen328: Is this a reliable website/source, to your knowledge: [5]? -- Softlavender (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I wonder if Mandarax or his friend Mr. 99 know this--they are my go-to art connoisseurs. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I looked up 20th century artist Anna Sophie Gasteiger, and it shows one of her paintings and two random paintings, one of which is 18th century. So… not reliable. "Birds Nest" Hunt is a bit better. Apparently full text is available on Fridays. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I do not claim to be an expert on AskArt, but my opinion is that it is probably very useful for people why buy and sell art for a living, but probably does not rise to the level of a truly reliable source. It seems clear that artists themselves submit their own biographical information, and galleries and museums submit this information as well. It is unclear how much independent fact checking AskArt does. My hunch is they will find and eliminate complete hoaxes, but a certain amount of puffery will get through. Let's face it: many galleries tell their customers that the artists they show are the greatest thing since Picssso. I have used AskArt several times to get an overview of an artist. If AskArt says that a certain museum displayed work by an artist, I would take that as a clue, and try to find an independent review of the museum exhibition, or a listing on the museum's own website. I would not assume that an artist is notable based just on an AskArt listing. They say that they are inclusionist and try to list every artist whose work is bought and sold. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
          • A recent article in "Antiques Trades Gazette" does cite an AskArt result for an artist. On the other hand, I just looked up an artist who's in a forthcoming auction, and it said that she "is known for painting." She's represented in national collections (apparently) according to another site. I remember a painting done on Swedish hardboard of a park scene (no signature, no attribution, and damaged). Hafs rated it but couldn't guess the artist- it went for about £150, so two bidders at least must have had an idea. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry!

Hey, Drmies, sorry about deleting a category from your userpage that I thought was trolling. The reason I thought so is that a troll had just created that category, giving this edit summary: [6] (sorry, visible to admins only), and was adding people to it. I certainly didn't mean to deprive you of what must be a valuable source of advertising! Luckily Lady of Shallott realized my error and reverted. Enjoy! --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I just protected the redlink, as it was CfD'd in the past, and there isn't really much reason for it to be blue, unless you count the aforementioned advertising benefit. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Fat lot of good it's done for me. I'm probably the only Wikipedian sex worker who has yet to see a client. Eric Corbett, by contrast, is probably rich enough by now to retire in Marbella (I see now he's unsubscribed from the category: good for him). Drmies (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

rape in india

Hi there I have adjusted some words on the kashmir rape issue the source from human rights watch clearly states both india and militant groups so why is this POV? Please reply asap. Rotunga (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not here for the content, Rotunga--I'm just here for the edit warring. Take it up on the article talk page, and discuss it with the users who you are in disagreement with. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Kindness Award

The all-Bird Award
You are very kind, Mies-San. Hafspajen (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Jen-san -- are you back?? Wow! Great to hear it! Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I asked but got only weird answers...--Hafspajen (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC).
  • NO, Soft-San, I am on the contrary - gone. Really gone. Just come back to save my talk-page from certain ... misunderstandings. See talk for a kinda explanation... Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't provide for a safe cyber-environment, so that's that. :) (twisted smile)--Hafspajen (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Kinda explains why someone with a Norwegian IP address tried to get a picture I uploaded deleted on the grounds that it contained some kind of code. The connection is that Hafs added it to the (at that time) relevant article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

notable list discussion

Hello Drmies, could you please review the status of the external list discussion on Time series database#List_of_time_series_databases. We have a stalemate situation there with Highking there, as always. Highking's policy is to delete list entries if the entry has no wikipedia article. I maintain that the notability test is not limited to presence of a linked wikipedia article. Thank you. The discussion is on talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodionos (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Rodionos, I don't see a stalemate there--Beetstra, a seasoned editor and administrator, agrees with HighKing, as far as I can tell. Also, will you please start signing your talk page messages? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Rodionos: the litmus test is not notability of the item, the litmus test is whether you can, in accordance with our verifyability policy and reliable sources guideline, make sure that you can independently show that the item is worth mentioning in the article. None of the items in the list were referenced properly in any way, and none of the items I could not check whether they support time series anyway (even for some of the items that do have their own Wikipedia article there is no mention of time series support in said articles). A self-supported, primary source, claim is not sufficient (and even those are not given). I do note however your declared conflict of interest, and you should be taking extreme care, or better: avoid, editing information regarding your affiliations with extreme care (and I did remove Axibase from the list). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Beetstra: To summarize the suggested policy for list item inclusion is that the item should have a verifyable and independent source confirming support for the technology mentioned in the article. Reference to company article itself is not sufficient. Here's a policy test: should the above policy apply to the following articles which are similar to TSDB: 1) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Complex_event_processing#Notable_vendors_and_products 2) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Graph_database#List_of_graph_databases? Rodionos

Violet Wand Edit

Please use the talk page on the article to discuss such a major edit. Knowledgeable editors have reached consensus on the article, and good wiki protocol really does ask that you discuss, provide rationale, and again reach consensus before making such a major edit to which editors knowledgeable in the field have worked on and regard as important references. The original sources for the information in this article should be properly referenced and credited, and there is probably a better way to do it, but removal should be discussed per wiki etiquette. Will see you on the talk page I hope? Thanks! (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Request to the Very Honourable Drmies

Needs closure after I have withdrawn the nomination: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikolai_Noskov The Banner talk 18:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, you have earned a frikandel for that. The Banner talk 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Out of principle, I do not close XfD's. Not even my own.

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Drmies, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Closure request

Drmies, I've come across a few of your discussion closures in the past and was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Status fields in attraction articles. There's nothing inherently contentious within this discussion, and I realize that any editor (involved or uninvolved) can close it. However, I think it would be best for an uninvolved editor to close this one and provide a good summary, and based on your past closure history, I would greatly appreciate your contribution in this one. I don't have a lot of experience evaluating these! Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Drmies, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Woodstop45 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For one of the best admin whom I like and have a great respect forever. Mona778 (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Aw shucks. I'm still going with Floq as my number 1. I used to think TParis was rock solid and then he disagreed with me once or twice, so he's totally fallen out of the rankings. Kelapstick is of course the biggest fraud there is. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You're right. I should have said, “ one of the best”. What can I say? I'm not a linguist as some people claim they are, but still don't know how to address a woman... Anyway, I'm sorry for not using the proper wording Drmies! I hope you can forgive me. Mona778 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a relevant conversation to that; FYI and reference. Muffled Pocketed 20:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S-Bus

What was the WP:DEL-REASON?  Why the delete closing?  This appears to be a consensus to delete and redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  • You are welcome to make the redirect. It's not hard--though I note that you got scolded in that AfD for failing to understand the AfD and the subject. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on someone's talk page

Nagoro. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

  • New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
  • Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
  • TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
  • OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Semil_Shah

I propose that you revert your close.  BTW, I won't need to make a preliminary trip to RSN, see [7].  In case you've forgotten, the last time I tried to talk to you here, you stonewalled...while your revert as I recall was unanimously overturned by five editors who supported me.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  • You're talking about a business listing, directory-style, in Bloomberg. You're not talking about an article published in Businessweek. Good luck getting that through RSN. K.e.coffman, David Gerard, you may have an opinion here. And yes, Unscintillating, despite your supercool username I prefer to stonewall you, since you appear to be both incapable of listening and very persistent. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: the Bloomberg entries state: "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by Capital IQ, a Standard & Poor's company. Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content." I've looked at RSN to see if Capital IQ came up, but could not find any mentions. I'm not familiar with Capital IQ, and would be curious to hear more about whether that's an acceptable source for articles. See for example this entry on Lisa Tenner:
  • "Mrs. Tenner has over the past 20 years garnered a highly respected reputation as one of the music industry's most savvy talent builders and brand marketers--developing and guiding the careers of bands from unknowns to superstars. Mrs. Tenner has moved her talent to the Corporate world representing major companies such as ..."
The peacock language and strange capitalisation in "Corporate world" suggests that this may be self-sourced to the subject, or at least not subject to rigorous fact-checking/editorial oversight. For now, I'd say it's reliable to confirm that a company or a business personality exists, but not sure about the rest. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Reaching the decision at the Semil Shah AfD

The deletion guideline Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators states, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted."  As per the information page Wikipedia:Closing discussions, please "transparently explain how the decision was reached."  Please include analysis of the strength of argument regarding WP:DEL8 and WP:DEL14.  For the WP:DEL8 arguments, please include the strength of argument regarding WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.  Please include the WP:DEL-REASON or reasons for your closing.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The notion that a profile of a corporate executive created by S&P Capital IQ and then repackaged by Bloomberg somehow creates notability here on Wikipedia is utterly bizarre to me. S&P Capital IQ is not a reliable source with independent editorial control. Its goal is to provide (among other things) LinkedIn style profiles of every single senior executive of every single publicly traded corporation. It relies on information provided by the corporations, and uses automated data analytics techniques to generate its content. If Semi Shah is notable based on such content, then every single senior corporate executive is de facto notable, and that is a state of affairs that I will not accept without a fight. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Frank.e.white

Loooong night at work—I said I was going to ping you there and then forgot to put in the wigglies. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Tera Intezaar

Hello, I noticed that you deleted Tera Intezaar as it was redirected to Arbaaz Khan (Pakistani actor). But why have you deleted the Tera Intezaar film article. I had redirected the article to Arbaaz Khan (Pakistani actor) as the principal photography of the film hadn't started. You had redirected the article to Sunny Leone as she is also working in the film instead of deleting it. Why had you deleted the film article? What problem was there in it? Now please restore the article and redirect it to Sunny Leone article. Once the principal photography starts, I will restore the article. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 05:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it was my mistake! I had redirected the article to wrong person's article. The correct person is Arbaaz Khan (Indian actor), who is working in the film. And have you checked the Tera Intezaar article's history? Just check the article's history, and you will get to know everything. Now the shooting of the film has started. Here's the reliable source. Now just restore the article and also undo the last revision of the article. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 17:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I did check the history, and it contains nothing but the redirects. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, but can you restore the article? I will create the content in the article with reliable sources. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no article (sorry, but that's the third time I'm saying this), and creating an article, you can do that yourself. You don't need me for that. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Supposition of a misrepresentation

Hello. It appears to me that there has been, what I consider to be, a serious misrepresentation of my editing style and Ivote history here [8]. Specifically, I have never cited a business directory as evidence of notability anywhere, including this AfD. Please read my Ivotes and comments in the AfD and you will see this. Also, I am thinking you must have meant someone else. In any case, please remove that portion of this comment that states that I, in any way, cite a business directory as evidence of notability. This is not cool. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, now I see what you are saying - you are "talking" to me, not citing me as saying a business directory is evidence of notability. Well, sorry for this misunderstanding. Ciao. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I was talking to you, confirming that the source was not an acceptable measure of notability, and adding to it Cullen's comments on it--to bolster the argument you made earlier and counter the objection made to it, yes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 1

An editor has asked for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 1. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Dollhouse (Melanie Martinez song)

To be honest I can't remember if a ib counts a content. I didn't think it does but I'll defer to your opinion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) What about A7, no musical significance? Although she is an artist of sufficient note that most of her songs could credibly have a small article on them. I also note that it was CSD'd seven minutes after creation; that's pretty rotten! Muffled Pocketed 03:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, there's WP:A9, which doesn't supply here (thanks to a critically placed "and"). NSONG has specific guidelines for this, but A7 certainly doesn't apply.

