User talk:Drmies/Archive 89

Don't club me plz

John J. Maalouf - Attorney

Hi Dr; it's 99, and I could use some help at this new bio. Headstrong WP:SPA is doing a little promo, with external links for buying the subject's book. I'm getting tired of reverting, and have taken this to the BLP board. By the way, hope all is well with you. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B41B:4FC1:242D:5468 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I see that JzG took care of your problem already, while I was making stuffed monkey heads. Yes, things are no better than last time. I trust you are the same. Bad people always fare well, a Dutch saying goes, which bodes nothing but ill for you and me. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• You sound absolutely dolorous, which is how I was last week. I do hope you soon transcend stuffing monkey heads, though I don't have a clue what that means. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B41B:4FC1:242D:5468 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert

That material I re-added its not "random" go back through the page history.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I did--much farther than you. This is the yardstick. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

whatever. Theres nothing incoherent about it. Also Controversial edits are supposed to be on the talk page. From what someone made a fuss about with me. However. I can tell by the "much further than you" there is no "contest". So if you are picking up an attitude don't even bother with it. I don't get emotionally charged.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The diff I gave was for the version of the article when it was promoted to FA. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok well the addition of that material hadn't and hasn't changed the status of the article being featured, so whats the point of supporting its removal when with all the editors that have and do contribute it reasonably denotes consensus. If "you" feel it doesn't make sense, why not re-write it to make it "coherent". Instead of helping to keep it erased. There is always something to learn. If you can share why it definitely wouldn't hurt. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• That material was so completely out of whack that there is no way you can just fit it in. And I don't "feel" things--I argue them. I teach composition and stuff like that. I mean, look at your version. This is an article on a genre, a genre whose historical development is sketched over a few decades. In your version, look at the section "Recent trends: mid–late 2000s and 2010s", where one would expect--you guessed it--an overview of recent trends. And what we get is an opening paragraph of two sentences on metalcore, with an example of commercial success of one metalcore band mentioned. So far so good, but the second paragraph starts "Welsh band Bullet for My Valentine's third studio album Fever debuted at position number 3 on the Billboard 200 and number 1 on Billboard's Rock and Alternative charts, making it the band's most successful record to date." What on earth does that have to do with "Recent trends"? I'm going to assume that this band plays metalcore (it doesn't say it does), and that these charting albums fall in the "mid-late 2000s and 2010s" (it doesn't say that), and that "to date"--well, God know what that means. The sentence in no clear way relates to the topic of the section, and it's not even a good topic sentence for the rest of the paragraph, since the sentence is exclusively about one band's chart success.

  So that's poor writing and poor paragraph construction. But the material you restored also controls the sentence "Other notable experiments include Asking Alexandria mixing Trance, this has led to an explosion of bands following this combination." First of all, that's clearly a comma splice there in the middle. Second, it's unverified, so why one experiment would be "notable" is anybody's guess. Also, I have no idea what "Asking Alexandria mixing Trance" means--a band mixes trance (a genre of music) with metalcore? or trance with heavy metal (the subject of the article? Or Asking Alexandria is a DJ who remixed music by a band called Trance? And then, which "combination" is being followed in this "explosion"? I listed three valid readings of the sentence, but maybe the combinations are found also in the previous (poor) sentence, "Bands like Motionless In White have experimented with Metalcore further by including Gothic Metal and Industrial Metal influences".

  Now, if you remove all that nonsense, you get an opening paragraph on metalcore, followed by a paragraph that starts "Evolving even further from metalcore..."--that's a perfectly valid rhetorical progression, possibly worth of an FA article. With that nonsense, you get an incoherent collection of undated and unorganized factoids in sentences that don't pass basic grammatical muster. You see, it's not about "feeling". Drmies (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thats a great explanation. Thank You. I need a new coffee and to read it again and further reply. Thats not "my" version, its the version that was argued to me. I was kind of "debated" to by another editor who said the "making it the band's most successful record to date" and the like, where equal to "recent trends". No one agreed with me or him so I figured they were correct, at least on the page. It seemed like all those other groups mentioned where a continuation and variable of metalcore. So it seemed appropriate. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

CombatMarshmallow, thanks. This is the kind of thing we should do more of in Freshman Comp; I wish I had enough time in my literature classes to discuss principles of composition. There's a couple of metalheads here who know how to write. Look, I didn't think this was yours, right--I figured you got caught up in it, and that happens. What really needs to be done here is a comparison between that 2007 version and today's version, to see how it's been expanded, if that still makes sense, if the overall structure needs tweaking, and if (this happens frequently) new sources are properly templated and of high quality. What else happens often is editors stick info in (a name, a factoid) as if the following reference, which was already there, also verifies that new info. It's very tedious to have to check this, but it really needs to be done. Thanks again: we need editors with some passion, and you clearly have that. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank You.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandal only account

Amin_İsgəndərli is basically a vandal only account. Since the users created account they have done nothing but vandalize Armenian related articles by continuously adding West Azerbaijan right after Armenia. It is nothing but propaganda and this user keeps adding it just like they did with Yerevan[1] on numerous occasions, History of Armenia[2] on numerous occasions, Urartu[3] and now Armenia[4]. I think a block should be issued as this is not a constructive user, they are just spreading propaganda. Thank You. Ninetoyadome (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Already taken care of by Materialscientist, a well-known fighter of propagandistic disruption. Well done MS--that's another $5 for you. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

How to Kill a Mockingbird listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to Kill a Mockingbird. Since you had some involvement with the How to Kill a Mockingbird redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Lakun.patra, that discussion got shut down pretty quickly, and it was done so correctly. I hope the reasons given were convincing for you: this was just not a good nomination, and that HOWTO thing didn't make any sense--I think you probably didn't read the book or the whole of the article, but now you know what to do next time. All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kapisa (2nd nomination)

Did you get my email? Doug Weller (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

RfD closure

Well, if you'd like to reciprocate, I've got some juicy ones for you. [I really should take a break from closing TfDs now. Which is no easy task in this unholy heat, by the way.] Alakzi (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm leaving Dr. Who alone, but I "closed" NNDB--I have no idea how to file that paperwork. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries; thank you. Let's see if we can get a bot-op to orphan it now. Alakzi (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks. I copied some code from somewhere else for that "temporarily inactive" one--I'm sure you'll check to see if I did it right. Let Kelapstick handle Dr. Who: he's a fan. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you please undelete Template:NNDB? It has not been orphaned and currently a red link to it is displayed on each of the 1,000+ articles that contained it. Orphaning needs to be completed before the template is deleted. Example is Ayn Rand, which has the red link at the bottom. Thanks. ~ Rob^Talk 19:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) Wouldn't a bot to remove that template from the 1,000+ articles be a better option? I agree with the TfD discussion that there's no way NNDb can be considered a "reliable source"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Hey, you all are the template editors--you're the clever ones. Make that bot and automate the whole damn process! I say we turn Alakzi into an admin and let them take care of it. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I think that suggestion alone could start an ANI thread. Heh. For some reason, the transclusion count on NNDB has gone way down according to Alakzi. I had planned to run a bot, but maybe it won't be necessary. Did you happen to delete any redirects Drmies? That may explain it and would need to be undone to find all the transclusions. (Not accusing you of anything, just throwing out an idea since I can't make heads or tails of this). Ah, some digging through the logs revealed another admin deleted the redirect as per G8. I've recreated it to aid in finding and removing transclusions. I'll automate this and submit it as a bot task eventually. ~ Rob^Talk 04:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, I should've thought of that. Alakzi (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
        • We'll sooner colonise Mars. Alakzi (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Mind taking a look at this TfD and assessing consensus when you have time? It's beyond what a non-admin can do. I'll take care of any aspects beyond the closure itself. ~ Rob^Talk 01:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• User:BU Rob13, it's split exactly down the middle. If this were an article and there were no other concerns (BLP, for instance) I would choose merge since merging is a little bit of both (you can "merge" something out of existence) and it might just satisfy both groups. But in this case, I don't rightly know what "merge" means; I don't know what it means to merge one template into another. You really need a smarter person to settle this. Why don't you ask Trappist the Monk? They know stuff, and they have power. Sorry Rob--I hate to disappoint, but you don't want me closing this one. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably wise not to close, then. For future reference, a template merge generally means that the functionality of the template facing deletion or redirection is first merged into the template that will replace it. In this case, it would mean some form of parameter to allow alternative formatting of a block quote. The deletes, on the other hand, are claiming that the functionality should not be merged because its use would be harmful. ~ Rob^Talk 02:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep--impossible for me to decide what's wise. In the meantime I started a GA review, made some copy edits, wrote up a stub on a computer scientist, started an SPI and blocked a master and two puppets, did two mass-rollbacks and two mass-deletes, yakked a bit about football, made popcorn for the kids, and helped out an IP editor. See, there's fun to be had outside the world of templates. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
      • There sure is. Football is going especially well for me. I had Gronk on my fantasy team. ~ Rob^Talk 06:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Tell what to do

Drmies, you mentioned (referring to this) that if someone tells you what to do you do it. Let's see. After walking your dog, review Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51 for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• You'll have to tell me to pass it. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pass it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "the Alakzi cantata" is on the German Main page, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry Gerda--I'll get back to it ASAP. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I will get back to making you happy, hopefully tomorrow. Today I wanted to improve one for tomorrow rather than for two weeks ago. That will mean a bit of rewrite = dropping things other editors had written before me, - nothing I like to do but will manage, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Hey Gerda--I'm wondering if someone else shouldn't finish it, because I think you and I are going to disagree. Like that note about the scoring: Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, so "the only one with soprano and trumpet" or whatever cannot be sourced to a table in another Wikipedia article. (I hope you understand I put the cn tag in the lead not to make you put a citation there, but as a reminder that the statement needs to be verified somewhere in the article.) Jaguar indicates that there are somehow different rules ("barometers") for such articles; that's fine, but I'm having a hard time with it. I also think that Hoffman's notes should be given prominent space since it's really the best source in the article. Finally, I really should not be judging whether the article is sufficiently broad in its coverage. My apologies: I thought I would be doing you a favor, but I was wrong. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Please don't think about favour, no apology needed! I try to follow Bach, writing one GA for every occasion, thinking of the ones ahead, especially if they have not yet appeared on DYK. (Should be around 20 by now, but I am not counting.) The soprano cantatas: I could list a source for every single one mentioned with their scoring, but think it doesn't serve the article about one cantata to have the scoring of six others sourced while we have six articles where the scoring is sourced. If you look at the so far 3 FA on the topic, they all include facts about other cantatas without repeating the sources. Could you imagine them all as one article, just too big and therefore split? Or would it help you to have the page numbers of the Dürr - a book covering ALL cantatas - for all cantatas with soprano? - I am rather helpless because have not encountered the request before, and had many different reviewers (see my user page). - As for a rewrite according to Hofmann: that's what I plan to do, hopefully tomorrow. It just means throwing out some what former editors wrote, and it's not so easy for me as for others, - in away I feel more comfortable when I started an article, as most on Bach cantatas but not this one. Coverage: you could compare the GAs already approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Did a bit, please look again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Today:

• sing joyful songs of victory, which is not easy knowing about the the spiral of justice. It helps to look at the little victories: I think I managed without the help I miss to get a different header in the table, as mentioned yesterday.
• Listen to my songs of joy, performed for the 50th anniversary of one of the places where I sing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Period? Please look at the little garden and tell me from the nl if they are Period as I would guess. (Best: translate!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Morgen vielleicht, liebe Gerda. Or the day after. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Or today? Or a little stub for the little garden, which is planted also in French,

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Now rejoice! - Did you read my request on the Main page: Ich lasse dich nicht? ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Genndy Tartakovsky's SpongeBob SquarePants

Hello, could you please delete and SALT Genndy Tartakovsky's SpongeBob SquarePants.. It's been recreated three times now. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wizardman, don't you think it's time to revisit Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_12#WP:ANI_2.0? You're welcome to peruse my archives; there's plenty more. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This time I'm not asking anything,

...but sharing my disbelief. Have a look at this business. The times that I've fucked up and reverted wrongly or bestowed mistaken warnings, I've apologized as quickly as possible. I'm not holding my breath on this one [5]; [6]. Hope you're well, and done with monkey heads or whatnot. Cheers from old 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, you know. Reading is always more work than hitting revert. I'm fine, though I'd kill for a cigarette. I'd kill you if that would get me one. Stewed monkey heads were very tasty--recipe from Calvin's mom. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Really, kill me for a smoke. That makes me feel oh so fuzzy about our virtual friendship. Never having fallen prey to the need for tobacco, I've no empathy for your difficulties. If, however, you voiced similar sentiments over chocolate, I'd understand. Enough. I'm waking in less than six hours, to take a train into NY and teach a group of wide-eyed students. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You'd reconsider if you've tried smoking monkeys.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I bet you were never one of the cool kids in high school, 99. (I stayed away from monkeys.) Have a good night, and all the best tomorrow, fourteen years and a day later. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Never been cool my whole life. But undeniably charismatic, and a tad irresistible to women folk. Take it easy. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for blocking some of the vandals at Central Tech. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• What?!?! (Hey, why doesn't this keyboard have an interrobang?!?!) You're a smoker? I'm shocked and dismayed, and dazed and confused (but those latter two probably don't have anything to do with this). But you'd kill for a cigarette, which may (or may not) mean you've quit....
  Fourteen years and a day ago, I got the news from Howard Stern. (Yeah, I guess we all have our vices.) I was in a state of hypnopompia, and it took a while for my semi-conscious mind to grasp that what he was talking about was actually happening. Nothing's real until you see it on TV, so I turned it on, and there it was. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 13:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• If I had any I wouldn't have the desire to threaten to kill someone for some. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

At the deletion discussion where you have contributed, I have used your rhetoric formulation, largely or fully, to support views held by myself and others. Thank you for "your formulation". --Burst of unj (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

MusicAngels

I appreciate your comments on the Birdman Talk page but if you go back and look at my original edits and if you look at the talk page, the second I made a tiny change he attacked me and reverted the change. Please understand when you look at this history how much MusicAngels escalates immediately! I made one or two changes and he immediately went onto the IP talk page and started bullying me. He will not allow any IP anywhere anytime to question his edits. Can someone please make him stop? 128.90.39.156 (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Someone, sure--but why did it take a week or more for you to start conversing in a more reasonable manner? You've not done anything to deescalate. Now, give me a diff of the edit you're talking about and I'll be glad to have a look. And consider logging in if in fact you do have an account. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen what User:MusicAngels does when a person DOES log in that disagrees with him? The whole poetry page dustup made me quake in my boots. He goes and looks at an editor's profile and talk page and previous edits and analyzes them, hoping to out trolls and socks. He examines the editor, not the edits. It is because of editors like him that many more of us are using IPs.199.48.242.29 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:2600:1006:B113:10F9:14E8:C473:9B00:7111

You rollbacked me on User talk:2600:1006:B113:10F9:14E8:C473:9B00:7111. Rollbacking is for obvious vandalism: you could have explained in an edit summary there, as I didn't realise I was doing anything wrong. I don't mind, I just thought I should say. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 00:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I explained on your talk page, in a message you just deleted. I wanted to get those warnings gone as soon as possible, since they were not correct. Instead of being warned for edit warring, the IP editor should have been praised for defending the BLP. But my apologies for rolling back; and I've thanked the IP editor. I'm sure they don't mind the warning. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Good stuff, I'm glad to see it all worked out alright. Please don't be rude to me on my user talk. --Rubbish computer 00:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I had to laugh at this edit summary, though. --Rubbish computer 00:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Right. If you want to learn more about editing on Wikipedia, you could do worse than follow the lead of that IP editor, which is what I just did. They've been here for years and could probably teach me a thing or to. Sorry, don't know where I was rude. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
        • "It's always good to find the context and read the content" seemed patronising, but I am slightly paranoid and grouchy. I think you're a great admin though. The IP's immature edit summary suggests they're inexperienced, and they only started editing on September 9 as far as I can tell. --Rubbish computer 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Sounds pretty factual to me... You see, I run into situations like this all the time. Yesterday's was this edit, and if you look at a. what the edit was and b. the history of that article, you will see why that revert of an IP editor was very unwise. A bit of further investigation revealed a whole bunch of vandalism, and the indefinite blocks of three vandalism-only accounts. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Rubbish computer 10:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • • • I've said worse than "rubbish disposal" in response to being templated. Alakzi (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• @Alakzi: No, actually it's an indicator of maturity, but I didn't want to sound insulting to them. --Rubbish computer 01:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Alakzi: I don't mean to sound like a miserable arse. --Rubbish computer 01:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    • You've got me laughing. I suddenly miss Britain. Alakzi (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Something different

Sharonkaraa (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Sorry, I am completely new to this. Drmies has sent me messages telling me I am welcome to say why I want to add in the fact that this politician did not pay back his expenses. First of all, this is a fact and is based on a news article which was referenced. I'd like to know why Drmies felt it was ok to remove it. It was factual and referenced and I believe that people have a right to know when their elected officials do something they shouldn't.

• Hello Sharonkaraa, thanks for the note--but Wikipedia isn't about some people's right to know something. For starters, none of them are my elected officials. And the problem here is that, sure it's referenced and all that, we're talking about really minor things. Up to 500 pounds? for most elected officials that's peanuts; they swindle more than that on their way from the office to the bathroom. And so it really looks like too much space is given to something that's of really minor importance, and the talk page is the place to discuss this. I'm pinging Bishonen here as well, since she may have a different opinion. But the bottomline is, as far as I'm concerned, that not everything that's verified is relevant and worthy of inclusion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, I agree entirely with Drmies. According to the source you cite, here, the sum in Yeo's case was ten pounds. You think the public has a right to not only know about that, but know about it in Yeo's biography? It's ridiculous. But take it to the talkpage if you disagree. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC).

Disambig question

Any thoughts on how we should disabmig a notable person from someone who maybe isn't quite notable for an article, but almost notable enough that readers might be searching for them? Specifically there's an existing Emma Pierson who is different from a Stanford Grad/ Rhodes Scholar Emma Pierson who's written and been quoted in places like NY Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic. Do we add hatnote to a redlink, or just say this is not the droid person you are looking for? NE Ent 00:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting question. I ran into something like that a few days ago, but it was an obvious example of totally not noteworthy at all. I have no doubt that common usage is to not have a redlink in a hatnote, but you could try it and see if it words as an invitation, or if it's just another occasion for someone to be curt and roll back. Or you could write her up... Drmies (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Haha! Drmies (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  Wait, you're seriously expecting the Ent to do "content"? And ruin my hard earned bad reputation?? Do you (and (talk page stalker) welcome to comment) think she's notable enough? NE Ent 00:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know. Why don't you look her up and add whatever else you can find? Drmies (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's an awful longwinded "yes." NE Ent

• Well, you have a funny way of saying "thank you". Drmies (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ent, the other thing you can do is ping Rosiestep and say, hey, I got another little article here on a woman, Emma Pierson (computer scientist) who's working in computer science and does all kinds of cool analyses. Tug at her heartstrings, suggest that maybe for the Women project she should get this expanded and written up for DYK... Who knows, with Rosiestep that might work. That's what I'd try if I were you. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Zimmerman, yet again

[Special:Contributions/24.49.36.173 This anon editor] added a Classic Country wikilink to the WJEJ article. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Days after Zimmerman's favorite articles were indef-protected, he adds the same incorrect information to another Hagerstown-area radio station article (note: WICL and WLTF both serve the Hagerstown, MD area, as does WJEJ).

While this IP isn't owned by Comcast, Zimmerman's perfered ISP, he [Special:Contributions/24.170.254.249 has used an IP] by this company before. I think this is a clear DUCK sock. Blocks, page protection? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Loquacious"

Throwing down the glove (gauntlet..?)

I see you're childishly proud of having used the word loquacious in conversation.[7] Quite good for somebody whose biggest word is usually bacon, I suppose, but I recently used antepenultimate in a very natural and unforced way.[8] Let's see what you can do. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC).

I wasn't childishly proud, Bisherella--I was adultly proud. "Antepenultimate" is, for a cunning linguist like me, an everyday word. See Trisyllabic laxing. (And this suggests to the clever reader, who knows that the first vowel in "trisyllabic" is the diphthong /aɪ/, when the word entered English.) Drmies (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Snobbery. Instead of trying to show off, like the two of you do, I always try to adjust to the level of the average reader here by using as few multisyllable words as possible, and avoiding everything that has even a hint of Greek or Latin in it. Thomas.W ^talk 11:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Pace, of course... ;) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Innit just… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd comment but I'm too busy in real life planning a trip to Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. NE Ent 14:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I can actually say that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

When are you going, Kudpung? Drmies (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been. It's just up the road from me. Full of Liverpudlians, as is much of North Wales. Can you say it with a Scouse accent, Kudpung? - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a great venue for garrulous editors. I wouldn't diagnose it as Logorrhea, though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hey, just wanted to get your opinion before I go any further, on my six TWINKLE edits so far, how have I done? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Looks fine Homer, well done. I blocked that one IP. Keep on rocking, Drmies (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'd drop that AfD if I were you. The guy's got like eight or nine books published with some of the best academic presses in the country, so chances are a quick JSTOR search will give you a dozen reviews of his work. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I had actually forgotten about that AfD. There just wasn't enough sources available on the page, hence the AfD. Most of the time, an AfD will get people to update a page with plenty of sources and bring it up to "code", so to speak. I will take a look at it though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    • The sources you added are enough to meet GNG and N in my eyes, even enough to pull down the Citiations template. With the addition of addition references, I withdrew the AfD. I would like to see some more work done on the article, because you are right, it is pretty boring. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Sure thing. I just added some more. The article I thought was boring wasn't our article, it was the Hofmann article. I'm reading the Lycan article right now. I'll close the AfD, but leave the tag up--the article needs sources for his life and positions and all. Thanks Homer, Drmies (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the updated info and sources. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

CDDG Page

Dear Drmies,

What is the rationale behind deleting the CDDG page content. Can you please let me know how does it differ from USAID content? How is a promotional material when you can also find the content of the USAID page on their website. We worked hard to maintain this page and we are very proud of it as organization. You cannot just do that because you believe it is promotional. Of course our vision, mission and objectives are mentioned on the page besides the track record. Why is that considered promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wissamraji (talk • contribs) 09:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Unless USAID is a Good or Featured Article, there's not much point in a comparison. (But I note that the USAID article has 68 references, whereas yours has none.) The content I removed wasn't neutral and lacked secondary sources, and in the absence of proper sourcing I can only conclude that it's the kind of information we should find in the brochure, not in an encyclopedic article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Quoting from their Facebook page; "Democracy is the parent of Revolution: you give me a president and I will show you a country." Just got back from watching The President- odd coincidence. That quote is the deepest-dyed bollocks. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Rememberance

Hi there Mies, remember this (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP),

just to let you know I have fallen prey to this whole shebang. I am beginning to seriously think the Quique Sánchez Flores article is haunted (three years ago, the Colombian punk, now this - supposedly - English person living in Chile), well they both can go and insult their families because I've had it up to here (points gently to top of head)!

Kind regards to you --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm. Yeah. I didn't study the entire history, but I started here, and I wish you hadn't reverted that edit. Their edit summary is, as so often, sub-par, but their edit was good, and I saw two later edits by registered accounts that reinstated their edit or part of their edit. Sorry. Look, I've disagreed with them on a couple of edits but in general their copy edits are among the best I've seen here, and they can teach me a thing or two (they may have taught me one already). Take it easy Vasco, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You wish I had not reverted that edit, where they reinstated the redirects and removed my hard work in sourcing the honours section? Fair enough you lost me. Their preferred intro was not subsequently reinstated TWICE by registered users like you say, but ONCE (and not verbatim, it was more a mix between his preferred form and mine), and since then I have only made itty-bitty adjustments, like punctuation, and now I cannot edit altogether because page is protected. Furthermore, if you say their copyedit approach is top of the notch, who am I to disagree, I have only crossed paths with this person for one week or less so you obviously know much more than I do, but does that give them an excuse me to call me inept and a liar (inserting false/misleading info in intros DELIBERATELY)? Please answer that question. Also, is it me or did you tell them, four years ago, that their excellence in editing was overshadowed by their lack of empathy with fellow users (as shown here towards me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:186.9.130.193, the message is written by ME to THEM, but I provided diffs with THEIR words)?