    Kudpung, I remember this came up not too long before I did my RfA, though I can't remember where, but I remember thinking about it and agreeing with it: the argument was that plenty information can be pulled from the infobox to write a sentence or two. It's obvious that in this case we know this was a single, from a certain year, by a certain artist, etc.--it's not an empty article. User:ThE~fUtUrE~2014, I hope you're reading along: in my opinion, WP:A1 simply does not apply. CSD is a quick way to try and get stuff deleted, but that also makes it a tool that should be handled with care, and admins will (or should) look carefully whether it fits the bill or not. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it waz A9 I was thinking of. Oddly, the article seems to have disappeared now! Muffled Pocketed 04:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Haha yes, there's a few editors that claim that redirecting is just another form of deletion. Note that this one comes with a very special template, which I'd never seen before. Thanks User:JJMC89, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, I've just gotta go and redirect Comfortably Numb... Back in a sec... Muffled Pocketed 04:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Spamming edit-warring IP

Need an admin to look at and deal with this. IP repeatedly spamming various wiki articles with promotional mentions of someone (non-notable: [9], [10]) called "Thais Sher". I've given them five different warnings and even some advice but they just keep bulldozing away. Please help:

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

Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of dog/rap disruption, do you think the wiki would benefit from having a page describing the guy, an LTA page? Or is it unnecessary? As far as I can tell, he's been at it since November 2014, but maybe earlier.[11][12] I notice you've blocked him many times, including two registered accounts.[13][14] One school of thought is that LTA pages help with continuity, providing institutional memory. The other school of thought tries to avoid giving the vandal the satisfaction of having a page dedicated to them. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Bink, and thanks for helping out. I am of the first school; I believe in institutional memory. If you don't mind starting it, I'll support--and there are plenty of others who can pitch in. Thanks again. Drmies 16:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

hey

Sorry if I filed this in the wrong place. Should I move it to arbitration enforcement? I don't think any active arbitration measures have been violated, just WP:TPO, but I'm not really an expert. LavaBaron (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • No, you're not in the wrong place, necessarily (I just commented there again), but I didn't know you were aware of the other place. I don't know if DHeyward has been formally alerted, but he certainly knows about the case. As for a possible violation--well, discretionary sanctions are also for infractions of all the "usual" policies, per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors. So if a talk page rule has been violated, it can be deemed to be a violation of the specific discretionary measures for the article. If, for instance, ... let's see... let's say someone makes a personal attack on that talk page. Let's say DHeyward called you a "yeasty ill-nurtured hedge-pig". Regular PA, Shakespeare-style. I wouldn't call that a violation of those measures, since there's nothing "American political" about it. If he called you a "pinko left-wing Bernie-kissing POV partisan baby-killing swine who is trying to blackball Donald Trump", it would be a different case, I would imagine, since that's the kind of behavior that was part of the ArbCom case. So it's kind of up to you, I suppose, and whoever looks at the case at AE may not see a violation. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
10-4, thanks for the clarification. To be clear, as I don't want to make unwarranted accusations, he's been perfectly civil to me. I just don't like my comments being modified by other editors and was under the impression that was about a 9 out of 10 on the scale Wiki-NoNo severity ... and randomly yelling "BLP" or "Copyvio" before doing it, as though those are immunity idols, is just weird. :) I'd be filing this issue if he was modifying my Talk comments at pizza party or My Little Pony, the ArbCom case isn't really a factor (for me, at least). Anyway, have a good night. LavaBaron (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
LOL thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Reports of death greatly exaggerated

If the good Dr or talk page-stalking admins are still awake in the east, perhaps you can assist with Alvin Toles, and restore a version of the article that will bring him back to life. The page is now locked, he's, alas, rather dead, and I'm calling it a day. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

All appears resolved. Nothing to see here, keep moving. 2601:188:1:AEA0:19F6:B75D:5103:599C (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to figure out what's going on. He was killed by R257kty, I believe, in what is very difficult to read as a good-faith edit. Ah OK, and then Nakon blocks the wrong guy. Oops. Well, they unblocked and apologized. I don't really know why those edit summaries had to go, but OK. I'll go ahead and take of the original culprit per NOTHERE. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I was mystified by the removal of the edit history as well--it appears that Nakon targeted those edits as part of the initial mistake--but in the end all seems to have been corrected. Thanks for blocking the account that started the ball rolling. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings

Enjoy! ... but don't do anything rash errr... Have a great day!
Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Fetty Wap's "attorney" or something

Hoping for help from you or a friendly TPS with a situation I don't have time to deal with at this instant as I'm about to get on the road for the holiday: Please take a look at [16]. The author of Mr. Gray's rejected-by-AFC bio has inserted this unsourced, at-best-poorly-worded commentary into the lede for a variety of articles about individual Fetty Wap album tracks. Apart from the absence of sources, the notion that an attorney had to approve of the release of the material (which is the implication I get from the insertion) is troubling at a WP:BLP level. I reverted a few of them but I have to be out the door -3 minutes ago. (I only even looked at it from "Recent changes" because the name "Fetty Wap" pleases me for some reason, even though I have no clue what his music sounds like; I'm more of a The Muffs fan myself.) A fine holiday weekend to all for whom it's applicable! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

These have now all been reverted and C.Fred has left a polite enquiry on the editor's talk page. In my personal opinion, it's not really a BLP problem, but it is spam. MPS1992 (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The silliness has now intensified at User talk:Thesocialsocietyus#Repeated insertion of attorney's name, but the editor has not added or re-added name-drops anywhere, so far. MPS1992 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton and National Merit Scholarship Program

Dr and dedicated talk page stalkers: An edit war here over including Ms. Clinton. It looks to me like a WP:SPA is trying to squeeze her onto the list, even if it means changing the criteria. I'm not reverting, out of concern for ratcheting up the warring, but it looks like page protection or a block will be necessary. And very happy holiday to you from 99. Here a tree came down on some lines this afternoon, electricity was cut, and the good lord has graced me with a new IP. More fringe breezes from the hurricane expected. 2601:188:1:AEA0:29BC:5FA0:3D1C:16C1 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

So noted; your edits were quickly reverted. 2601:188:1:AEA0:BC62:BFD6:7849:F056 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Well they got three days off for their troubles, and I indef blocked their sockpuppet. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, kelapstick. I did revert their edits after all, with rationale explained at the article talk page. Most sources refer to Clinton as having been a finalist. 2601:188:1:AEA0:BC62:BFD6:7849:F056 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User Rash014

Hello Doctor. Since your good advice didn't work I'm afraid I had to prescribe some stronger medicine. Regards, De728631 (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's another fun one

Two accounts trafficking in similar chatter. Make of this what you will [17]; [18], but these appear to be using Wikipedia to promote fringe anarchist fun. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

...and another

Dr, perhaps you or a talk page stalker could have a look here [19] I suspect a couple of 2607 accounts may be our old friend the dog/rapper sock. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Methinks a lot of editors are ahead of me on this. Late to the party, again. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Rania (band)

Hi Doc. Rania (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). We have a bit of a problem in that article with an SPA/probable sock. Thanks. Dr. K. 03:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • OK--well, there is no point in running CU. But the last set was blocked by Ponyo, who is the Goddess of All Living Things and Computers Too. If you can present a few diffs and add it to the SPI (you've been there before, I see)... I know it's a drag, but I can't help you much more right now. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yup, no CU can help with this. SPI is also premature at this stage. The best way forward at this juncture would be to just deal with the continuing disruption itself, minus the SPI component. If the account adds the table back to the article, I will let you know. Dr. K. 04:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

For your enjoyment

Sometimes I almost hate to revert the bullshit [20]. But revert we must. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:BC62:BFD6:7849:F056 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You must be thinking of South Park. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I actually assumed good faith long enough to Google for sources. Talk about needing a vacation. 2601:188:1:AEA0:BC62:BFD6:7849:F056 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that's an interesting case. It was created by one new editor with that story, another new editor later worked on it, Google Maps does indeed show it, and someone has added a book about Bad Reichenhall that may or may not mention it; but I see no sign at all that it is notable, let alone one of the most historic parks in Bad Reichenhall. I think our legs are being pulled. Trying to think of what would be appropriate - a PROD? Yngvadottir (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems best. I had looked, too. I think I may already have gone down in history as the editor who (successfully) created Techno Viking. And Autocunnilingus. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Damn. I miss it already. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Without looking, can you guess what Radical Action to Unseat the Hold of Monkey Mind is? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, it's obviously a book or an album. No, it's a pamphlet. I detect a sense of humor, so it's left-wing, maybe from Berkeley. Written by someone who started a PhD program but quit halfway through coursework. It got picked up by Buzzfeed which is why we call it notable. The cover conflates Desmond Morris and Public Enemy, and the author (who illustrates his own stuff) could have done a better job not to look like a damn racist; I know he was just playing on stereotypes but he unwittingly perpetuates them. There's an entire chapter devoted to Bush reading a children's book to a class full of school kids while someone whispers "9/11" in his ear, and he's thinking "we had that scheduled for tomorrow!" How close am I? Drmies (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Respect

Thanks for keeping an eye out for sourcing; I hadn't thought about the claims on the Old Crow page quite so in-depth. As I'm sure you'll notice, I re-sourced Henry Clay and re-added a couple of the popular references that I was able to source. Let me know if you have further input. Have a good one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon49522 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Showtek discography