You take care there too. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I just looked at the lead. I see now that there's one or two references at the bottom of that edit, yes, but those could have been reinstated separately. (And the "second" correction by a registered account was this one.) Please don't ask me to explain why someone else said something--I don't know that, and it's not a fair question to ask me. I don't see any "liar" there, but I do see that in the one version they're at Getafe and in the other they're somewhere else, and if I understand it correctly they're not at Getafe. Vasco, I hope you're asking me stuff because you are interested in my opinion. You know by now that I don't always agree with everyone and that I intend to speak my mind, though I hope to be doing so in more diplomatic terms than the IP editor, whom indeed I have known for years. Frankly, I'm really tired of, on the one hand, defending their edits, which are frequently good, and on the other hand, defending their word choice in edit summaries, which is frequently bad. I don't know how I got to be in that position but it is not of my choosing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, kind fellow user, always interested in your opinion, and I apologize if I crossed the line ("...and it's not a fair question to ask me"), sincerely. I HONESTLY did not know that finishing the lead with one bit (in this case "...before signing with Getafe in 2015") meant the person currently worked with that organization, and this is why the former intro read he was the CURRENT coach of Watford, t'was removed, see if I care. The second intro adjustment, made by respected fellow User:Struway2, was made AFTER this situation, so I did not count it.

Have a happy one, from Portugal --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• You too, old friend. We had our first real day of fall here today; I didn't actually notice it until I discovered that the AC in the car, which is set at 70, was blowing warm air. Very strange, after six months of heat. May your olive harvest be rich, Drmies (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's cosmos for you :) Fall is coming like a vengeance to Southern Portugal too... --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'll tell you what made my miserable existence a bit better: Raunio. I have my brother to thank for that. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

At least you're on speaking terms with the Best Known For IP; he still thinks I'm a total scumbag even though in terms of actual content I probably agree with him more often than not and about 90% of articles he touches have been left to rot. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know if we're still on speaking terms; I haven't spoken with them in quite a while. And obviously I don't like it when someone thinks that someone else is a scumbag when I know they're not--that's one of the problems with this relationship. Having to criticize and defend both sides in a dispute simultaneously gets on one's nerves. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it counts as speaking terms or not, but said user apparently left a message here. I reverted the abusive message, along with other edits made by the IP, after blocking it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pistolplay’s new account

Pistolplay is created a new account name Pistolplay3 after two months. He/she focusing on mainly Maroon 5’s pages. 123.136.111.134 (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why me? Why not let Darkwind do something useful for a change? Drmies (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

request on ANI after user was blocked

Hi, you seem to be online now. I sent a follow-up request to the ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Conflict_Resolution_-_Premature_Arbitration_Committee_Filing, as it is more than a little troubling having my name bandied about so much for something I little to nothing to do with. Buster7 and Gandydancer seem to be the ones the user had actual beef with anyway, as per their editwar. I don't know the process for pursuing my request or even what it's called; just that I've seen some vandals' edits get ghosted completely. It seems reasonable that this user enjoys reading their own lengthy screes and edits wikipedia (or "[their] own Talk Page") just to see them in print online. Thanks. JesseRafe (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on the other page. I followed up there with the information that the blocked user is now Special:Contributions/65.189.198.128 and for reasons 10% due to both the time it would take me and 90% because of the onslaught of personal attacks and garbage using my name that would follow, I don't want to start an SPI on this user. Would someone else who has dealt with this misguided diatribe-inclined person please be interested in doing something about it? Blocks are for the user, not the account, correct? So even though this one hasn't done anything "wrong" (yet), it's unambiguous it's WBR again. JesseRafe (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, I can't see it that easily. They overlap on Bernie Sanders, sure, but their other edits are elsewhere, for both. Can you give me a few diffs that nail the case? Drmies (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The awkward sentence about Senator Sanders living on a kibbutz, which has been removed, explained in both edit summaries and on the Talk, Whiteboyrobot here and 65.189.198.128 here.

Also note the days they edited (sorry I couldn't format this so clearly):

• • • 65.189.198.128 edited from 8/12 to 8/14
    • WhiteBoyRobot edited for the first time on 8/17 (on the WP backpages for first edit to boot, hmm)
    • 65.189.198.128 edited from 8/26 to 9/5, forgetting maybe they made an account?
    • WhiteBoyRobot edited from 9/8 to 9/15 and then was blocked
    • 65.189.198.128 resumes editing on 9/15 on an article previously edited by WBR, with a sentence previously added by WBR but removed. Seems far too convenient for me. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, the kibbutz mention was 65.189.198.128's first edit (on Political positions article, not campaign article) and edit-warring to include it consisted of 4 out of 6 of the IP's first edits and the other two were just formatting on the kibbutz sentence. JesseRafe (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that one--but sorry, it's not strong enough for me to block. The IP only reinstated part of the edit, that's one thing. Another thing is, as I said, the "other" articles each of them edited. In addition, they edit at very different times. That's not evidence of them not being the same, but it's certainly not evidence of them being the same. But let's see what happens when Whiteboyrobot comes back. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Something else

Hey I was a heavily active wikipedian for many years but inactive since 2009 -- just wanted to say I'm glad there are still a few good admins (such as yourself) running the place. Just thought i'd drop in and say that it is especially endearing since I felt like I helped build this place and worked on "gruntwork articles" that were actually beneficial and were currently substandard on core topics. I'm glad that somehow wikipedia is still able to have most of the non-contentious articles still relatively stable without battlegrounds which I thought would literally proliferate thanks to all the annoying bots which users began coding (and were given green lights by naive editors who couldn't see the obvious ill-intent) to help monitor and harass any new editors that encroach on articles that the botmaster leader has laid claim to.

Anyways just wanted to drop in and say that in my random perusings of nostalgic ANI discussions and then read some recent ones, that you deserve plenty of credit for your professionalism and maturity -- 2 things which I feel are inseparable from civility. All the bests! 128.227.40.220 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hey, I appreciate it--thanks. Especially since I just looked at another battleground talk page, where mediation was asked for which will probably end up before ArbCom. Then again, we sometimes forget how much good stuff there is here. Thanks again, and take care of yourself. Keep popping back in. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Email

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

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Bubba the Love Sponge Show

Am I being too strict at the AfD?

This is a "famous for being famous" situation. The article subject is a radio "shock jock"; his primary business is self-promotion. As a result, there's some news coverage in reliable sources. He verifiably did lots of silly or stupid stuff, mostly for PR purposes. Does that meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability? What do you think? How should this sort of thing be handled at WP:COIN? "Famous for being famous" cases come up regularly there, so it's a serious question. John Nagle (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know. But "edit warring" and "famous for being famous" are, unfortunately, not reasons for deletion. I mean, these idiot YouTubers who video themselves watering their fucking plants, yeah. I looked at one article just now, about his contract and stuff, and that's good coverage from reliable sources. So if there's plenty of that, then your nomination is doomed (assuming that the closing admin will measure per the GNG).

  Between you and me, and I don't think anyone is watching, I think you got a little pissed at that IP editor and took a more drastic step. Obviously Neutralhomer, whom I don't know from Virgil of course, disagreed. Tactically speaking, I think you should make friends with Homer and see if y'all can't get a better article out of it, but that's just me. As I said elsewhere, the IP was incorrect to revert you and will be blocked if they continue. You two should start by, on the talk page, hammering out whether that directory content is too much or not. And then the article should be improved. And the guy should be merged into the radio show article. That, as far as I can tell, is the best possible outcome, since my gut feeling is that the guy has gotten enough coverage to pass the GNG, as sad a statement about our world and Wikipedia as that is. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I would have no problem working with John on this. I believe we could make a better article out of it. I would be quite impartial because I don't listen to his (BTLS) show as I don't find him funny. So no "listener connection" there. If I did and found him funny, I don't know if I could be impartial. Kinda like I couldn't be impartial on the Pittsburgh Steelers article because I'm a Steelers fan (Go Steelers!). But yeah, If John wants, we can work on the article and maybe come up with something that isn't so promotional. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Have a go at article cleanup. Merge, probably. "Famous for being famous" is a problem, but I have to agree that, in this case, self-promotion has probably been successful enough to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I've said my piece on the AfD and will wait that out. The problem with the IP editor was lack of engagement - edit comments and talk page notes on both the IP and article talk page produced no response other than reverts.

This all started as a promotional editing complaint on WP:COIN that I was trying to resolve; I have no personal opinion about the article subject, but often take tasks from WP:COIN. In general, I've been taking the position that questionable notability plus promotion is a good reason to send something to AfD, and to strictly interpret the notability criteria. This stems from a discussion on WP:AN [9] where I was trying to get more guidance on what to do about the recent increase in promotional editing. I'm going out; last edit for today. John Nagle (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your close of the MOS:IDENTITY clarification and RfC at Village Pump. You gave thorough consideration and due weight to the opinions expressed and demonstrated neutrality diligence in your explanation of your closure. Given the difficulty of the topic and the hundreds of comments, your closure deserves recognition. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. I read your comment of course, your oppose to proposal 1--your opposition didn't carry the day, nor did proposal 3, but if you want to take all the credit for 4, you can, and that version got some support; I think it would have had more support if the discussion hadn't concerned an athlete. 4 struck me as very reasonable. I don't know who Vanamonde93 is, but their comment, "we cannot speak to how Caitlyn experienced gender back then, but Caitlyn did present the name "Bruce" to the world, and that's all we are saying, I believe", neatly combined a kind of intellectual modesty with pragmatism, and I do believe that, in writing an encyclopedia and coming up with guidelines on how to do it, pragmatism is a value to be cherished: how do we write up a complex world. This will all be solved 100 years from now, and we will find (well, we'll be dead of course) our language has changed as well as our attitudes. At that point, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis will no doubt be revisited. Again, thanks. Good luck to all y'all figuring out the bigger issue of IDENTITY. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Came by thanks to the ping. I'm just a passing stranger, Drmies, but it's good to be noticed. Thanks once again for your close, that must have been an epic undertaking. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Center for Development, Democracy and Governance

I changed my 'ting back to delete. I think it acts as a "middleman" between USAID and Christian forces in the area, so projects can be funded without direct contact with what might be perceived as anti-Israeli organisations. Dunno. Shrugs shoulders. Anybody got any ideas? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I was looking for my "delete" vote and then realized I had nominated it. The glories of old age. Sitush is feeling me, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ask him for a neck massage while he's at it. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If you could do the honors

This — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorporateM (talk • contribs)

Done CorporateM. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks K and M. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

French enlightenment experts needed

Doc, do you or any of your talkpage watchers have expertise and interest in Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot etc? The articles have likely been infected with some POV/OR and outdated content and could use a more thorough check-up and treatment by some knowledgeable editors^{(metaphor fail)}. Abecedare (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, if you need knowledge, I'd ask Eric Corbett, if he can tear himself away from his posh little hideout in Alderley Edge, an article that (a little birdie told me) needs his help. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oh dear. I've had dealings with that editor before. I'm going through the diffs on Voltaire and so far, well. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Besides the talk page of Voltaire, another page where a discussion on this issue has taken place between me and Abecedare is the talk page of Bishonen: Request Soham321 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, today i created a WP page on the second work on political affairs written by Rousseou: Constitutional Project for Corsica. Please compare this to the WP pages on the other two works on political affairs by Rousseou ( Considerations on the Government of Poland and The Social Contract) which have been composed by other wikipedians from the point of view of OR/POV, outdated sources, etc. Please also examine these two page related to Rousseau and Diderot which i created yesterday:Essay on the Life of Seneca and Letters on the Elements of Botany. I would genuinely appreciate your feedback.Soham321 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Interested in Kentucky?