Per your "why on earth would we list "other tracks"?" edit summary, is there actually any policy that specifies discographies cannot or should not list not other songs or remixes that a band or musical outfit made? Especially with dance acts, plenty of songs that they actually make and upload to the internet are not included on albums or released as commercial singles. Discographies are not limited to singles and albums; they are for official releases, and if a musical outfit releases them to the Internet on an official account under their own name, as Showtek did mostly on Beatport, they are official. If your issue was that they were unreferenced, then fair enough, but there is no discography guideline saying "Do not list other tracks a musician/band has made." It's cutting out a large part of their discography to "prune" it and many discographies actually do include these sections with references. Ss112 12:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • But if there are no references, no indication that it's either true, really released in any kind of format, and noteworthy, why should everything be listed? For poets we don't list every individual poem they published, for scholars we don't list every individual article they published--the problem is that you have barely verified articles on minor artists with a thousand tracks listed. That's poor article writing, and what purpose does it serve besides as a resume? And why are we always asking for policy when judgment is just as important? Seriously, who cares whether someone uploaded a song to the internet, to use your words? Drmies (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And, Ss112, I don't know how you get off calling other editors "lazy" in your edit summaries. You managed to add 9000 bytes of factoids to an already poor article, and where you talk about "references" you add itunes. Which is a kind of a reference, but it's also a really lazy one (couldn't be bothered to find secondary sources?), and how is it not simply spam? And you're doing all of this for an act which released two (2) albums on a non-notable label. Is there a single proper secondary source in that entire Reflist? Drmies (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
"No indication that it's true" – all those can be found on their official Beatport, which they have maintained for years. Most were downloads; some were 12"s or 7"s, which is why some other sources are listed.
"Noteworthy" – That's a matter of opinion. The act has an article; some of their releases charted; they released the songs officially. That's notable enough for me, maybe not for you. Is your idea of an actual act's noteworthiness how many albums they released? I see you promoted Kronos Quartet discography to featured list status—I wouldn't even consider them notable enough to have a separate discography, so clearly it's a matter of opinion.
"No secondary sources" – I tried; there aren't (m)any, especially for over 10-year-old songs. If you think I'm being hypocritical, then maybe you should try finding some, but chances are you don't care enough. I'm really confused as to what actual secondary sources I would be sourcing in this hypothetical situation. Articles written about Showtek's plethora of early releases? I don't think so.
"Factoids"? What? They were singles. I don't even know what you're trying to say at this point. "How is it not simply spam?" Wow, okay. Maybe because I actually referenced and took a bit more of an effort than the editor I called lazy? Your idea of spam is way off.
"Get off calling other editors "lazy"". You do realise I'm not calling you lazy, right? That was to Jax 0677, who multiple others have called "lazy" for his tagging habits on many other articles. I've also confronted him with that, and he refuses to change. He doesn't add any sources, iTunes or not.
"A resume" – if you actually think I care that much about Showtek besides trying to find a few references and add them to the article, you're mistaken. I obviously care more to find "a really lazy" few references than you, to use your words, but I don't care to present every song they released, or make them seem more prolific than they actually were, because there's probably dozens more I'm omitting. Ss112 16:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
So to answer your question, "where I get off" calling others lazy is where I can actually find "really lazy" iTunes+Volumeet+Discogs references and use them, unlike others, who don't even do that. If there were "secondary sources" to use, seemingly the only important sources to you, I would. Obviously you don't like your edits being taken issue with; well, I don't either, especially when you're painting me as lazy when those I'm calling lazy do even less. Pruning articles is very lazy too. It takes no effort to press the backspace button, especially when you don't care. Ss112 16:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Beatport is an online store. And "they" have maintained it for years? Do you see how that disqualifies that site as a reliable source by our policies? Your comment on Kronos is so ridiculous that I don't see why I should answer the rest of it. That kind of notability is not a matter of opinion or judgment; notability comes from reliable sources saying some act is notable. You still have none for Showtek. Come back when you figure that out. And don't place insults in edit summaries, no matter to whom. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Magic

Re [21]. If there is no link, the page needs to be WP:PURGED. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Have You Noticed A Glitch?

Is it just me, or is there some sort of formatting error with the automatic taxobox and speciesbox templates?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The Roosh socks

Thanks for your help with this. FYI, the Institute and "offer advice" were both added by our blocked friends. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ailke Westerhof

Hetty Blok as nurse Klivia in Ja zuster, nee zuster.

I just translated Ailke Westerhof, a Dutch nurse who aided the Serbs during two wars. The article could use some polish if you have the time and inclination. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes--I suppose I have to write up that article. Problem is it's kind of unclear, but there's a source there. What is not clear to me is whether this specific one is indeed the one she was associated with; I'm looking at the sources (need to link those in the references) but haven't seen anything more specific than "vrijwillige burgerwacht", in lowercase. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This is funny. Look for her in Google. The little bio, linked to Wikipedia, that shows up on the right--OMG IT LOOKS LIKE A DAMN INFOBOX--seems to lack a death date. She's 140 years old. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Urgent matter

If you're going to be online for a while, I'd like to email you about a sensitive and urgent matter that I don't want to discuss here. Let me know. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Email sent. Watching paint dry may be more exciting than the game. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Unless you're Nick Saban, in which case you just blew a ventricle. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
LOL. I'm sure he's quite excited right now. Sundayclose (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Cause you're special. Mona778 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Compare

I smiled when I saw your image, remembering mine. Mine is more colourful, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

What is it about these religious figures?

Remember Fanny Crosby? Take a look at the 108 k of stuff at Ramana Maharshi. What is it about these religious types that causes so much cruft to sprout? - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Sitush, that may be valid, but still it's nothing compared the shit generated by editors of manga, anime, rassling, comics, superheroes, eSports, monster trucks, K-pop and J-pop, and apparently EDM as well. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • EDM? You have lost me there. One things I don't like about the yogi-type articles is that they tend often to be more or less walled gardens. In the one I linked, for example, major sources include his disciples/hangers-on/latter-day followers, all of whom appear to be in awe of him (naturally, given their POV). It's as if people completely forget about "independent". - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ramana Maharshi is some sort of blanket projection screen for all sorts of spiritual seekers. His 'spontaneous awakening experience' makes him attractive for the lack of hard work, while his 'awakening experience' can be interpreted in many ways. Personally, I think he suffered form epilepsy... Drmies removed an extended note which gives a description of a set of symptoms which match neatly with auras of temporal lobe epilepsy. No reliable sources on that, only my personal conclusions, so not worthy of inclusion. But I've got enough faith in my own academical skills to deem this conclusion at least likely. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • JJ, I scrapped some stuff because it seemed to me esoteric to the focus of the article--and yeah, no OR, sir! Now, Sitush knows a bit about editing, and you know a bit about the subject; surely you two can make some positive change happen. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination - Successful

Hey Drmies

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways). Congratulations and thank you for your hard work!

Please email us at merchandise@wikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt.

Thanks! Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  • FO SHIZZLE? AND WHO SAYS YOUR TIME ON WIKIPEDIA IS WASTED! And I want you all to know that I ALSO won the "Find the State" contest in the AAA magazine, and received a travel mug. So if there comes a time you have to decide if you want to be on my side or not, remember that I am clearly and providentially a winner. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with vandalism and page protection

Please, Dr, at Jimmy Garoppolo. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:9825:2A41:2ECE:E32B (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Lifting of poetic prose

I noticed that User:This place of saints and celluloid lifted text from your user page, and he/she/it created a username that relates to your phrase. Thanks. --Wiki user account (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Interesting (and you are too). I think I saw this borrowed somewhere earlier, a few weeks ago. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Archived so that it can be indexed by Google: archive.is --66.87.119.99 (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
      • You've done mankind a great service. Funny you bring this up this morning, just when I got done reading the last prose-poem in Tim Earley's latest and stunning/shocking/totally weird/mindblowing collection, The Center Is Barbaric, The Periphery Is Without Lights. Maybe Tim won't mind a little quote from "An Honest & Sensitive Appreciation of Each Viable Narrative":

        In the sore palace we inhabited perspective roles. Everyone got along mostly for awhile. Filch strangled the goats. Rusty plugged the leaks. Twila soldered the fractals. Immagium shat on all of our heads. I writ a newspaper article calling for trenchance in the face of leisure. The cavalier peered into our shantum with his teleoscope. The pressure was gradually increased. I could no longer face the wyrm hatching an egg lactating the batter whoosh the exhaustion and to learn my depression was caused by a parasite with rubbery nubs for teeth was just the most overweening mortician's drink I had ever tasted.

        I think he's laying it on a bit too thick with the mortician's drink, but it's a pretty cool appreciation of certain narratives. (I proofread it: there are no typos.) If you want to know what happened to Filch, Rusty, Twila, and Immagium, you'll just have to get your own copy. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD, anyone?

Hi Drmies and talk page stalkers, Jeffrey N. Price doesn't look to me to come close to meeting notability guidelines. Anyone want to nominate this for deletion, or think that given time, sources can be found to rescue? My sense is that the creator has taken his best shot already, and there's nothing there, there. Thanks from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The article creator is a newbie and SPA, and there's no way of telling his research skills. I suggest putting the talk-page banner that gives the various search links (I don't know the name of that template or I'd do it myself) on the article's talk page, so people can more accurately assess coverage before AfDing. There's also a question of whether he is normally referred to online with the middle initial or not, which would affect search results. Softlavender (talk)
A helpful banner has been added, as well as a reference to the prod I added and was removed by the article's creator. I do think they were falsely heartened by the article passing speedy deletion, and believe that all subsequent challenges are invalid. The reasonable suggestion that it be moved to userspace has thus far been ignored. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
There appear to be at least five photographers called Jeff Price- two in the UK, one in the US, one in the Virgin Isles and one in the AfD queue. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't care anymore. Please be so good as to remove this thread for me. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait--I just prodded it. It was prodded already? I didn't see anything on the creator's talk page, though I did note they removed a CSD template themselves. Drmies (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't learn your lesson from this. Plus PRODs do not absolutely require user-talk notification. (Nor, technically, do the other forms of deletion nomination absolutely require user-talk notification -- "should" does not equal "must".) That's why article creators can get screwed if they go on a wikibreak of more than six days. Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone, like me, tried to click on this above this is where it points to: User_talk:Drmies/Archive_103#could_you_please_explain..., I think. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Redaction of 108 revisions at once

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Clearing a 10.5 year length of copyright infringements by removing all of the copyvios and redacting 108 infringing revisions keeps Wikipedia safe. 86.22.8.235 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Haha, better late than never! I think you saw there were two copyvios in there; one was spotted years and years ago but never removed from the history; I assume they were less picky in 2006 and 2007. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


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

RevDel

Hi, I need the couple of warnings I left on someone's talk page to be rev-deleted. Can you do that for me? Thanks. Mona778 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  • My dear Mona, you know I love you but I can't do that; the rules for rev-deletion are pretty strict. See WP:CRD. Best course of action is to remove them and leave a note, and an apology if necessary. If you left a warning which was unwarranted, I'm afraid you just have to bite the bullet... Drmies (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Thomas J. Farrell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas J. Farrell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Farrell (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

==

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

==

Jeez.. Irondome (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
? Drmies (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Failed humour attempt on templates sizes. I'l get my coat Irondome (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
How did you make the edit button disappear? Drmies (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I have been sleeping off several ales in a dark corner of your t/p all night. I may have broken it due to thrashing around. I dreamed of melons, they were all around me. Do you have any aspirin by the way? Irondome (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sro's doing it again!