Hi Dr, I've reported the user at COI, but Richmond, Kentucky has become the kind of linkfarm you're really good at cleaning out. I've already removed some of the most blatantly chamber of commerce crap, and think your gentle touch may be what's needed. Also, I confess there are sections I'm not sure about--do they stay or do they go, now? Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Mrs. Drmies gave up asking for my gentle touch a long time ago. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  That made me laugh. Poor Mrs. Drmies. Reminds me what Robert Benchley said when asked if he and his wife, who had two children, enjoyed sex: "We tried it twice, and it worked both times." 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wait. That has to be the worst article in the world. It's all gossip and PR, a long list of things (movies? shows?) and accolades with no sources at all--nothing but jive. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you! There's another useless barnstar in your future. I know, because I haven't been able to redeem mine for so much as a red cent. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  And thanks also for cleaning up Elvin Ng, which I hadn't bothered to read through, such was my determination to stanch the gag reflex. I only battled over the tip of that iceberg. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Why remove?

Hi can i know why you remove Elvin Ng's birth place? He is born in singapore. May i know what is wrong with that? Thanks Stellatyx (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Drmies did nothing of the sort. His birthplace is still there. The unnecessary flag icon hoever is not: as per WP:FLAGCRUFT I imagine. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• What User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi says. BTW, what on earth is going on in that article the last few weeks? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You're a great admin

Sorry about before. I just wanted to say that you're a great administrator, and to thank you for your continuous contributions. Rubbish computer 17:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Rubbish computer 17:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. It's all water under the bridge. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Juan Carlos del Valle

Hi Dr, dropping this on your doorstep, but with no expectation that you work on it. More just to get this on the record, and perhaps your talk page stalkers will feel inclined to have at it. Another hagiography, this time intelligently written, if in the circumlocutions of the art world. Which is to say, quite a load of crap. And then there are all the promotional blurbs, always a good way to tie up an article. You see why Wikipedia gets me nuts. And while I'm at it....

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For expertly paring the promotional crap from articles. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• We aim to please. Yeah, that was pretty bad. But you know how painters are... vain... Drmies (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  So I'm told. Muchas gracias. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Resurrecting Rodleen

As per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tokyogirl79 - you are the one who closed the discussion for the deletion of the Article of Rodleen Getsic and we would like this page to be restored. To begin, please send me a copy of her article and all links, references, and footnotes that were on it. We have begun a discussion on the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion and on Tokyo Girl's page / obviously wiki has rules we don't exactly know how to play but we are doing our best.

WikiGurrrL

User:WikiGurrrL From Wikipedia, the free

Ordinance (LDS Church)

FYI - as you have an interest in this article, please note that I have raised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinance (LDS Church). RichardOSmith (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I do? Drmies (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• You sure do. At least I hope you do, because as soon as I sent it I realized I forgot to click "send me a copy" :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• It just came in. Yeah, I don't need to be reminded of that hate site--I just blocked someone who tweeted about it. Some people are really vain. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

this person is edit warring at Heavy Metal Music page and re-adding what you had removed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RyanTQuinn, here in the history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&action=history This editor currently edit warring RyanTQuinn Bullet For My Valentine section was removed this editor re-added it twice despite me showing him the revert thread here on your talk page. Thanks for Your Time.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This claim is nonsense. CombartMarshamallow installed a poor blurry image that he personally took of a little known band by the name Hogans Heroes, a band that get 2000 views on this site. He is closely linked to the subject. I could care less about Bullet for My Valentine. What is clear however, from VH1 where they are listed among the main acts, and from their Billboard chart success which I cited, is they belong in the article. Killswitch Engage who are listed have less chart success with their albums peaking in the 20s. VH1 and Billboard are reliable sources and aren't slanted by personal tastes.RyanTQuinn (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Here we go again. I reverted you because you insert a statement in the middle of a paragraph that has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever surrounds it. I don't care about this Hogan's Heroes bands one way or the other. What you need to understand is that for the average reader who is not an expert on metal your statement is irrelevant--that reader doesn't even know that Bullet For My Valentine (stupid name, by the way) is a metalcore band. I mean, I assume they are, right? It doesn't say that. Nor does it say that this Billboard charting is meaningful. Debuting on no. 4 is good? That's extraordinary for a metal band? or a metalcore band? These are the kinds of things you need to explain--since the sentence before it does explain that kind of stuff about the bands it lists. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I think you should stick a picture of Limp Bizkit there, because nothing screams "my frathouse is gonna rock out to metalcore tonight" more loudly than Fred Durst. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'll get right on it, Tarc. Frats--did we really need Trump to tell us what's wrong with America? Also, I'm totally sticking it to the man, dude. Watch me refuse to conform. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, Limp Bizkit is nu metal, not metalcore. Not sure if that means anything here. — Confession0791 ^talk 21:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This editor is doing the same edits RyanTQuinn (talk and is also canvassing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OnBeyondZebrax#Heavy_metal_edits_by_CombatMarshmallow and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Heavy_metal_edits_by_CombatMarshmallow, None of them found consensus or accuracy, removed sources and is now arguing the fact of what the band is or isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&oldid=681801343&diff=prev without a clue what they really are. Its crazy over there. 5 of us reverted the POV bullet for valentine edits, and they are still happening. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

PewDiePie

Your edits on the PewDiePie article are of course welcomed but they are pretty disruptive and dissmissive. You're removing a bunch of legitimate information that is sourced, you're dismissing the subject writing him off saying "we're talking about a YouTuber". Since when did somebody's career make them inelligble to be polarziing? Aside from this you took away the information in the lead that details how he entered his career on YouTube. You made all of these major deconstructive edits without first discussing them on the talk page and on top of this you're making the article outdated. PewDiePie has 10 billion+ views and nearly 40 million subscribers, yet you're edits on the lead have reverted that information to show that he has 8 billion views and 34 million subscribers. Some of your edits do improve the article, but on the other hand some of them dismiss important information about the subject. I'm going to be restoring some of the information, although some information I do agree can be left out.Soulbust (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for welcoming the edits you reverted--that lead looks awful. Are you the person sticking in dangling modifiers like "personally" followed by a bunch of chit-chat about him and his girlfriend? In the lead? Yeah, the guy is a YouTuber, so phraseology like "PewDiePie's public image is heavily documented and polarising" is completely over the top. You could start by not overusing adverbs anymore, but more generally I think you should have a look at WP:GAR, because that, I think, is the next step. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Drmies; with regard to the discussion directly above↑, please consider this an only warning: If you are making any edits that disparage, mock, or in any way lessen the enormous talent that is PewDiePie, my young daughter will lose her shit and the amicable relationship we have enjoyed to date could well be strained beyond repair.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies, don't listen to her. She has an obvious COI. Besides, you can disparage anyone you like in popular culture as long as I've never heard of them, which encompasses a very wide range of subjects. Is this what's called pew vandalism?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Why don't the two of you just edit the article? Y'all are mondaymorningquarterbacking, and my game is Saturday evening. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm. That sounds suspiciously like work. I'll just leave you to it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks For The Protection

Thanks for protecting List of fictional wolves from that IP-hopping vandal. I also recommend page-protecting List of fictional cats in animation, too, as it's also one of the vandal's targets as per its MO of insisting that Disney's Pete is a wolf, and not a cat.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Why do we even have articles like that? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia of "everything," after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice work on island6

Thankful for your edits to Island6. I took a stab at it as well, and it is now down to half its original size, mostly as a result of removing the promotional language and excessive detail. Shocker:it is starting to look like a neutral and independent Wikipedia article!New Media Theorist (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ha, yes. You probably saw I left a note somewhere saying I'd done that before; I appreciate your involvement. I don't know what to do about that COIN, but if no admin throws blocks around (and it doesn't look likely) we'll just have to stay at it. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

More of the same

I am sorry to bother you again, but could you spare some of your time to have a look at the talk page of the article Ghouta chemical attack (section: Revert)? I have the feeling that Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes would like me to stop editing. Volunteer Marek: "since you got topic banned from one article you came over here to continue your WP:BATTLEGROUND, obviously stalking other editors." My very best wishes: "I would strongly advise you to stop editing highly controversial subjects", for example. All this while reverting all edits I make, like at Human rights in Ukraine (see Revision history). I would very much appreciate your opinion as a non involved, neutral party who is nonetheless aware of the misunderstanding between these two editors and me. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

How did you wind up at that article anyway? You've never edited it before. Volunteer Marek  04:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You see! You and MVBW keep saying that I am 'stalking' you, but each time I make an edit on whatever page, you intervene one way or the other. This is intolerable. It is precisely what Lute88 did before you, to make me lose my temper. I hope this is not your aim. As for the article, you very well know that I am interested in all articles which contain inaccuracies since, I confess, I have an agenda: ridding WP of disinformation. It's not my fault if you happen to have edited a great deal of them. Finally, if I remember correctly, there was an article containing BLP violation which you had never edited before I did. Againstdisinformation (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You come here to talk smack about me behind my back and then act faux outraged that I have the audacity to make a comment. Please. Volunteer Marek  15:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Againstdisinformation. You tell: I have an agenda: ridding WP of disinformation. Here are all your edits in article namespace. Which your edits do you see as "ridding WP of disinformation"? I do not see any such edits. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, you are inseparable. When you see VM, MVBW is never very far away. Will you now both stop acting childishly? It's obvious to anyone that you are after me and not the reverse. Stop harassing me, full stop. Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Asking to explain your self-admitted "agenda" in WP is not harassment. BTW, I responded here because you complained about me on a talk page of an administrator. And please, do explain: what is your "agenda"? As about alleged wikistalking, sorry, but it was you who followed VM here, it was you who followed Lute88 here, and it was you who followed me here and here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

MVBW, I told you clearly enough what my agenda was, in a nutshell, it is to cut the crap out. The problem with you two is that you are unable to participate calmly and constructively in a debate. You prefer name-calling over addressing the arguments of your opponent. You accuse me of stalking you when I don't give a damn about your editing activity. When I make a comment on a talk page, you "strongly" advise me not to edit controversial articles, as if the article was your own private property. What I propose to you is this; either, in the future, we discuss content and only content, or we abstain from any interaction whatsoever. And no MVBW, I didn't ask Drmies because she is an admin but rather because she knows the situation and can't be accused to be biased in my favour. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

When you pick a username like "Against Disinformation" it tends to rub people the wrong way. You look like you have come here to push an agenda different from Wikipedia's. You look non-neutral. Jehochman ^Talk 00:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You have a point Jehochman, that was a mistake I have almost immediately regretted. I made that unfortunate choice because I was outraged by an article whose tone was not exactly as formal as one would expect from en encyclopedia, to put it mildly. However, I expect people who disagree with me to address the issues, not my username. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but you should request a different username to make your time here more pleasant. How about a historical person, a favorite hobby, or something that doesn't suggest any particular agenda. Why start every interaction here on the wrong foot? People do look at usernames and make assumptions. Much easier to change yours than to change everybody's built in biases. Jehochman ^Talk 02:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Your advice is sound and I might follow it. However, I fear that some editors would be more than happy to use this as another tool against me. They might say "you know, 'newusername' is none other than the 'infamous' Againstdisinformation". In a surprisingly short time, I have managed to attract serious animosity by editing on sensitive issues. Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman, thanks for weighing in. Anyone who doesn't listen to you is a fool. Againstdisinformation, I am loath to get involved with yet another content/POV discussion. Let's just say I have no opinion until I get a decent kickback. Marek, tough weekend. Tough weekend. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, at least for us it was expected. Volunteer Marek  01:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, could you suggest someone else? I came to you precisely because, even though you you seem to entertain friendly relations with VM and you have a less than positive opinion on my editing, you had the fairness to back me on substance in an issue where common sense was on my side. This is to be commended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Look, that's a mess. I am not about to go plowing through every edit to figure out every detail. The whole "that lies behind" sentence is in terrible English. Adding "Pulitzer prize-winning" is also bad writing. After that back and forth where neither User:Volunteer Marek nor User:My very best wishes look good (sorry Marek, you know I call 'em as I see 'em) there's a ton more stuff--mediation. That's the way. I'm not a mediator: I'm bad at it, I hate doing it, I don't have the time or the energy to do it. I know what you want--you want to clean up Russia's reputation. I know what Marek and Wishes want--to stop you from editing [those articles]. Marek, if that's what you want you need to start that elsewhere: not on talk pages of articles or well-meaning but impotent admins. It's a matter for ANI, really, because you want a topic ban, and don't tell me you don't. So take it there--that's fair, and you might win your case easily. But in the meantime, as long as you don't do that, you and Wishes are going to have to stop doing all this personal shit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I don't necessarily want them banned. While I think they're a nuisance and I can't think of a single productive edit they've made, their value added to the encyclopedia is not sufficiently negative to bother to report'em. I just made the observation that if they continue in this manner, sooner or later they will get banned or topic banned or something, probably over something that has nothing to do with me. Unless they get bored first. Which I believe is an observation you made yourself awhile back. Volunteer Marek  23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither looks good... Well, I certainly would not tell this about VM, but I am definitely not helping and wasting my time here, and this should stop. Good catch! I should do something about this. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if y'all really feel that way, and now that mediation is in full swing on that talk page, I'm sure we'll see less of the same. RTR everyone, Drmies (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I am sorry, I gave you the wrong article, we have disputes on more than one. The one you should have a look at is Human rights in Ukraine, here you can see who is doing the stalking and who displays a clear bias. VM, could you please stop speaking about me in this tone of superiority? Againstdisinformation (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts

@Drmies. If you want to know what I really think, I would rather not talk about anything or anyone specific, but make a few very general comments:

1. I realize that "difficult" mediations serve their purpose: people are talking rather than fighting by reverting each other on pages. However, this is an extremely time-inefficient procedure. This is usually waste of time in cases when someone "in minority" is trying to POV-push their position by (mis)using mediators to their advantage. In a case of really serious disagreements someone "in minority" must simply walk away, and this is the only time-efficient way of solving such disputes. Who exactly happened to be in minority is frequently obvious. These are usually people who argue for a disproportional inclusion of a minority view.
2. Knowing subjects of your editing in depth is really important. This is the reason admins (or anyone else) should not interfere in content disputes on the subjects they do not really know.
3. Obvious trolls are obvious. If admins do not block them on spot, they can not expect from other contributors to continue working productively in the project (no, I do not mean myself because I do not work productively here). My very best wishes (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Some obvious trolls are obvious to everyone, others are only obvious to those with decent content knowledge. Yes, those procedures are frequently inefficient, if by "inefficient" is meant "using up a hell of a lot of time and resources". (I think this is why we got rid of WP:RFC/U--where a complaint also was that the outcomes of such processes were advisory. I disagreed and disagree still.) But if the alternative is constant edit warring and bickering, there may be even more disruption. Your second item is precisely the reason (well, one of them) why I am loath to get involved with y'all's conflict(s). The thing is though that I think it is always better to try and discuss these things matter-of-factly. If you're right, you can establish that without talking down to your opponent, though that's difficult since your opponent is of course automatically wrong. But I can't block Againstdisinformation on the spot, not even off the spot, because I found that in at least one case they had a point--I know you disagree with that, but I don't disagree with me, and so I wasn't going to block over their behavior in that particular case. ANI is an awful place to have to visit, and I've been there more than once in discussions that went nowhere, but we have nothing better right now, besides time-consuming mediation, frequently derailed, and of course ArbCom. But I really don't want to be in a project where all important matters are decided by an ArbCom. The most helpful venue we have, I believe, is the RfC, where consensus is established and editorial behavior can be measured. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to interfere, but if MVBW wants me "blocked on the spot" he has to give a good reason, not use weasel words like "anything or anyone specific", or "obvious trolls are obvious". I would like to dispel the misconception that I am pro-Russian, as I am often accused to be. I simply can't accept demonstrably false statements, Like those on the Anna P. article or on Yulia Tymoshenko (ergo, I am paid by the Kremlin, a statement considered a "snippy remark" ). If you have a look at my editing history, you will see that I am also pro-Gaddafi and pro-Ahmadinejad. Well, if I read a false statement about Hitler, I would instantly turn "pro-Hitler". Some find this disgusting, I take pride in it. Lies are unjustifiable, even about the worst tyrants. Just have a look at Human rights in Ukraine where, after deleting all unpleasant facts, Lute88 inserted a number of flattering and unsourced comments, like "Human rights situation greatly improved in the aftermath of the Euromaidan revolution in 2014." The point is that all this propagandizing will not have the effect expected by its authors, while being very detrimental to Wikipedia's credibility. You are certainly aware that Wikipedia is no longer considered a reliable source in Academia. My sole purpose in editing has been to restore some of its credibility. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What kind of "false statement" was there on the Anna P. article exactly? Thanks for reminding me that I need to go back to that and restore info which is in every single source on the subject. Volunteer Marek  00:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You will find that difficult, the page has been protected by Callanec. Anyway, you have my very best wishes. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinance (LDS Church)

I'm sorry you've got caught up in this! Jgstokes's personal attacks and, now, accusations of sockpuppetry have gone far enough. I have raised the issue at WP:AN/I. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Requesting for a Movie Article

Hey There,

Can I Make The article "Wave In My Hometown" As an movie article. I will not add any website name but I'll add cast names and I promise that cast name will be not linked.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wave In My Hometown (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Don't know if you're aware of this, Doctor, but I was looking at the user creation log before, and I noticed this account was blocked just after posting the above. Promotional username, soft block. Also their unblock request has been declined because they're believed to be evading a block on a previous account. But they may be well-meaning for all that, I couldn't say. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC).

• Thanks Bishonen. You may have seen my Facebook pictures--I was away from the keyboard, from WiFi, even from football for the weekend. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Of only passing importance

So, Professor, avez-vous une opinion sur le quarterback? Tiderolls 04:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"Passing"? As in, "Go long!"? Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Dammit...I didn't consider the double entendre. Tiderolls 07:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL. I honestly thot it was intentional. Anyway, sorry for your loss -- one TD away! .... Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, no. Didn't watch. My buddy kept texting me updates, long after I fell asleep. He's in serious need of grief counseling--I gather Coker had a bad game. No, Tide, I got no advice here. I had no faith in Blake Sims and look how wrong I was. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing against Sims, but he had Amaury Cooper. The Coker kid tried his best, I'm sure. The kids never laid down. Tiderolls 02:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Heads up

I just wanted to let you know that a user has recreated the talk page to Locations of College GameDay (football) page. I tagged it for speedy deletion because it has no reason to exist without it's dependent page.--Nascar king 15:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• I got it, Professor. Tiderolls 15:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tide. Rough day. Missed the game last night--terrible WiFi in DeSoto State Park, but man Little River Canyon is beautiful. This is not a bad state we live in. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

slap on the wrist?

Re [10]; I was tempted to give them a barnstar for best laugh I've had on Wikipedia in a long time, but I guess that'd be pointy or incivil or some such thing. NE Ent 01:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ent, you're so active again these days. Can't figure out if that's good or bad. I mean, I think it's good for us, but I hope it's not because you lost a job or a ministry or something like that. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Although I am not an administrator, I am presumptuous enough to advise all and sundry to refrain from handing out sarcastic barnstars. It gets editors with thin skins all riled up. Except for Drmies. He is the exception since he has an actual sense of humor, plus a thick skin. Hey, Drmies, I am going to save up that "two cents isn't worth a dime" line. It reminded me of the "old days" when I could buy a Coney Island hot dog, French Fries and a Coke for 99 cents, which I could earn by peddling "underground newspapers" outside a movie theater during movie changing time. Memories! Look for incoming barnstars, buddy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Cullen, sometimes words hurt me too. Ha, the old days--we've been playing Tom Waits in the car, Rain Dogs. Ever listen to "Cemetery Polka"? Drmies (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I never heard it until just now. It seems all those people were real Waits relatives, according to the annotated lyrics with commentary by Waits. Wowzers! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for that! Oh, Raindogs is a treat, as is Swordfishtrombones. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• My favorite track on Raindogs is "Gun Street Girl" for its midnight blues atmosphere and black humor. Around the time of that release Waits told an annoying interviewer that the best way to listen to music was on a broken speaker halfway down the block. What a character! Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hard to tell whether or not the speakers are broken when Tom "sings" but I like it anyway. Hello, Binksternet! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Tom is an acquired taste, for sure, a taste which I acquired in 1985 or '86, when I knew I had found one of the real deals. At that time I went back and looked up his previous work, falling in love with "Burma-Shave" and "Somewhere", two very different vehicles for his scratchy pipes. Cheers, mate! Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• SPECTRE has been quiescent, so MI6 has me on light duty. Actually I'm way over budget on wiki-time and willing be playing catch up in real life. NE Ent 02:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea where to put this.

Sorry to bother you, if it is a bother. I added this information to the metalcore article and to heavy metal. Binksternet (talk claimed I "work for the company" and is telling me I can't edit without asking via a warning. Cant a person just create an article that they understand and put them where they rightfully belong without being accused. Ive been accused of creating stuff after it took hours of searches on google. He claimed they were mad at "google" or something I have no idea. Unreal. Hogan's Heroes, Earth Crisis, and Integrity.

Meanwhile https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/OnBeyondZebrax&offset=&limit=500&target=OnBeyondZebrax created the Deena Weinstein article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deena_Weinstein&action=history and adds Deena Weinstein everywhere possible including at Heavy Metal music page and he doesn't issue a warning there but gives me one claiming I am part of some company. Thank you for your time, maybe you can direct me where to report this.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

References

• Hey, I don't have time right now for everything, but I left a note for Binksternet. Perhaps Bink was talking about this? What I can say about that, right off the bat, is that it doesn't look like a reliable source to me. And "pioneering" claims need very rigorous sourcing. If the other sources aren't better, then we may have a sourcing problem. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Thank You So Much for Helping. Really. In that instance I searched some key words and it said what it said, I went to the page, and it wasn't there- being he talked about "way back machine" I figured Id click "cache". That is what I saw when clicking cache. I used about two caches and the others aren't. They go to real dot com websites so I figured they are fine. Please continue to help. It needs help. Also, Im not angry or mad at bink. It is disappointing if anything. I did Honest Searches. The bands first release was recorded a year before the very next two groups in the genre. I would expect to find something as a result and I did. Sorry if I wrote that here its just that after spending some hours backing things up, like a truth, its not what I expected and if anything I thought he would have written me something saying good job for finding sources and that its all he wanted me to do was have more sources. I would have said Thank You and been on to other things.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Now this editor shows up https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hogan%27s_Heroes_(album)&action=history to a page never edited before to revert me twice, I reverted Once gives me a warning about "edit warring". I did 1 Revert. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

YouTube copyvio and edit-warring

Drmies, CombatMarshmallow is repeatedly adding to Hogan's Heroes (album), via his own account and possibly also with an IP sock, a YouTube channel which is obviously neither the band's nor the record label's. He is edit-warring over it as well (I left a warning on his TP). There are all kinds of things wrong with this picture: The edit-warring, the copyvio, the possible IP socking, the repeated claim that the channel is the band's even though every video on the channel was uploaded only one week ago, and the statement added to the channel itself only two days ago, apparently by CombatMarshmallow himself (apparently it is his personal YouTube channel, which raises all kinds of other problems): "THIS IS AN OFFICIAL BAND PAGE RUN AND ALL CONTENT UPLOADED BY HOGAN'S HEROES as per wikipedia Request". -- Softlavender (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not even going to entertain this. I don't have a "sock". This stuff is not what should be on your talk page. Im going to keep it on my talk page in the discussion. The proper steps will get things on the right track. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but since it's here I have to entertain this. Sorry, CombatM, but I don't see evidence that this is an official channel--for such links, the burden is rather on you to prove that. And without pointing fingers, I don't see the IPv6 edit warring (I assume we're talking about 2601:84:302:B450:307C:D5A2:1588:CD35?), but editing while logged out can be very problematic. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its no problem. How are you. It was stated that the pages had to have a message on it. The page says what it does, the page says it was created in 2011. The page is official. Just because the message is recent doesn't mean its not real. Which really isn't for anyone to judge against the youtube statement. Liability is now on the page. Since its been there since 2011 with the same content since at least 2012 its fact to say nothing is happening against it. This other editor "coincidentally" showed up to revert me, I reverted 1 time, they reverted again and then posted a warning about edit warring. Someone I never had any wiki interaction with what so ever. The most warnings Ive gotten are since bink has gone out of his way to try and block me. His aggravation started here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Heavy_metal_music maybe earlier. I am going to end up re-adding the link. It furthers the article. I want to with you or somewheres else or with you and somewheres else go through each reference 1 by 1. Time to move forward. I didnt create any, of those references, there is also a serious mistake that was made and it basically proves bink is going after Hogan's Heroes. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, you may not like what I have to say about these sources...and what I have to say is based on WP:RS, which is essential reading.