It looks like your frank discussion against sro23 hasn't convinced him much, if at all. He still thinks he's duty-bound to revert, revert, revert, like a dumb robot, even if that means deliberately breaking MoS to do it. You'd think he'd try to be PRODuctive instead of destructive! Have a look at 97.117.36.114 (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)'s contributions, please.

  • You know, I believe Sro should have acted differently then, and I appreciate the "semi-wise" thing (it's better to be called semi-wise than a complete asshole), but with edit summaries like the ones you made you're not going to make a lot of headway or accomplish what you ostensibly want to accomplish. Plus, I find it difficult to talk to you since I don't know if, how, and when I talked to you before, and that also inhibits my interest in any validity of your complaint. (As a side note, I'm not hip to the topic of The/the, though I gladly acknowledge owning and enjoying Mind Bomb.) Drmies (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
All right, Drmies, what do you mean about "if, how, and when" you've talked to me before? Everyone you've ever talked to is someone that you've had your first time of talking to, but you've still talked to them. Correct? Why should that be any different with me?
Heh, nice reference to the band The The. Haha, yeah, I say "semi-wise" rather than just "wise" because for now you seem to be one of the wiser Wikipedia admins, but... well... you're a Wikipedia admin. So yeah, consider that a bit of a compliment, and better than a poke in the eye! Right?
So okay then, if you suggest to me something new to use in my edit summary when sro and others ignore the counsel, and if I do use it, will you please help me restore those MOS-directed changes to those articles? And will you also instruct Timothyjosephwood to heed the rules too? He seems to be a meatpuppet of SRO because when SRO gets tired he takes over. That's not right either, is it? 97.117.21.93 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You're an IP editor. IPs change. My brain is old. I suppose you're the same person that started this thread, but since I am a Trump man I can't believe anything unless it comes straight from the horse's mouth. Maybe you and I have been talking for years, maybe not. There is someone like you in England, somewhere in the south. There is someone like you in South America. There is someone like you who emailed ArbCom. There was someone like you somewhere in the US, I can't remember. I hope you see my point. This road, however, I have traveled many times before and it gets tedious. Sure you're right, who knows, sure IP editors get short-changed frequently, but yelling at those who made those mistakes doesn't help much. The higher the horse you climb on the less likely you are to get what you want. That's not right but that's the way it is. I nor my fellow admins get paid; we do not have a sworn duty to uphold the rights of those who feel mistreated by other editors, though frequently we will try to act like we have that duty--but none of us like doing this under compulsion. A better thing to do is to quickly seek recourse, in neutral terms, for contentious edits--by which I mean good-faith edits by IP editors reverted for no valid reason. Maybe we should have a noticeboard for that, and I guess I'm only half-kidding.

As for this matter, I know very little about capitals and the MOS; you're better off posting at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, maybe. And while you and I (whoever you are) might get along very well, your calling an editor another's meatpuppet rubs me the wrong way. If I got paid I might not care, and this likely makes me less than semi-wise, but there it is. Sro23, is there anything I need to look at? Because if the the IP talks uncollegially but still has a valid point, then you and I, with our beautifully registered user names, still look like dicks. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, Drmies, yeah, I'm the same editor as the one who posted this thread. I do have a dynamic address just like probably 78+% of other IP-based editors here do. I'm not saying that we've been talking for years, but what I am saying is that even if that was the first time we had ever talked, you shouldn't say that because of that it's hard for you to talk to me, or you'd have to apply that to every person whose first time that was of your talking to them. And now that we've certainly talked to each other more than once, that whole point (if it could even be thought of as such) is moot anyway. Right?
My main point is that you suggested to him that he not just blindly revert good edits--especially those that: removed vandalism, corrected errors, and brought the article to MOS standards--just because he thinks the editor who made them is a sock, because doing so just harms the encyclopedia more than it helps, even if that means that the editions of someone he believes is a sock get to stay intact.
Drmies, I thought it was up to every Wikipedia admin. to be familiar with all the MOS rules and enforce them. But how that particular point of the MOS works is that for some reason, even though with most trademarks that start with "The," the "the" should be capitalized everywhere, in band names it shouldn't be. So if you look at all those bands that I edited using my other IP addresses (were I gave you the link to my contributions), I've corrected those "Thes" to "the." But then because sro thinks I'm a sock, he changes them all back, against the rules--and therefore, at the detriment of--the Wikipedia, just like you asked him not to (or whatever your interpretation of that is: suggested, cautioned, etc.; I'm not trying to put words onto your keyboard).
And now it appears that Timothyjosephwood seems to be doing the same thing, because I've told him in every edit summary to go have a look at the MOS section where WP:BANDNAME and MOS:THECAPS are, and he just flipped them back anyway. For example, The Oak Ridge Boys, among many others.
I did not call anyone a meatpuppet in front of you. I only suggested that he seemed like one. But while we're on that topic, why would you have a problem with if I were to have called him a meatpuppet, if you probably run into people every day or two whom you or other editors would call meatpuppets or even sockpuppets, or would at least suggest it, and you wouldn't have a problem with that? What do you believe is the difference? 97.117.21.93 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You said one editor seems to be a meatpuppet of another, in this thread. So, sorry, but huh? And I don't run into people who call each other that all the time or every day. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
And please don't write insulting edit summaries again, esp. not with my name in it. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sro23, Timothyjosephwood, have you seen WP:BANDNAME? I don't know where all these articles are y'all are fighting over, though I just saw a bunch of edits reverted a few days ago by yet another editor, also without edit summaries--this has to stop. If the IP is right, let it stand. If they're wrong, explain why--blocked under another IP or not. Next time it will be someone else, and they also deserve to have an edit stand if it's good, or a revert explained.

    IP, what you did to The The looks decidedly ugly, and I was not aware of that section in the MOS. Perhaps some of the editors who occasionally pass by this page have something to add here. The less I have to have conversations like this, the more likely I will die a less unhappy death should it strike me suddenly before I retire from Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

    As I said on the brief conversation on my talk, I believe both our reversions were based on sock of a banned/blocked user, which seemed fairly obvious given their edit summaries. It wasn't until later that they started citing BANDNAME in their edit summaries, at which point they were definitely a sock of at least a blocked IP, per the immediately prior AIV block.
    Overall, my opinion on the capitalization of the is mostly: who really cares? To which the answer is apparently many many socks of a user who seemed to have been banned/blocked a dozen times or more. As a person who has apparently caused a truck load of long term disruption, and wasted countless hours of community time, I have very little sympathy for who is and who isn't correct is an exceedingly minor and pedantic grammatical spat in which I have no personal stake or opinion.
    If the user desires, and is able to make lasting meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia, the correct course of action is to own up to whomever they originally were, follow the channels to request an unblock, and then continue to edit constructively. The incorrect course of action is to try to wikilawyer a way around sanctions. TimothyJosephWood 12:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • IP, is this true? Are you Stylized, stylized one way or the other? User:Timothyjosephwood, thank you for your response, but I maintain that there is no purpose in reverting good edits. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The net result of such reverting is not less of a waste of time--since here we are. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Thanks for your replies, Drmies. What do you believe to be my insulting summaries? Saying that someone's foolish for continuing to revert stuff against MOS is considered an insult? I will now do my best not to insult people in edit summaries. But why is it okay, then, for other people to call someone's edits vandalism and not be considered insulting?
  • Yes, I said he seemed to be a meatpuppet (at that time, I obviously can't be sure of that); I did not call him one. There's a difference. But even if your issue is that I even said that he seemed to be one, why is that a problem for you, even though so many users call others sockpuppets and you don't have a problem with that? Why is it worse, to you, for me to say that I believe someone's a meatpuppet (which isn't even as bad as being a sockpuppet) than it is for someone else to say that they believe someone's a sockpuppet?
  • Just because the The The "the The" (hmm, "Buffalo buffalo buffalo...") looks ugly to you is no good reason to change it back against the implied consensus of the MOS, right? Okay, well you haven't changed it back yet, so that's good. Just one more article that follows the rules that I've seen others try to enforce in other articles. Right?
  • Now please invite dmacks and neiln to stop getting in the way of this process also.
  • Timothyjosephwood, just because someone wants editors to refer to a piece of MOS and follow it does not mean they are just one person. Have you never seen the fights between editors in talk:The Beatles? You don't think all those conversations in favor of the MOS are just me pretending to be all those people, do you really? It's not pedantic for someone to want to help make sure things are following the rules. Also, the "The/the" thing isn't even a grammatical thing; it's a style; hence its presence in the manual of... style. It does seem a bit weird that band names should be treated differently from other trademarks that start with "The", but as long as there's a rule saying so, should we not all be trying to make all articles that it applies to consistent with it? 97.117.46.41 (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Eh. Block IP, leave uncontroversial good edits alone. --NeilN talk to me 07:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


Hey, Drmies, I was just patrolling sro23 for a minute and I found this conversation between him and a guy named Broganisms. In it, sro is doing exactly the thing that you scolded me for doing in my edit summaries (insulting a person, calling him a creep). When I did it (with a different insult), you or other admins reversed not only the changes I made, but erased my edit summaries. I periodically look users' contributions up to see what they're up to, and I've even seen someone get punished for calling him exactly this thing that he called a user here: a creep. Now, if you were going to be a diplomatically correct admin., what do you think the best thing to do to sro for using that insult is, if you're going to remove my stuff that insulted him, and if someone else was punished for insulting him? Shouldn't you maybe... refactor his comment or even remove it, and even block him for a time? Or... at least something like that, right? 97.117.16.216 (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Why don't you just remove it yourself? Are you Stylized? Mike V, Bbb23, do you find this IP of interest? IP, I don't wish to enter a discussion with you anymore. If you came in good faith, I'd serve you milk and cookies, but you are too unfriendly and too demanding, and this popping up all over the place, checking people out and then coming to me to complain, that's creepy. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Drmies, if I've ever been unfriendly or demanding to you during discussion in this thread, then I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be demanding; just showing you what sro was doing even after you discussed against it with him. In what way does that seem demanding to you?And what do you believe I've said to or about you that has seemed unfriendly in your eyes? And why doesn't sro's unfriendliness with that insult I just alerted you to cause the same kind of concern? Even if I thought it was true that he had a meatpuppet and you would still put me in trouble for using that insult, and he thinks it's true that someone was being a creep, why don't you do the same kind of thing to him for using that insult?
I certainly can remove it myself, but I believe he would just keep replacing it, so I came to you to see what you'd do about it, especially since you have already told me that I wasn't allowed to insult him. So it is only right that you also enforce that he not use insults either. Is that not right?
Why do you feel like I'm not in good faith with this complaint? And why is it not okay, to you, that I look at sro's contributions to see what he's been up to if I've seen him and other editors, and some of you admins, do the same thing, including some seemingly random editor coming out of the wormholes in the wood to revert someone's comments on a third person's talk page and you don't consider that creepy? What's the difference to you? One of the 97 IPs (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97 IP (talk • contribs)
You're yet another sock of a blocked editor, and you don't own up to it. That's not good faith. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I find this entire discussion boring. I've blocked the four IPs that posted here. Three of the four have been blocked before. I should probably look at a range block, but that takes more work. I'm still stuck on "I'm a Trump man" or whatever it is you said toward the top.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protect

To stop playing whack-a-mole. Lift if desired, of course. --NeilN talk to me 16:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD comment

"I'll build you a wall and make you pay for it". You owe me a new keyboard now. :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-native English speaking editors and casting aspersions by an admin

Hi. I would appreciate your opinion.