  1. If Phonolog is Phonolog, then what you have is a kind of directory which can only establish basic things like dates and such. 2. Handinglove is not an acceptable source, as far as I can see--it's a blog, a zine, whatever you want to call it. 3. This is...I don't know what it is. A streaming radio app for sale on Amazon? The text is probably supplied by the makers of the app. Not a reliable source. 4. MusicNectar appears to be a place where you can buy music--not a reliable source. 5. A Prezi by someone called Matthew Granger. I don't know who that is, but even if they were a renowned expert, Prezis are not typically things we cite since they are self-published. 6. "Hardcore Punk" at general-books.net is another strange thing. I think it's the text of a book published on the website of an online bookseller. I think. But what is the book? Who wrote it? Who published it? Then we discover that the whole thing is simply a copy of our article Hardcore punk, but without the footnotes or references and without attribution.

  In other words, I'm sorry, CombatMarshmallow, but none of these will stand up. What you need to use for Wikipedia articles are things that meet the requirements of WP:RS. And when in doubt, ask at the noticeboard, WP:RSN. Best, Drmies (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You know, I actually have no problem with that. If you can, how do we know Hand in Glove is a blog or a zine they have a .com? Phonolog is Phonolog I used for the POP artist section, dates and the bands name. Yes thats some kind of radio app. I saw a bio there and went with it. MusicNectar is something I never heard of until I found the page. I have no idea who Matthew Granger is but I read its a site for people who do professional presentations. Its also cool to see on the album in counter clockwise the two Hogan's Heroes albums, though the third should be there, and also that one "plays". So figured Id use it. Its still cool and I may download it. general-books.net is just something I found. I have no idea what it is. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You look for things like editorial statements, board of editors, "About us", that sort of thing, and make a judgment based on what you find. If there's nothing there, that's not a good sign. Prezi isn't just for professional presentations--it's for everyone, including students in my freshman writing and junior business writing classes. And general-books.net is a Wikipedia mirror. They probably have a page on Heavy metal as well, where you'll find your own writing reproduced. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Also as far as you know, is it ok to re-add the link. The page says what it says that was the only requirement. Requirement met. Thanks for the link. I may be followed there as some editors have made many of their edits everyday based on my edits. So someone emailing another editor and the stuff that happens I wonder about getting an unbiased opinion. However In his effort to erase the band, edits everything except a source for the band Integrity, in which their reference that states in it Hogan's Heroes are a pioneer. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&curid=636692&diff=682200621&oldid=682189358 "Rv... Google docs is an unreliable source -- any kind of doctoring can be done to such uploaded documents." Another is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&curid=13869&diff=682201843&oldid=682199091 "removing Hogan's Heroes. COI problems with this user, persistent promotion of the band, using unreliable self-uploaded documents and other unreliable sources." Apparently you have noticed, I didnt "self-load" any of that. Nor do I have the know-how or the time to do so. I don't "promote" I add things where they rightfully go. If the world didnt agree how would I have found those sources. I don't have conflict of interest I edit accurately. Well anyhow as this draws to a close I Greatly, Greatly appreciate you taking the time to explain some stuff and having an unbiased opinion. (I typed all this an hour ago but forgot to post it as I got company) Thats Really Really, very helpful. Hope you have a Marvelous day, when you get a chance to reply Ill read it. Also my bet is integrity source will now be removed. This source says "Seminal in skate punk and Metal" http://www.mtv.com/artists/hogans-heroes Metal equals crossover thrash, metalcore, and metallic hardcore, as per the bands page. Bink said MTV is a reliable source. One of the best the band has. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would not re-add that YouTube link. And I don't accept MTV.com as an acceptable sources. If it can't be found in real publications, it's probably not worth adding. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Metal Music Archives http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/artist/hogans-heroes . says formed in 1984 The band was seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash The opening statement is original. Have only utilized the original statement which in full states "Hogan's Heroes was a hardcore punk band from New Jersey, formed in 1984. The band was seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash." statement has never been on wikipedia or on the web. Metal Music Archives administrator original evaluation.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Revert

Drmies, I have no problem with you reverting me at all, you were Bold, I reverted, you really should have discussed, but that's not really relevant anyway. Anyhow, to answer you question, the hatted edit shows a pattern, it shows GregJackP doing the same thing to JordanGero that he did to RJensen. This shows that his behavior , as discussed over at AN is not limited to one user, like I said, it shows a pattern and I'm convinced that it's relevant, however, I won't revert you, but would instead ask that you unhat that add-in to the discussion.KoshVorlon 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Kosh, the hatted content only shows a pattern if one looks very carefully at the individual edits, adds them up, and comes to a conclusion. Without explanation it's nothing but raw data which distracts from the discussion--Guy didn't even say "these edits by person X are troubling in that they suggest a pattern of [insert disruption] in the topic area of..." Too many ANI threads are led off-track, with nothing decided, because of side issues. If something is not explicitly linked as relevant to the main discussion, it can be hatted; note also that one other editor said something very much like that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You're saying what I said, that they do show a pattern, so we agree. I also (hear) see what you're saying quite clearly, that you don't want the discussion lead off-track. No problem. KoshVorlon 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that--I'm saying that something like that should have been said... Drmies (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for thinking of me to provide input as a Commons admin, I really appreciate your kind thoughts to value my advice.

However unfortunately I don't have the time in life right now to wade into that particular area.

I wish you the best of luck resolving the situation,

— Cirt (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sure thing Cirt--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Grammar crap again

Hi Drmies, I need your language expertise, please. In these edits there were numerous capitalization changes made to sections of Disneyland's Haunted Mansion. Should words like foyer, seance area, endless hallway, attic, portrait corridor, conservatory, grand hall, hall of mirrors be capitalized? Much love, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Dear God NO. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me through the logic? If (god forbid) we had to attend a business conference, the boring seminar might be held in the Vermont Room at the Marriott. Should that be the Vermont room instead? On The Love Boat, did Isaac serve drinks on the Lido Deck, or more properly on the Lido deck? While I understand that a conservatory is a run of the mill room in a fancy mansion like a bathroom is, (please don't take a dump in the conservatory) do we treat it differently because it's Disney's Haunted Mansion's proprietary Conservatory? What if we're talking about something that only this house has, like an endless hallway? Thx Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably should go with what their publications say. BTW, there's an excellent 3.75-hour biography of Walt Dinesy on PBS.org right now, viewable online through October 12. Warts and all. I found it fascinating -- stayed up till 5 AM watching it. Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that everything Disney does is proprietary and to them would require capitalization, but it's not clear to me why we would capitalize common nouns like "attic" simply because that's what their publications say. ? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, this is not grammar, of course, but style. Which doesn't mean we fight less over it. It's best to take this up with an MOS regular. Folks like Ealdgyth and Eric Corbett know the MOS inside and out. Honestly, whenever I look at it one way I think the other way is best, and vice versa. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know it "inside and out".... I just know a few parts of it that I have to use often. I actually do not "get" the silly capitalization rules we have - they go too far towards "no caps" for my training and outlook. It's just wrong to write "Norman conquest of England" - it's a named event - it should be "Norman Conquest of England". Frankly, a large section of the folks who frequent the MOS pages are just ... anal and a PITA. They scream bloody murder if a page has "local consensus" that differs from the MOS - but in all honesty, the MOS regulars are classic example of a "Local consensus"... heh. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, Cyphoidbomb, Put That In Your Pipe AND Smoke It... Thank you Ealdgyth. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would look at the capitalization on similar theme park and theme-park derivative articles, especially those that have been well curated. For one thing, the capitalization helps the reader recognize a specific specialty-ride or specialty-room or specialty-structure of a theme park, as opposed to a generic room ("attic"), structure, building, ride, or item. There are obviously arguments pro and con each way -- however if the capitalization aids the reader's comprehension and navigation in a longish article or paragraph, then I think it's a good idea, especially since each item in question does not have its own call-out section with subheading. Meanwhile I've now got "It's a Small World" playing in my head. Thanks a LOT, people. Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

American Ninja Warrior removal of content

Hi, Drmies. I've recently seen your multiple recent revisions of American Ninja Warrior (season 6) and American Ninja Warrior (season 7), two pages I have created. On the season 6 talk page, you say that you removed entire sections of "trivia" and "play-by-plays". I disagree. I'll agree with you somewhat with the removal of city qualifying, but removing the finals is uncalled for. If you call these sections such things, then why are the completely unreferenced sections of the Judge Cuts through Finale of season ten of America's Got Talent allowed to stay? It's essentially play-by-plays as well. The finalist, outcome, and time, for ANW are the same as the act, result, and outcome for AGT - both are unreferenced trivia. I can find links to sources stating all results for qaulifying, finals, and more, if you would kindly undo your revisions. ArcticGriffin (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I appreciate the note. First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. If you wish to compare, compare to a decent article--an FA or a GA. The article you point at is, well, not a good article--and even though it seems like an exercise is pop culture trivia with the lifespan of, well, a television season, it was infinitely better than those Ninja articles (one of them had two references--two). Now, I don't mind if you restore some of the information, but you have to realize that we're talking about a television show, not about something where those who come already have some kind of notability (the Olympics are an example of that). The "failed veterans" or whatever they are have no notability so there's no Wiki-legitimate reason to single them out. There can be no valid reason, besides looking at the example of other atrocious articles, of listing every individual participant and color-coding where they failed and on which obstacle and with which time. Unless, of course, we believe that Wikipedia, rather than an encyclopedia of knowledge, should be a compendium of trivia. So, if you wish to verify, do it with secondary sources, proper ones, sources that discuss the topic rather than just list or rehash factoids. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • All of the Ninja Warrior articles were split from the main American Ninja Warrior article into separate seasons, so I primarily took the exact information and pasted it onto the separate article. The unreferenced information on there has been on Wikipedia for years, and nothing has been done about it. That's why there is so little references. I agree with you that the city qualifying should not be included and I also agree with you that the color-coding has gone a bit too far. I will look for proper secondary sources. Thanks. ArcticGriffin (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I see; thanks. There have been problems there before; there was some edit warring in the past to keep other trivial content in--a list of lists of obstacles or something like that. ArcticGriffin, the best thing to do is to go to WP:FA and see if there is a show or something that has a Featured Article. That is the kind of comparison that's valid, and it can be quite helpful. As for the color coding, this is a hobby horse of mine and of editors like Alakzi--see WP:COLOR for the ins and outs. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Wish you were here ?

• Jaswant Thada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It makes unattributed aesthetic judgements, conveys subjective impressions, and addresses the reader directly in the second person. It's also today's Bing Desktop picture and so what some people might be looking up today. Enjoy. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, I've gone and spoilt it. The "mulch-tiered gardens" are now stripped of their mulch. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

?!?!

My friend, what is it with me and some South American users? Maybe I was a ruthless dictator à la Augusto Pinochet or Alfredo Stroessner in another life...

Please, if you can, have an input at this page, in the message titled "Mauricio Pinilla", an assertive but polite message to this user about the article Nolito received the reply "Pues consigue info de sus estadisticas don trabajador esforzado pff." (Well go and find his stats, Mr. hard worker pls). I said there was no need to insult, he replied "...sé feliz con tu nolito nomás" (be happy with YOUR Nolito, that is all).