Would you say that with this edit (diff) Joy wrote a comment about other editors? It seems to me that he again connected POV with heritage by connecting certain POV with non-native English speakers by stating I honestly can't recall when an actual native English speaker said it was a title that needed to be fixed. I am afraid that he maybe did the similar thing by attributing war sides and implying motives to other editor(s) by mispresenting and ridiculing their position as "my side in the war is not represented well in the title!".

This is the same editor who wrote multiple comments about other editors' ethnicity (including his speculation about my ethnicity - diff). Let me also remind you that you warned this editor because of this kind of behavior (diff). I remember your warning contained very clear explanation: ... I think you have a serious problem if you can't distinguish between POV and heritage". Attributing POV to people who are non native English speakers seems like clear repetition of the same behavior, which is not big surprise taking in consideration he actually insisted that he is allowed to write comments about my ethnicity/nationality (diff). Let me also remind you that this editor is wikipedia administrator who is per WP:ADMIN "expected to observe a high standard of conduct".

In the same comment I presented above, Joy used the article talkpage to write an accusation of misbehavior of another editor ... a pattern of behavior by Zoupan that I have observed, of letting their biases show in their editing, as did a couple of other users who have recently complained at my talk page about them. It's really becoming tiresome. which might be a violation of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions.

What do you think, did Joy respect your warning? Do you think he observed a high standard of conduct by respecting principles on the subject of casting aspersions passed by the Arbitration Committee?

If my perception about the conduct of this editor is incorrect, I sincerely and deeply apologize. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually pondered my phrasing there to make sure my characterization of those complaints at User talk:Joy#Considering disciplinary measures against Zoupan was as fair as I can make it. Yet I'm 'rewarded' with more accusations of impropriety. Isn't it depressing to see this level of wikilawyering again? And just when I said something positive the last time AD appealed their topic ban that they 'earned' wikilawyering... no good deed goes unpunished. @Jehochman: because of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive282#Ban appeal of Antidiskiminator. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
AD, don't argue with other editors in this topic area. If you can't edit collaboratively there, whether that is your fault or their fault, you need to just walk away and go edit something else. Digging in and battling is just going to result in you getting kicked off this site. Jehochman Talk 01:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Jehochman. Antidiskriminator, I looked over the comment and the discussion and I do not see what you see in there; I'm sorry. Actually I almost placed a vote in there, but in the absence of evidence for either side I couldn't commit. I really think that next time you should pick another administrator, someone totally uninvolved and possessing a sound mind. I will be happy to make recommendations. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I will follow your advice.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

snow delete

Care to place bets on the outcome of your AFD? ResultingConstant (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • This is surprising -- I would like to know whether it is a real person, an animal, an organization, web content, or an event that you consider yourself to be, dear. Also I wish to mention that I am very glad that you changed the picture in your edit notice. MPS1992 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Outing by MH?

I posted the following earlier on the talk page of Boing!, who brought the issue to our general attention in the context of the present mess:

I'd say User:Daviddaved outed himself in the list at WikiProject Mathematics/Participants with this edit: Diff/503015531/504860674. That was on 30 July 2012‎, predating the alleged outing by MH on 28 August 2012.  --Lambiam 22:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm posting this here because the alleged outing is now mentioned under the heading Michael Hardy (Administrative Conduct) at the Proposed decision page on the MH case.  --Lambiam 11:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Boing! redacted the alleged outing back in 2012, but it was M. A. Bruhn who brought it up recently.  --Lambiam 19:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with writing a lead section

Sorry to use this as a noticeboard, Drmies, but I know you have some talented watchers. Is anyone willing to take a look at Erasmus Smith and improve the lead section as they see fit? I've been working on it, on and off, for some years now and it is about time it was sent to GAN. Lead writing is not my strong suit. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. I would like to have a go at this lead. I think I can capture the essence of the article subject by trimming and rewording somewhat. I have some knowledge of the period, and am getting a grip of the rather enigmatic Mr. Smith through reading the sources. I'm hugely untalented but maybe the Dunning-Kruger effect is having an impact here. In any event, I would like to have a bash. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Feel free! Drmies has done some tinkering with it and, of course, I both don't own the thing and actively want help. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Some points

Regarding the ANI case you closed yesterday:

  1. -I had put the template because I was attacked by Tiptoe (he told me "You seem to be being weasily deceitful, probably for personal pov reasons.")
  2. -The editor was blocked for similar behavior multiple times and I thought he needed to be reminded and I put the template for the sake of reminding.
  3. -He simply repeated his colorful language. He's comments are annoying, as you see.

I think, as the admin who has addressed his case already, I should tell you these points. --Mhhossein talk 18:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that Mhhossein has made repeated bad faith accusations in this [22] AfD - in various posts he has accused (using a link to a talk page discussion rather than openly saying it) the proposer of hounding him, thus implying that this is why the AfD proposal was started, and has added links to WP:AGF to imply bad faith without openly accusing anyone of it. Perhaps Mhhossein does not understand what I meant by "weasily deceitful" - it is deliberately using wording that implies something, but without actually openly saying that something. On the Karbala article Mhhossein has rather carefully never actually stated that he thinks the content he wants gone, "the Wahhabis did not consider the Shia Muslim inhabitants of Karbala to be Muslims", is inaccurate. Instead he presents a weasel-worded argument that because the source says that the Wahhabis considered everyone except themselves to be not Muslims, we can't be specifically mentioning the Shia of Karbala (despite both that part of the source and the article being about the Shia of Karbala). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Y'all--please see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_12#WP:ANI_2.0. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
And there was WP:AN/D. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You make the things grow harsher by ignoring obvious violations of policies. Btw, I knew where WP:ANI was!--Mhhossein talk 05:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:AN/D "homage to the hospitality of User:Drmies". Was probably a stub, methinks. Or advice to sit with your back to the wall, always. Correction to my above post: "AfD proposal" should actually be "merge proposal": an actual AfD process has not been initiated, though the end result would be the same if the merge proposal is accepted. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW, since I am here, (and it is non ANI 2.0), what should be done about this: [[23]]. The RfC period is finished, consensus is 100% that the old name was the most appropriate, both the proposer and the administrator who changed the old name are not currently around, I cannot restore it to the old name. Starting a new discussion at WP:RM seems a waste of time given that the RfC has already given an opinion and generated far more interest than a rename discussion could have. Can it now be called an "uncontroversial technical move"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for resolving this issue. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hello Drmies. I was wondering if you still wanted a third opinion at Talk:Justin Raimondo. If so, your opinion is requested. Thank you! Joel.Miles925 12:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Community ban

Hello. I noticed your close of the community ban discussion regarding Engleham, with an accurate summary of the discussion, but may I very discreetly suggest that you also change their current one-month block to indefinite, with a pointer to your (re-)close of the discussion? Just so that admins responding to an appeal know that the discussion ended in a community ban, not a one-month block, as they might be lead to believe by the current block summary, which has a pointer to Ritchie333's since overturned early close of the discussion. Cheers - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Something doesn't feel right

File:Girl with pony.JPG
Bish's little pony.
Where have I seen this before?
Softlavender (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A "new editor" immediately starts nominating 5 articles for deletion, (some of which have been kept before). [24] Also creates an article for a barely notable person and throws in an interesting !vote along the way, [25] as well as some other votes. This looks a lot like someone who has a current block or ban that they're avoiding. Thought maybe you or a talk page stalker may recognize them. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No idea who it might be, but I agree there is a strong odor of fish. LadyofShalott 04:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The band AfDs Sound a bit like something I read on Bishonen's talk page a while ago. —SpacemanSpiff 04:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The new article needs to be deleted as it does not meet WP:NBOX. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Edited to add: Querying Chris troutman as well, as he noted the creation of "a bio for a boxer that fails WP:NATHLETE" on the blocked sock's talkpage [27]. What article are you referring to, Chris? Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The article was created by the first account, which I blocked. I then G5ed the article. Mamaursa recreated the article. I blocked Mamaursa and deleted the article again.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: The article Trey Lippe Morrison was created by ALongSleep, apparently another CrazyAces sock. My comments on the AfDs they started mentioned quacking. I think we all know what a new user looks like and ALongSleep wasn't even trying. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hedge Fund activities in SF real estate and political initiatives

Hi Drmies,

I find Marathon Asset Management edits were blocked; so will proceed cautiously.

I'm committed to NPOV, would like to mention investors in San Francisco real estate developments that have propositions on the November ballot with very little transparency. I can stick with published/public facts and insert links if this seems more likely to be acceptable and remain posted. KSRolph (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • KSRolph, in financial matters it's always best to use caution. I myself prefer my agent in the Cayman Islands to edit those articles. In the meantime, I'm not sure what the problem is. I blocked Social Outreach Marathon (talk · contribs) earlier, and I just noticed that their edits were far from neutral. But no "edits" were "blocked"--just an editor for having an unacceptable user name. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, so now what?

In December 2015 at this Administrative Compliant you and administrator @Liz: placated me with your words and Liz's direct warning to In ictu oculi. I was furious but you settled me down. Today I see this personal item at Talk:Mónica Puig and it started to make me mad all over again. I warned him on his talk page to leave my name out of things and leave me alone. I responded on the Mónica Puig article but probably should have brought it straight here and said nothing there. I don't know why he has to keep bringing me up derogatorily but he does. I could care less if he voices his opinions on the same issues as I do... that's bound to happen at Wikipedia and I simply ignore him. But he simply can't resist making it personal, or at least he hasn't stopped doing it for 5 years. Please make him stop once again. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • User:In_ictu_oculi, I really don't want to be some kind of ANI 2.0 arbitrator, and I do not have the time right now to do any kind of deep research into y'all's conflict and the different parties' editing habits and infelicities, but please, tone it down. I know it's hard to be polite to someone who you think is disruptive, but it's worth a try. I should try it more myself. Fyunck, I assume you understand that my statement does not assign guilt to either party, but it's clear that In ictu oculi has this perception. I wish y'all could talk about this. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    5 years of personal attacks by IIO pretty much precludes talking. There is a difference between disruptive and always taking things to a personal level as IIO does. And he has been warned by @Liz: for this stuff before. Oh well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, Fyunck, but here's the thing. In ictu oculi may as well say that what you just said about them is harassment too, and I don't know, maybe Liz warned you about this as well. Now, I have no dog in this game, and I don't know you any better than I know them, but "Same old argument from Fyunck", which is somewhat uncivil, is followed by "And the same old falsehoods being spread like manure by IIO". I suppose from "crap" to "manure" is logical progression, but both of you are behaving shittily. Maybe someone else should have a look, some other admin, maybe one with a less liberal outlook on civility, and maybe they'll throw out a block, or two. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Erasmus Smith lead

Hi Dr, just been working on the old rascal Mr.Smith's lead. Any feedback? Are you seeing any improvements? I've left a note on Sitush's T/P also. Oddly it means a lot to me as I genuinely suffer from a phobia as to my writing ability, which has damn well held me back as a content creater. It's a funny thing. Basically i'm looking for a bucketload of encouragement, to boost my confidence. Jeez I should have 10 articles done by now, I have the subjects for all of them, all notable, interesting and adding to the 'pedia. Yeah i'm being ego on this, I cannot tell a lie, as I believe some cherry tree murderer said. Or was that Isaac Newton? Trees and fruit seem to ring a bell. Anyway it's late here and a nice storm brewing so i'm gonna watch that. Si. Irondome (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
That was a strange little I-think-i'm-crap-pity-party. Sorry about that Drmies. Irondome (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dog and rapper vandal

Okay, I wrote up the page Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal. I'm sure I missed a few of the IPs, but this gives a solid sense of the seriousness of the problem. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Autobiography

Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, input would be appreciated re: Bradley Warren Jr., an autobiography edited by a couple of new WP:SPAs. It needs to be de-puffed, with much unsourced removed. First, though, does he meet notability guidelines? I've also started a thread at the COI noticeboeard, since neither account will come clean. Thanks from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you a super villain?

I just have to tell you, just because I am worried my craziness in my head may one day be put down on Wikipedia when I'm not thinking straight and get me blocked for a NPA. Every time I see your name, I imagine some sort of super-villain plotting word domination. I don't know if you know Yiddish, but mies means disgusting in Yiddish and I imagine a super-villain called Dr. Disgusting out there plotting for world control. (Hmm, maybe that is why I'm so well behaved these days, I don't want to get on that guy's bad side....) 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like something a villain would say... EvergreenFir (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Whitman, EvergreenFir... Drmies (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I rest my case. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Now I'm doing some reading. It is also related to the Hebrew word, Maoos, מָאוּס,which also means disgusting, so it's probably from much earlier. It is funny how the internet works, one click from comment to learning new things. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep. That's how I got interested in Wikipedia in the first place, I think--a paradise for curious geeks. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought the only supervillain at Wikipedia was User:Dr. Blofeld? Will we have a Battle of the Villains to look forward to? --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Pff. Supervillains don't collaborate with others. We go our own way. Besides, I ran CU on him--he doesn't even have an army of sidekicks. Me, on the other hand... Drmies (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking about collaboration. I was thinking of something more along the lines of King Kong vs. Godzilla. Pass the popcorn! --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Haha LOL, mwohahahahaa! We're both from the Low Countries right Drmies ;-)?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

As long as you stick to Gorilla Warfare and not Nuclear Warfare, we might still feel safe. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The issue with nukes is that a uranium bomb is easy to build but it's hard to refine enough U235 to do the job. Conversely the raw material for a plutonium bomb is a little easier to come by but engineering the pit and explosive lenses is tricky. What's an enterprising villain to do? At least you can get uranium ore from Amazon (be sure to read the comments). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
"I got a free cat in the box with this purchase but I'm not sure if I should open it to see if the cat is ok." "This is NOT, repeat, NOT a woman from the Ukraine. Very disappointed but can only blame myself. Please read description when sober." Drmies (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Automatic Taxobox error on Augusta_(plant)

Knowing the level of erudition here at Drmies' place, can someone with understanding of the functioning of [[Template:Automatic taxobox]] help figure out why it is placing a plant in the animal kingdom for the Augusta (plant) article? This kind of thing is right up the alley around here, where angels dancing on pins is regularly parsed and Dutch delicacies are dissected particularly well. And I figure this group can tell a plant from an animal on most days except for Wednesdays in a leap year. Geoff | Who, me? 17:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting page protection

Would like to have an indefinite or long-period protection for article: Fall of the Western Roman Empire, constant vandalism — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You have received mail

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

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh Lord, another barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
So, this is like the sixth barnstar I've posted here, in my various guises? Thank you for deleting the Idaho district articles. I'm going to try to keep an eye peeled on IPs coming from that range. They're rather industrious. Best from 99, the Mrs. and all our dogs. If they could read they'd be big fans. I mean the dogs. The Mrs. can read just fine. She reads me like a book, anyway. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I hope she is doing well, 99. Yes, I saw that post of yours and you know me, just trying to make American great again with some change (in this case deletion) we can believe in. Oh, I blocked another IP, but did not see a big bunch of em. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's do make America great again. I propose introducing many more Skittles, the sooner the better. Probably the IPs were focused mostly on the articles you deleted, but I bet if we cross-reference the edit history of the one you blocked, we may find a few more on the same articles. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a topic for a Brit

Insane Clown Posse doesn't fit.
Will eat me

This is soooo not me, and several excellent British editors I know have left or are discouraged, so ... parking it here. Someone(s) should write up this gent who has received obits in major media outlets: Telegraph, Economist, Grauniad, what calls itself the Sunday Times. Or maybe Polentarion :-D. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Since when was the Dr a Britisher?! Unless he's joined the Brexiteers, perhaps Muffled Pocketed 17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Autsch! Polentarion Talk 17:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry! *hides & washes keyboard out with soapy water* I've started it off here, but haven't got the time it deserves now. Anyone can do what they like with it, or not, as the case may be. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 17:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
"Holy Fools, DocMan!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC) [28]
I have coulrophobia. I've not seen Cantstopclownmighteatme (or similar) for quite a while. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs) - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was always one of my favorite user names. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
They have not edited since 2008 and are still in the first 5000 at WP:NOE (how I recalled their name). That says something. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Goodness me. And I thought some of my stuff was a bit strange. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ta-da! --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which of Ronald McDonald and Pennywise is the scariest clown, but having seen the two of them "in action", I tend to give clowns a wide berth. Mind you, the second of the articles I just linked to is probably scarier (in quality terms) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Sheesh, Threesie! Don’t be so crusty. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
And news just in... [29] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I saw that in the paper, yes. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be more of them about. I don't know what makes grown men want to wear silly clothes and hang around in strange places at night, but each to their own. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Roly Bain is on stage and DYK nominated. If youre one of triplets, maybe you need to make a difference by peculiar means. If someone has access to press or his parish - a photo would be great. Polentarion Talk 23:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC) PS.: The Guradain mentions German science about Baine and stated dos and don'ts of Christian clowning. Au weia. PPS.: We are getting even more scientific now.

I.P 2602:306:837a:4c10:e052:6bda:c451:97d0 (talk)

Has been rambling on Adolf Hitler T/P, and has left a charming message on his own talk page, engagingly titled "Kikes". In addition the entity made this [30] repellent edit to said article. Could you please take any necessary action? Irondome (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done by tps. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Floquenbeam and Drmies for encouraging such proactive stalkers with the tools to be here. We so don't need these shits on the 'pedia. Irondome (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes: lots of good things happen, and lots of bad things are undone, because there are many good people here. Thanks to you all. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

St. Martin's Chamber Choir

Hi Drmies. I hope you are doing well. I am wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a peek at St. Martin's Chamber Choir when you get a spare moment or two. The choir itself seems to have questionable notability per WP:ORG and the primary contributor seems to have a COI. Also, the subsection about the group's director seems a bit undue, almost like it's an indirect attempt to add a BLP stub about this individual to Wikipedia without having to worry about WP:BIO. Anyway, I've tried to find better sourcing for this group, but have had no real luck so far. I also asked about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Colorado#St. Martin's Chamber Choir, but haven't gotten a response yet. So, any suggestions you may have how best to proceed would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, and I'll try to choose my words wisely since I'm pinging Gene McCullough, I think that notability is questionable. There are no secondary sources, and releasing CDs is not a mark of notability anymore either. The article contains non-neutral writing and a list of premieres that has no encyclopedic value, and the AD's paragraph is a resume. In other words, this is indistinguishable from an organizational website. Gene, it is clear that you have a COI here; that's fine, but it doesn't go away just because you think the subject is notable.

    I'll ping my go-to choral contributor, Gerda Arendt; maybe she sees something I don't. I think that a CSD nomination could be successful already, and barring serious article improvement this is a case for AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies. Gene McCullough posted on my user talk regarding a COI notification I placed on his user talk page. I advised him of this discussion here and asked him to comment here just to keep everything in one place. If you feeling it would be better to move things to the article's talk page, please do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I have no time for more than a glimpse at the article, just briefly. I like St. Martin, here's mine. - I don't like the word "world premiere", - premiere is fine, the premiere of an arrangement is typically not notable, would have to be notable work. A list of works without links to at least composers says nothing. Compare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

C-Pop

I have noticed that K-Pop appears on this page every now and again. That makes you an Asian music expert compared to me. I am off to bed but if you or your watchers know anything about C-Pop (?) then I could probably use some help at User_talk:Sitush#Rachel_Liang (I did leave a note on the article talk page, btw). - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The word to describe my state, btw, may only exist in Northern England - flummoxed. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah it seems not. I learn something new every day, and it is only 26 minutes into the new day here. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • User name apparently means "Love Jesus". The original article's probably a BLP violation (claims the singer is pro gay therapy). I learnt something new as well- "Hakka music is literary and laid-back in tone, and consists entirely of five notes; many folk songs only use three notes." What chord does a piano play, when you throw it down a coal mine? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Drmies. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with this?

I came across the edits of CoryHilton. Seeing his edits on Talk:Battle of Cable Street#Does this really need an article on this site?, Talk:American Revolutionary War#American victory? and so on, I get the nasty feeling that we are dealing with a troll or (hopefully) an vandal. I gave him a rather harsh warning for disruptive editing on Bombing of Guernica. Unfortunately, the only thing I can think of doing now is sound the alarm bell and ask for advice how to deal with this editor. The Banner talk 20:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I think my nasty feeling was right: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter. The Banner talk 01:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed Article

I had no intentions of vandalizing my own article. I only fixed a few minor mistakes in my work that may be perceived as racist. "Porto Kick Can" is a new term originating in Harford County describing a human of inferior intelligence. My only intent is to educate on this terminology.