After User:MYS77 kindly jumped in and showed him some sources about what he had been doing wrong, the reply was "A llorar a la FIFA par de putos jajaja a la otra llama a tu mamá para que te defienda" (Go cry to FIFA lousy punks ahahahah, the other calls HER mommy to defend HER).

What on earth is this? Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, how are you? Should I start an ANI or you'll deal with this? Thanks, MYS77 ^✉ 02:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just bad manners, that's all. No, MYS, this isn't ANI-worthy. I left a note. In English. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt "mucho" he knows any English, but if need be i'll provide translation for EVERY word I wrote there. Sorry for any inconvenience. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Y have come to warn you that I have lost it upon seeing this human waste response ("Oh, so beautiful a pair when is the marriage ahahah block me this Brazilian guy and your fucking mother" "Sácate los 7" I don't know what it means, "probably" another insult). I immediately regretted it and reverted myself, but notify you that you can block me if you see it fit.

Apologies again to you, kind sir. Also, block or no block (I won't budge if it happens, I promise), could you please drop in your opinion at WP:FOOTY (message titled "Doubt")? I'm a bit at a loss, to put it mildly. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Postmortem

Hi Drmies, can't say I wasn't warned, but heartened by having actually received more support !votes than 9 of the 15 successful RfAs this year, many unexpected (sunk by the percentages, but few surprises), I'm opening up a few threads with various individuals (starting with the !supports such as yourself, though will probably discuss with selected !opposes later once the mercurochrome quits stinging) to discuss the outcome and assess the feedback. I do want to take another run at this, and as I cannot see myself - or any dedicated content editor - avoiding all dramas (after all, Mustang is still not GA yet); I'd like to discuss an alternative way forward perhaps on-wiki or, probably preferably, via email. Let me know if you would be willing to offer some feedback. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Montana--I'd be lying if I said I didn't see it coming. I haven't seen the final numbers, but you clearly had a lot of support. I don't know if I can be of much help, and typically my advice is boring: listen to Bishonen, that's usually it. Oh, gotta go. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Oh I figured it would take a couple of runs to get there, I'm not crushed. Plus, I had 128 supports, which was actually more than 9 of the 15 successful RfAs this year, so I'm actually heartened. Also, I've hit the big time [11] and have been identified as in your camp, so sorry, man! In for a dime, in for a dollar! Unfortunately, Bish seems to have determined that one particular incident as deemed me forever an untouchable, which is a bummer because she's generally a pretty savvy player and I like her. I was pretty stunned by her response at the case in point and am still puzzled that it carried so much weight, given the totality of the circumstances. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jim Semonik

The article Jim Semonik has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

So he made a few recordings, and got a couple of mentions in a couple of local newspapers and on a few websites of little significance... No real evidence of notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hey JamesBWatson, you know this evolved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence (2nd nomination), right? David Gerard, Torchiest, I'll ping you both in case you want to save the article--you two were the keep voters in that discussion. JBW, I think this would be the first thing I created that gets deleted. There's a first time for everything. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, I didn't realise it came out of that discussion. Your message on my talk page came while I was away from home, without internet access, and by the time I found it, the AfD had already been closed, and I decided to just let it go, even though I still thought it should be deleted. I saw the other article today, and without remembering the other one nominated it for deletion. Well, I still think the subject doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines, but since two previous discussions on a closely related article have failed to reach a consensus to delete, I'll reluctantly withdraw my nomination.

Incidentally, are you sure you are happy to ping two editors on the grounds that they argued for "keep", while not pinging Me5000, who argued for deletion? On the face of it, I can't see how that isn't canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I wrote that about withdrawing my nomination thinking it was an AfD, but since it's a PROD, I'll just leave it, and see whether anyone else (including you) wants to contest it.

Again, my comment about "canvassing" was made thinking it was AfD, not PROD. I did think it very surprising that you would do anything so much like canvassing for an AfD, not what I would expect of you, and evidently I was right about that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. Yeah, I saw Me5000's comment and considered pinging them, but I figured they wouldn't be very interested in saving the article, which here means, first of all, deprodding it. Note that I didn't deprod--it's one of those BLPs I'm really not so sure about and I created the stub only to move the AfD forward. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, there's "a first time for everything", but this isn't it. Even if we ignore pages you created and then deleted yourself, and trivia such as a redirect which was deleted to make way for a move, you created the article Cristina Pumplun and the redirect 100-watt head, both of which have been deleted. That's a pretty low rate of deletion, out of 1101 creations in article space, but it isn't zero. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pumplun was deleted? Ah, interesting. Have a look at the contributions of 117.215.192.105--it's an Indian troll. SpacemanSpiff probably knows them; it's the same a-hole as 117.213.23.147. They PRODded a couple of things I did, and never notified me. I'm bringing that one back. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Aye, this is that Psthomas who we blocked for copyvios and what not. I thought he went inactive as he stopped doing this nonsense around my creations, but maybe it's time to check that out. —SpacemanSpiff 15:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, they were quite busy. Gene93k dePRODded one of them, SusunW another. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
        • As for Semonik that led to this discovery, it's been PRODded and dePRODded about ten days ago, so I don't think it's eligible for PROD now unless we consider that the old PROD is by a blocked user in violation of their block. —SpacemanSpiff 15:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
          • I've de-prodded per SMS's comment. Drmies, I doubt anyone would object to your undeletion of Cristina Pumplun, as undeleting prodded articles upon request is pretty standard. But if you're worried about "involvement", I can undelete if you want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Jim Semonik - Thanks, Floquenbeam. I didn't notice the earlier PROD. It helps to have edit summaries.
2. Cristina Pumplun - I have restored the article and de-PRODDed it. The PROD was purely disruptive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you all. Hey, sometimes I feel real good about the Wikipedia community--that is, sometimes it actually feels like a community. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed. Everything worked itself out before I had a chance to reply. Can't tell if I'm pleased or disappointed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Headache

If you are interested, I could use some help dealing with Galerie Gmurzynska and the various users fighting with each other all the time. Two discussions on my Talk page might provide some guidance: first one and second one. Besides, you're a good person content-wise to deal with the article. You know more about the visual arts than I do, and I have no doubt you speak much better German (a lot of German sources).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that's another fine mess. I have a suggestion: to block both editors. Hardblock--which may take care of the Lord as well. They are both practically SPAs, and appear to have insurmountable COIs with that particular article. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've been editing Nikolai Khardzhiev- I do get the impression that the sources have been used to give an anti-Galerie spin. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• A very murky story- if Galerie Gmurzynska smuggled the Khardzhiev archive out of Russia, they did it at the behest of two Amsterdam institutions. Makes me wonder what Grammophone's crusade is about. The archive and paintings were catalogued in situ by scholars from the University of Amsterdam and the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, who then arranged for Krystyna Gmurzynska to transport them. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• So does that mean this is all Drmies's fault?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• As usual He may not know much about visual arts, but he knows how much a black square on a black background is worth. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, that's worth a lot, and as it happens all these shenanigans led me to be able to see that beautiful square in the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam; I think it was part of nl:La Grande Parade. So I suppose I'm invooooolved. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Precious plunder about halfway down- look for Rudi Fuchs and Malevich. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fascinating article. Thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Don't forget the famous Pindakaasvloer. Priceless. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• How could I forget? I wrote it! (With a little help from Mandarax--and see this.) Drmies (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I saw it in 1997 in the Centraal Museum; loved it. The hagelslag-topping by some students was also great; I've forgotten their commentary, but it was in line with Schippers' explanations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You around right now?

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• For a moment, yes. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Gots to go, Floq--lunch time. Hungry. You can always call me on my cell. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I got pulled away from WP myself. I'm trying to recall if it was you who had a reasonable relationship with Diego Grez. I know somebody I know does. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's you. I'm shooting you an email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

YGM. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Passing through Probably a bit late now, but I think H. J. Mitchell has had a fair bit to do with Diego. 220 of ^Borg 12:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just a new note: You do know that Floq has retired and been de-sysopped at his request, right? I really wish I were joking. See WP:BN and WP:AN. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

An account?

Thank you, Drmies, for this [12]. But you already knew I'm 99, and were having fun with me. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:899F:E582:7736:44B6 (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• And crap, I can't leave the desk for a few hours without somehow getting cut off and receiving a new IP. Must be the country squirrels chewing through cables, or some such. 2601:188:0:ABE6:899F:E582:7736:44B6 (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Of course I knew. Can't you stay out of trouble? Is this your Falstaffian nature? Drmies (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

consider this

There is a concerted effort by Anglade haters to remove him from the article. They are manipulating Wikipedia. First, they removed his movie credit then they remove his very pertinent account, which other language Wikipedias have.

Also there is not consensus to do this. Other editors have chimed in but Pincrete and another editor zealously guards the article as their own. Other editors that share my view include Tough Sailor Ouch, Mezigue (9 Sept), F117IS (22 Sept), etc.

A better way would be for there to be other Wikipedia editors to chime in, not just the article owners Pincrete and that other editor. Moreoever, those editors frequently revert what I add, not discuss and modify.

Your threat is very harmful to Wikipedia because you, as an administrator, are becoming the owner of the article since you are both an involved party and an administrator. Nobody goes against an administrator, myself included.

I ask that you allow a way to mediate, such as a RFC or another way. Please suggest a way. I propose 3 choices, the stable version that existed for 3 weeks, my shortened version, and the gutted version proposed by the owners of the article. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Also consider that you are installing fear even though there is no consensus for you to do so. See your own comment...I've had enough of this. The ANI thread isn't attracting helpful attention; I've warned the editor on their talk page. ANI sometimes offers good suggestions, but not this time, and if this continues a block will be the necessary result. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)......See it was on ANI and no other of the 2,000 administrator feels the way you do. So please stop scaring me. Instead, I have constructively made a RFC to seek neutral comments. See my RFC on the Thalys talk page. My proposal is the best and very reasonable. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Dear Sandra, I don't care much for this "installing fear" language. When a person is told to stop disruptive behavior, they're not being bullied: they're being told to stop their disruptive behavior. Your opponents have taken up plenty of time and space on the talk page and explained their edits in edit summaries, so the claim that they're not discussing edits is prima facie ludicrous, as is the claim that I would be involved per WP:INVOLVED. You may have made a constructive RfC, and that's great--that is, as I suggested, a proper way for you to continue to engage with and attempt to improve the article. Conspiracy theories such as editors having an agenda to keep this or that person out of the article do not impress me. Finally, it is my job as an administrator to make sure that normal editing processes are not hindered, which was what you were doing--and you were essentially "installing fear" with your obstructionist behavior, if you want me to use that kind of language. That none of the other admins spoke up is hardly a reason to discredit what I think is proper here, but you are, of course, welcome to try that case on ANI. In the meantime, though, you must stop disrupting that article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I should, but I must provide my voice here in regards to Sandra's laughable comments:

1) None of us, I repeat, NONE OF US have some sort of anti-Anglade bias fueling our edits, nor is there an effort to remove him from the article (otherwise, everything that has to do with him would be completely deleted and not specific tidbits of information). I, for one, had no idea he existed before the attack occurred (how could I, anyway? I don't watch French films). But we have removed his movie credit because it is completely irrelevant, and then his account because it was making the section too blocky with its many quotes (a basic summary can also work fine in describing events). Just because the foreign-language versions of Wikipedia have that information doesn't mean the English one should too. Now that you mention it, I think such information has to be removed from those versions too due to relevance. Also, there is NO EFFORT to manipulate Wikipedia; you are making an overstatement and embarrassing yourself.

2) Yes, there was consensus established. Pincrete said that the discussion had been going on for a week now, which gave you PLENTY of time to chime in. And if these mentioned editors do share your view, as you say, why have they not chimed in with their input? It would've certainly helped your argument. Just because you have people who share your views doesn't mean it's an excuse to having this info stay.

3) You can't expect other editors in Wikipedia beyond the ones actively participating to chime in. Personal lives and preferences tend to get in the way, and it's something that can't be remedied. As for the reversions, there WERE discussions about the edits in the talk page, and the consensus was that those pieces of information HAD to be removed.