MemeDispenser (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)MemeDispenser MemeDispenser (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I didn't warn you for vandalizing your own article--I warned you because the whole thing was vandalism. Please don't abuse our website for the posting of nonsense, even if you're kind enough to remove some of the most racist stuff afterward. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, I can assure you this is not nonsense. This is an actual term rising throughout Maryland. I stated it originated in Harford County a few months back. I created this page to educate because so many people are asking what a Porto Kick Can is. I wouldn't create such a thing without premise. This is a valid article informing people on the term. MemeDispenser (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)MemeDispenser MemeDispenser (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Promotionally written article needs help

I think this is above my skill grade, so I've tagged it and present it for the expert doc and his expert friends to consider working on: Dixon University Center. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There could be copyright issues as well.[31] I couldn't determine who had the text first. Thoughts, Diannaa? — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) (and not Diannaa by any stretch of the imagination). Nice catch, Yngvadottir, JJMC89 – the whole history section was copy-pasted into the initial version of the page from here (as archived on 8 February 2005). Later copyvio added with, e.g., this edit. I've blanked and listed it for now, on the assumption that it had too much history to be eligible for speedy deletion. Regards to all, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Violet Wand

Crossposted from the talk page on that article in hopes you see it. But I did make some other notes here that are not on that talk page.

Drmies, 'we' is me as a member of the kink community who is knowledgeable about this obscure niche device and its history. If I was a transgender person explaining the importance to 'us' of certain links on a wikipedia about transgenderism, then you'd understand. If I was a gay person explaining to a straight wikipedia editor, the importance of linking to a web article about Stonewall, you'd understand. Perhaps you'll take a relook at the links after I explain. Or better still, perhaps you can help decide how the important information should go into the article if you don't agree with presenting it as links.

The violet wand is a relatively new invention in the US. Donnie Rice of Erotec began manufacturing them in the late 1990s, but they were little known or used. AFter his death in 2001, they gained a popularity through a woman with the scene name Violetwanda. She is the Henry Ford of violet wands and you can not talk about violet wands without talking about her. Her company invented most of the violet wand products in use today. And the techniques to go with them. If we said Henry Ford invented the assembly line for automobile manufacturing, this would be the same thing. If we said Steve Jobs made personal computers available to the public, this would be the same thing. She trained a US-wide network of demonstrators to teach people how to use it, and like Henry Ford and Steve Jobs, made this obscure device well known and popular in the kink community. The link to her information page, www.violetwanda.net is not commercial and nothing is for sale there, though from her information site, she does link to her two company's websites, completely different domains. But her information page is where everyone goes to get the information found everywhere else. Its an original source for extensive violet wand information.

Another bit of information (or link) that should be in the article is the one to the International Violet Wand Guild at www.violetwands.org. That is not a commercial site, and you should relook. There is NOTHING for sale there. They do product reviews sometimes, and link to new inventions. It is a non profit educational group of several thousand violet wand users, and a board of directors with an elected president. Since violet wands are new (late 1990s) there is no government regulation or standards, and violet wands are electric devices that are used on humans. The International violet wand guild set the standards for their manufacturing and safety, and set the definitions and terminology. It too, is an original source for violet wand information.

The only link that you left behind, Uncle Abdul's book, contains 2 paragraphs on violet wands as it was written while they were still obscure. Since they were developed in the late 1990s, not much appears in print about them, and that is the only book with an ISBN that contains anything. But it is a mere 2 paragraphs and not inclusive and really...no longer relevant. The bulk of violet wand information is put forth in modern technology--on the web in articles by experts. The kink community recognizes these expert sources and they are important to it. The only link you left, is not representative of the available information or history of the device.

I do understand your point about some of the other links. The author Laura Antoniou is probably unknown to you, but she is the FOREMOST kink author and fiction writer of BDSM and recognized throughout the community. Her use of the violet wand in fiction was notable because it shows that this once obscure device is growing in popularity. Remember, that the incredibly popular and best-selling books, 50 Shades was a self-published book. Technology moves forward. Self-published books have an increasing place and should not be ignored.

I understand that you do not know any of this since the BDSM community is largely self-contained. I also understand that wikipedia is not a collection of links, except as wikipedia says: "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." The International Violet Wand Guild as the major source for violet wand information, and the lead developer Violetwanda, are both meritable and directly relevant. Highly relevant. So Im sure you'll work with the importance of these two sources and help find a way as a reputable editor to include the information, even if its not in links. Threatening to report is useful only to get what you want... but what you want is not relevant to this device or to the people who use it and want to look up information on it.

So, how best to get the two most relevant information into back into the article? That in the early 2000s, The International Violet Wand Guild set the standards for the manufacture and safety of violet wands, and set the definitions and terminology. And that the Steve Jobs/Henry Ford in the development of violet wands, making them available to a wide audience, and the development of most products associated with them, is a kink community woman who goes by the alias Violetwanda? There isn't a wikipedia page about her, since she's still living.

Lets come to a consensus on how to present the important information. It doesn't have to be links if you are dead set against them, but its vital and relevant information. Thanks! Awolnetdiva (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awolnetdiva (talk • contribs)

  • Awolnetdiva, I'd appreciate it if you made no assumptions about my sex, my gender, my gender identity, or my specific kinkinesses. I do not believe they matter greatly here--thanks. What matters, in the rather closeted and limited environment of Wikipedia, is what the reliable sources say. Anything beyond that easily runs the risk of unencyclopedicness or, as was the case here to some extent, promotionalism. What you need to go get anything in that article is find the reliable sources that say so--or, at the very least, the more or less reliable sources. Good luck--and maybe some kinky people who look at this talk page can lend you a hand. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

SPI query

Hi Drmies. I hope you're well. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28 has been sitting waiting behavioural investigation for more than a month now. I just wanted to check whether this is usual? It seems a bit unfair on the accused for this to be hanging over them, and equally I don't want to see the case fall by the wayside. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this, Drmies. Much appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
"behavioral behavior"? Another gem from our Professor of Indubitableness at the Marie Corelli Institute of Refined Language and Gentle Pastimes. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. As much as I like to take credit for that, I think it was just a senior moment. Then again, that I can't remember is evidence that I have way too many of those. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Protection due to sockpuppetry on Great_Pyrenees?

I noticed you recently semi-protected Great_Pyrenees for a year, giving the reason of "Persistent sock puppetry". In a cursory review of the page history & talk page, I didn't notice any mentions of sock puppets -- so I was confused by your action. Was it based on discussions elsewhere? JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

JesseW - See some details here: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal; the Great Pyrenees article was one of the many breeds targeted likely using this IP, this one, this too and this one. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
And now, for the first time on Dr Mies' stage, introducing the fabulous Double-nosed Andean tiger hound!!! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pro Quest

Advice please. I have been scratching my head about this edit today. The (new) editor obviously has access to a significant battery of Proquest material via their University library. Mostly Billboard and Music Week. Unfortunately the editor has slotted in the search link from their University server, which leaves us, with, well this login page. I put a note on their Talk page. I encountered a few other issues with this, notably on the Led Zeppelin page today where another editor was able to replace the reference after I able to access the article. Two questions. Should I request the login page to be blacklisted? I noticed a number of edits from a number of new accounts using Proquest via arizona.edu - would there be any point in initiating a sock investigation? Thanks. Karst (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh we need a smart person for that. I don't know if this is something we would blacklist, having dealt with that only once or twice (for obvious sock URLs). If I link to JSTOR via my university I get a link that includes that identifier in the URL, but in a very simple way; I suppose I could take that out with a simple find and replace operation in Notepad. Does Proquest work that easily? Is that worth it? As for the Arizona thing, it could just be an educational assignment. User:Helaine (Wiki Ed), do you know, or is it easy for you to find out? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Good point on the URL stripping. Did that with this one, and as I am on a university server with Proquest access, got this one. Checking the reference and what was included in the article, it now appears to point to deliberate false information about a chart position. I removed it. Karst (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Dexbot_8 coming soon to a wiki near you. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The owner of the reFill tool is thinking about getting a proquest account so that it can generate cite web templates for you. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Cheers! Karst (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about IB Arb

(And if this isn't allowed under some sort of ex parte thing.... please do what you need to, of course.) I asked a general question if "The Community" had a general discussion about IB as in the decision. I saw no reply. What zone of WP is proper for such a forum? Village Pump? MOS?? RfC??? And who can step up to the plate in it - regrettably, I'm sure I'm seen as too involved at this point now. (Needing someone who doesn't give a frack about IB who nevertheless gives a frack?  :) ) This may be the wrong place for this - should I transclude it to the Amendment Request? Sorry - I've looked at arb cases but I'm gratefully a newbie to being an involved party. LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 01:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh, ArbCom stuff is a labyrinth. But you're not helping me much--I don't know what you mean with "discussion about IB as in the decision". If by "frack" you mean "fuck", I think you're looking for RexxS--the last time I saw him he had already run out of fucks, and that was years ago. If you're trying to figure out how we got to where we are, Rexx can probably explain it pretty good. But you'll have to explain what you want to place somewhere--cusswords? a proposal? a hit list? Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Whew... At least you knew or deduced a Battlestar-Galactica-ism, and I think I need the help of EEng or Martinevans123 more to help translate me, though I concede RexxS is the WP leader at not giving one.... But anyway, I was talking about Infoboxes, the current Request for Amendment. And referencing this here of mine which asked if part 4.3.7 of that Arbcom decision there ever got done. And if it didn't, who should start that and where..... Trying to repeat a joke I've typographically failed at before, Help me, Drmies, you’re my only hope!, and I got no idea if you're a sci-fi fan at all. Though I have it on high authority that ostriches are sci-fi fans... or was I high when I thought ostriches were a sci-fi authority. Beats me, now. LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
You'll be pleased to know I've found a fresh supply, so I'm happy to give a fuck while it lasts. As for your question, LV, The community never got around to having that well-publicised discussion - after all if you ask everybody to do something, it's pretty much a recipe for nobody doing it. However, I'm sick of the unnecessary strife over something so unimportant as an infobox (although it's true that I see more value in them than many editors), so I've started an essay, which could be used for background if that much-anticipated discussion ever gets started. It may be relevant reading for someone new to the war-zone. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
That looks like a nice start. Watchlisted! --Izno (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Awesomeness. Scanned it, will see if I can help hopefully tonightish or soon. Looks like the right answer. Thanks for stocking your frak supply - thought you might've over on the tech pump.... Now if I can only find a fresh source of Felgercarb as I'm running out of both[32] versions.[33] LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 11:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
That community discussion wasn't done, - or was it at at Coward (with nobody courageous enough to try a summary)? And what does it tell us? - Some people think an IB upgrades the quality of an article, others believe it degrades an article. Who decides on a given article, that is the question, open all the time I know of the problem? For example: If those of the latter kind improve an article written by the former, do they have the right to follow their preference, even if it means taking away information that was there to help readers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Fracking is a dirty business and I refuse to incriminate myself. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration_Enforcement_review. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If Beowulf was a card game (which isn't by itself a terrible idea...)

You know I'm a big fan of yours. I especially like that we can disagree in such a collegial way. I don't have strong feelings about this, I just was surprised at how much stuff I found (and I stopped collecting after search page 2). If it's redirected/merged, I could see it returning to mainspace before long. Better to source it right now, IMHO. Best to you and yours. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, thanks, and I'm all for good articles, as are you. I firmly believe that AfD IS for article improvement (don't tell anyone I said that) so that's a good way for you to win the argument. Either way, make sure the closing admin sees "merge and redirect" is an option, which I'll support if need be. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

To my opinion, speedy deletion is speedy. Not waiting for two days, as happened with Farahnaz Forotan (twice removed after regular procedure and for the third time published). The Banner talk 18:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If there were a BLP violation, speedy should be as speedy as possible. For this rather promotional bio about an apparently not notable by our standards journalist, well, I am not shaking with rage about a lack of speediness yet. I am sure it will be gone in due course. MPS1992 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps what Mr Banner means is that, if you or someone else does decide it is eligible for deletion under G4, then you should consider create-protecting it as well. But I am not sure. It has turned red now anyway. MPS1992 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Salted for three months. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The salting is a bonus but I am rude enough to expect that a speedy deletion should be dealt with rather speedily (i.e. 24 hours). <humour mode>I also expect admins to be active on WP at least 140 hours a week! </humour mode> The Banner talk 21:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Ow, and thanks for the service. Much appreciated. The problem with Faridahmadi.itp that most of his articles are at least poor. Nearly to all his articles are nominated for speedy or normal deletion. And now I have the nasty feeling that there is as sockpuppet active. Mr. Faridahmadi.itp had created Fahim Tokhi that was speedied. And now a new article "Dr. Fahim Tokhi" was created by Kankor123. Very suspicious. Even more as the writer gets compliments on the talkpage from one Ftokhi. An account sleeping for 30 months, but within 32 minutes after creation of the article awake again. Something fishy... (but just not enough to go to SPI). The Banner talk 22:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, usually the CSD categories get taken care of fairly quickly. I was otherwise occupied, but it is possible that a large number of admins were in Courcelles's hot tub this weekend. I understand Kelapstick had picked a bunch of tax-free hooch for the occasion. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Not good enough. You are clearly in breach of the Admin SLA, which mandates that all admins are individually required to execute all outstanding admin requests anywhere on Wikipedia within one nanosecond. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Can I cook dinner before I hand in my resignation? Drmies (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

After dinner and before resignation, would one of you folks mind closing this AFD? I put it up last night while doing NPP, and I acted hastily. I just withdrew the nomination. Enjoy your meal. Sorry to see you go... BusterD (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm. Hot tub admin parties are nearly as much fun as bathrobe parties. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
OK then. I'm just going to scratch my head and move on. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Why delete? Links to DMOZ are definitely allowed. Why would you think otherwise? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Eh, fo shizzle? Because it appears to be a kind of basket of links? As far as I know DMOZ is not a reliable secondary source, and though their article is really yuge, I don't see anything in there that makes it acceptable or useful as an EL link. Look, if you wish to reinstate it go right ahead--but please don't think that somehow this is self-evident. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:NOT Since Wikipedia isn't a directory of links, it's helpful to link to something that is--that's the point of DMOZ. It is not a source--do you see it being cited anywhere in articles? I wasn't saying it was self-evident, I was just answering a question that you asked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
      • (talk page stalker) DMOZ has for a long time been used to head off the attentions of rabid fans who want every website mentioning their favourite subject to be an EL in the corresponding article. So it's been a pretty common ruse to just say to them "add one EL to DMOZ, and move all your proposed links to there". It's been so useful in that respect that I'd recommend giving a little more leeway to DMOZ additions, even when it's not particularly obvious that it is an ELYES. FWIW, I'd definitely cull that link farm in Alabama. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Justin, whether something is reliable is a pretty important thing to consider if you link something anywhere on Wikipedia. Rexx, I'm very wary of container links, but I gladly submit to your expertise. BTW, folks are trying to cull lots of things in Alabama, sometimes with some success. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
          • @Drmies: WP:RELIABLE refers to sources and those definitely need to be reliable. Outgoing links should be useful and not malicious and added judiciously. @RexxS: That's basically what I was trying to say: using DMOZ as a kind of "default" link directory is a very good thing for very many articles (in addition to the fact that it's another free culture community which helped to inspire ours!) I have suggested at WP:EL giving some priority to DMOZ links but others were not receptive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
            • Justin, I know very well what RELIABLE says; like you, I've been here a while, but I was talking about "reliable"--the word. If you didn't find a very good reception, that may be meaningful--but I won't stand in your way of readding, if you haven't done that already. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome!

And characteristically, I'm here to be annoying! I asked at my talk but it might have gotten a bit buried in the mix at that thread: does my font switch, from Broadway to Cooper, fix the legibility issue? And if the answer is no, are you braced for this thread to have about fifty messages from me, all saying "How about now?" with another font in each signature? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 03:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#In ictu oculi

I see you were involved in a November 2015 ANI case. I invite you to the case request about one editor. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Er, d'uh? You are sort of canvassing an arbitrator? - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
He's canvassing someone who hasn't edited in three months, too—I assume this is just a general scattergun spamming of anyone he thinks might take his side. ‑ Iridescent 18:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sitush, say that again--it sounds really good. George, what were you thinking. I totally missed the action, but it may have set a record for the number of comments and the speed with which it was declined. Drmies (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

On a different note, I do miss Liz. What happened to her? Karst (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Heleen Mees

Dear Drmies, Thanks for your edit. You said: "well, you can mention it in the text, with a citation. as a "publication" it makes little sense to list a diss.)". I have actually read all her books, and her dissertation is by far her best. That doesn't matter. What matters: it was her only scholarly publication up to date, and it's available (open access) at Erasmus University Rotterdam. Her new publication (just published) builds on it. When in doubt: take a look and be convinced. Anyway, it's more useful to mention this dissertation (published in English) than to mention 3 publications in Dutch that aren't even translated. Vysotsky (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to fight over this anymore: I find it very tiresome. Of course it's available--most Dutch dissertations are. I do not agree with your suggested definition of "useful"; the English Wikipedia does not have a monolingual readership. I have suggested a way in which you can easily get this into the article. Moreover, what you are doing is simply contributing to the bloating of so many articles of living people, where everything gets listed, and especially abuse of the "publications" section--see this edit. If the dissertation is so good and useful, a secondary source will have said so. Drmies (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Dear Drmies, Thanks for your comments. However, I think my arguments still hold (scholarly publication; more useful mentioning an English text than mentioning a publication in Dutch; open accessible -where the other publ. are not). Re "bloating of articles of living people": I am afraid you are barking up the wrong tree here, as I totally agree with you. I didn't add any publications to the list in the article about Edsger_W._Dijkstra (your general example), and always try to choose some important books/articles instead of listing all publications. I dislike complete lists: Wikipedia is not a collection of bibliographies. Vysotsky (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
      • A dissertation is not a scholarly publication... When I add stuff like that, I add reviews from peer-reviewed publications to prove that something is worthwhile listing. But go ahead, knock yourself out; I'm getting too old for this. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:AveOscuraInq

Hi Drmies,

Just a heads up that this user has vandalized past your final warning. Cheers. 73.96.113.97 (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Extremely *Important* Question

This have been bugging me ever since I came across your profile years ago: how do you pronounce your username? Is it Doctor Mies? Dee-armies? Dermies? My head has been switching between those and other variants for a while. I even went so far as to google it (heh) to no avail. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

He's a doctor and his name is Mies, so I'd imagine that way ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
You've heard of "Doc Rat"? This one's "Doc Mice". (Welsh: meddyg llygod). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC) p.s. although he is seen, of course, as more of a prison-camp-blackmarketeer-spiv-type around here.
Huh, interesting. Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This came up at my RfA. I feel like Iridescent is judging my gender a bit quickly here, but OK. "I love mieses to pieces." Drmies (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
There's a photo of you on Meta - if you're female, you might want to consider a makeover. ‑ Iridescent 12:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh. Yeah. That one. Drmies (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
You are Harry Hill and Adrian Edmondson and I claim my £10. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
My RFA also prompted questions about my username; some folks apparently had some difficulty believing that I was a being of pure intellect. I certainly had you marked out as the "king rat" (should I say "monarch rat"?) type though. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, what's in a name anyway. Karst (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
"Karst" is a pretty cool name. It reminds me frequently of a certain novel. I'm going to try and get a copy of that sci-fi novel. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Oooh! ooh! I love that song!Very NSFW. And I wonder if I'm now Pixie or Dixie?
Two glasses of Westmalle is about equivalent (although post-Brexit this may have changed). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Waaaa paid editing! Report him to COIN, somebody. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Sole disruptor"

It seems as if you've chimed in with the "sole disruptor" chorus being raised by certain edit-warriors. For your perusal, here is the consensus as it was formed in the article space by editing before I started the RFC.

  1. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=743235375&oldid=743235241
  2. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=742855809&oldid=742839471
  3. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=742033438&oldid=742011302
  4. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=742011074&oldid=739240064
  5. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=732616959&oldid=732063452
  6. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=730382118&oldid=730374832
  7. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=722362754&oldid=722343120
  8. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=714976713&oldid=713488222
  9. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=next&oldid=688422983

I feel that if you are able to view my edits and discussion with a dispassionate eye, you will find that I have always encouraged compromise and collaboration in support of neutrality, while some other very experienced involved editors, including an administrator, have resorted to ridicule and blatant edit-warring to ensure their preferred version of the article. I have initiated all kinds of WP:DR methods, including RFPP, tagging and opening an RFC, but other editors simply want to shut it all down. Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Elizium, I am not sure what you are asking me to see. "Others are doing it too"? Well, sure, but not all these edits are of the same kind; some are minor tweaks. One (the last one) is a serious reason for a topic ban, for POV editing, if it hadn't been from a year ago. So I'm afraid you are going to have to be much more clear. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

IP 60.240.183.28

Hi Drmies. I hope you are doing well. I am wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/60.240.183.28 when you get the chance. The IP has only made a handful of edits, but they all seem to be an attempt to try and insert comments related to race into various articles. I'm not sure the information they are adding is false, but the way they are doing so does not seem to be in the spirit of WP:NPOV and in some cases is not what is being said by the sources cited in support. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

IP has been blocked, but that does not seem to have slowed them down at least not at Kelly McGillis. Is there anything that can be done about IPs like this since WP:VANONLY does not seem to be an option? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_103&oldid=1142977613"