Versus001 (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Better to have the conversation here I think...

As I indicated in the ANI thread, I am uncomfortable with formally lifting the IBAN. Call it irrational, call it emotional, call it assuming bad faith, whatever, but I'm just not ready to do it yet. The best offer I can make right now is to promise I won't object or go running to ANI if good faith, productive, non-POINTy edits with civil editsums are made on articles that I've worked on, such as Evergreen Game - regardless of who makes them. And by productive I mean actually improving the article not just restoring one's own text.

For example I removed some text from Wayward Queen Attack as unsourced (here as well), not knowing or caring who wrote it originally. IHTS is welcome to re-add any or all material I have removed if he gives a source; simply restoring the text on the grounds that I am not "allowed" to remove it due to IBAN would be POINTy and unproductive. (BTW that article should probably be deleted - any chess opening with 50 names has notability issues - but that's another matter). MaxBrowne (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand why this has to be here rather than simply continue on your talk page, but OK. I think IHTS reads my talk page alongside the morning paper, so they know too. I suppose you gave a little in this message, which is good, but I just think it would have been nice to get that iBan off the books. They serve very little purpose. Thank you, and I hope I never have to run into either one of you an ANI again. Elsewhere is fine, like in the bar or the ice cream parlor. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of this proposal. The iBAN is a mutual iBAN. So if I, like the other party, decide any of their edits is not in good faith, not productive, POINTy, or with uncivil editsum, ... then what? It is iBAN violation? (So, in the case of a revert, where there is disagreement about the productivity of a single edit, for example, then both editors call each other out as violating iBAN?! Or, the editor wants to sit in judgement of my edits, while I'm not allowed to do same re theirs?! That is why what is described is confusing/illogical, or, why it is like having it both ways.) ¶ The editor insisted originally on having all aspects of the terms at WP:iBAN. But even under the iBAN they've said more than once they refuse to check edit histories and don't care about whose edits they undo. And when I have done that legwork for them by notating on article Talk, they've subsequently ignored, in one case opening an ANI when I restored my content with a neutral editsum to indicate the iBAN, and in another case reverting my restore with uncivil editsum "go to ANI or get lost". So even without any thought of a modified iBAN, the user wants to completely ignore the iBAN, but use argument at iBAN to get me blocked?? (Again, I don't get the logic, or balance, of that. It seems to be in favor of iBAN, but wanting it to work one way only. I do not understand this "modification" of iBAN. Editing without iBANs is already subject to conditions of good faith, productivity, non-POINTiness, and civil editsums, otherwise editors complain in ANIs and the like. Which this editor says they will do under those conditions. So he wants to operate as though there is no iBAN, while the iBAN is still in place not removed?! Or applied against me on the editor's own terms and their own discretion?! The modification they want seems to make a ghost of the original iBAN, operating as though there is no iBAN, but again, at their choosing, retain the right to use the ghost of iBAN when they decide. Again I'm going in circiles, since the editor originally insisted on complete enforcement of all aspects at WP:iBAN, but now has stated clearly they don't care if they undo my edits, even reverting my restore or claiming violation if I restore. What happened between demanding full WP:iBAN, to stop "gaming the system", and their operating behavior under said iBAN!? It seems that once they have discovered the terms of iBAN may apply to themselves equally, they refuse to follow iBAN, but they want it kept in place for application against my edits at will. The logical thing IMO is to either abide by iBAN, or remove it. I've never been in favor of iBAN, because it can act as a roving topic ban re edit content at articles. Editing freely without said restrictions is always better. I think the other editor has discovered that, too. But you can't have it both ways. ¶ I'd be interested to hear comments also from Sjakkalle and NE Ent. Thanks. IHTS (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. Should we just propose on ANI to get it lifted because it's not working? Haha, if each of you draw up a list of where the other violated it and didn't get blocked, that's essentially what we have. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, because the iBAN is being enforced only one way, not two. The iBAN was originally applied at AN, so shouldn't any removal also be at AN? (There seem to be fewer irresponsible drive-by commenters there, as well.) IHTS (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the problems which led to my requesting the IBAN in the first place have been addressed, and that they won't resume if the IBAN is lifted. And in the back of my mind there's a suspicion that this thing of objecting to productive, good-faith editing just because it happens to overwrite some text you wrote 2 or 3 years ago is some kind of Machiavellian scheme to get the IBAN lifted or at least to niggle me. Because honestly it's a pain in the ass, and I don't want to reward this behaviour. Yes I know I'm assuming bad faith, but that's where I'm at right now. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Two of your four edit undos were disimprovements to the article (not improvements), and the other two were neither improvements nor disimprovements. And judging by all the personal derogatory remarks you have been making about me (calling my recent behavior "bullshit", making comment at ANI about my "attitude", telling in editsum to "get lost"), and during the same timeframe I've made no such comments about you, and all while an iBAN is in place ... it s/b abundantly clear which editor s/b doing the worrying about behavior from the other. IHTS (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Even outside of the current timeframe, but still under iBAN, you opened a failed ANI on basis I sent a "Thank you" over an edit cleaning up vandalism on an article I attend to, but I was blocked at the time (a "Thank you" which was sincere, BTW), months after I sent it. In that ANI, you lamented to the ANI audience (hundreds if not thousands of editors) how I had been so "abusive" to you. After that ANI closed you played games on the closing admin's Talk with your "classic narcissist" name-call, telling Ched that you "shoudn't have said it" but that you "meant it". (All of this while supposedly an iBAN is in place. Drmies advised Ched that what you had done was baiting and perhaps blockable. And you say now you are worried about what problems if the iBAN were removed?!) IHTS (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

And please note in your request for iBAN: "I want the terms of the IBAN, and the consequences of violating them, to be very clearly spelled out to avoid any gaming of the system. The terms being: (1) No posting to each others user page or talk page (2) No replying to each other in discussions (3)No referring to each other directly or indirectly anywhere on wikipedia. (4) No undoing each other's edits (but we can edit the same articles so long as we keep to the terms of the iban). Basically as described in WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)". IHTS (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Admins, this has been going in circles, at ANI, and now here again. I've made myself plain there & here, I really don't have anything more to say (unless am provoked). An iBAN is in place, and please clarify what WP:IBAN has to say about editors making personal deragogatory comments in ANI threads, and user Talk threads, when topic is a breach, or the iBAN itself (clarification or questions or discussion about lifting). Because there's been a lot of it, and it seems inconsistent w/ intents & purposes of iBAN. And I'm very tired of being on receiving end, when iBAN s/b stopping personal comments, not be an ongoing venue for them. I have no interest in "equal time" personal comments, no matter how poorly WP:IBAN is defined. ¶ The other editor s/b abiding by the full iBAN they wanted, or removing it. They have made clear at ANI and here they won't be abiding by it, and, that they also don't agree to remove it. (!?!?) IHTS (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, this is not what the thread is supposed to be about. Instead of addressing my concerns re lifting of iban or talking about how we might be able to work together in future, you bludgeon me with a wall of text and bring up all manner of past grievances. What is this supposed to achieve? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll answer all your Qs ... My post was in partial response to your one-sided "the problems which led to my requesting the IBAN". My objections & concerns re incivility from you have been way greater than yours from me. (I can prove my case if anyone wants to go thru that detail, but no one does, so that also saves me work.) The difference is, I did not go demanding an iBAN (my views re iBAN have been consistently expressed), but you did, and you demanded all iBAN facets. But you've been busy stating in numerous locations that iBAN rules somehow do not apply to you, only to me, and under "your" terms. (Go figure!) You've made clear you do not want to lift iBAN (but you don't and won't follow its terms - go figure!), and I've made clear your idea of "working together" is confusing and illogical (consisting of keeping iBAN, but ignoring its terms). So why do you offer to "continue to discuss" when circular and illogical!? IHTS (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Again admins, this has been going repetitively circular, both here and at ANI. The ANI was presumably opened by JzG based on a third edit undo w/ blatantly expressed disregard of iBAN ("Go to ANI or get lost."). (And during the ANI itself, a fourth.) IHTS (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You haven't even attempted to follow Drmies's request. Dialogue is over, IBAN stays. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies' requested "let's hear what they have to say, and let's take it from there." Here's what you had to say: "As I indicated in the ANI thread, I am uncomfortable with formally lifting the IBAN." Then Drmies implied I should comment re your proposal, which I did in all honesty, above. The rest has been unproductive accuses such as "Machiavellian scheme", and going in circles. IHTS (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, would you like to offer any comments regarding the existing thread at ANI? I'm not seeing your name in any of it yet, and I think that there is some basis for some sanctions regarding the conduct that has taken place to date. I have already expressed my own opinions there, and won't repeat them here, but I do believe that it would be in the best interests of all involved if the thread were closed appropriately. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• John, I don't know. I suppose plenty of editors will see the above discussion as enough evidence to maintain the iBan. I haven't looked into the specific accusations--there aren't enough hours in a day--so I can't comment on that. Personally I think they can have all these accusations just as well without in iBan, and removing the iBan will remove one source of quibbeling. So if you want to chalk me down somewhere as supporting the lifting of it, please go ahead. But I don't really feel like contributing to that discussion right now; perhaps you know that I have some history with this particular matter. Personally I don't see that anyone needs to be sanctioned, at least not in a way that Wikipedia allows. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Would like to know way forward, if/when the editor continues undoing my edits to articles, which they've done four times now, none of which were improvements, two of which were disimprovements, and all the while stating in numerous ways they don't have to abide by the iBAN, which they requested. I've never asked for or wanted the iBAN, have consistently pointed to its drawback as "roving topic ban" bad for both editors. The editor seems to think it doesn't apply to them re undoing my edits, I've asked at the ANI opened by JzG that the undos not result in a block to the editor rather they be informed what they can and cannot do per iBAN. (Which isn't at all clear when it comes to making personal comments in ANI threads and associated Talk threads, but is very clear re undoing one another's edits.) I also requested at ANI direction for me in future what to do other than what I've been doing ... which is to notate on article Talk when an edit has been overlaid (taking the burden of researching article histories off the back of the other editor, who independent from that said they "refuse" to check article histories), then restoring the edit content myself if the other editor doesn't, with a qualifying neutral editsum making reference to the iBAN (one such restore led to the editor opening an ANI, closed as "no violation", another restore led to the editor reverting, with editsum "Go to ANI or get lost"). IHTS (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Well, an iBan means you can't undo edits, simple as that. I tried, IHTS, but to no avail. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  So how about an admin(s) telling the other editor that? With some consequences if they continue to stray? And a way forward for me if they continue to stray. Plus a way for me to safely restore the last two undos, which were disimprovements. IHTS (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  p.s. I think there's a misconception here, that the other editor "decides" to keep the iBAN. That isn't how things work. (Editors can request iBANs, but others decide. And if others have the decision power to put on, they also have the decision power to take off. It isn't up to the requesting editor.) But I for one have an allergy to initiating at AN boards (ANI especially, but AN is not a whole lot different). IHTS (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I posted on ANI a little while ago. You're right, an iBan is not some sort of ribbon one gets to keep. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oh I see now. (Thx.) IHTS (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Q: To lift iBAN, must it be done at venue where it was imposed (in this case, AN), or can also be done at ANI? IHTS (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I tagged it on to the current discussion. If there's consensus there to lift it, I assume that will be good enough. If it doesn't gain traction I can take it to AN. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• how does this look to you? MaxBrowne (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies, NE Ent's "lift iBAN" ANI proposal received !votes but the thread auto-archived without a closure. How to interpret and how to proceed (i.e. is there iBAN or no?)? Thx. IHTS (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Drmies, I'd like to get back to editing more, but would be nice to know whether I'm under sanction (iBAN), or not. (Do you know? And if not, how could I find out?) Thank u. IHTS (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • IHTS, sorry I didn't get to this yesterday. A long walk in the forest, a pretty exciting football game, you know how it is. Or maybe "a long coffee-saturated session at the clubhouse followed by an exciting chess match" works better for you. Well, it was auto-archived; that should tell you enough. Here's the thing. Actually a few things. (Here are). John Carter was pretty firmly opposed; I think they want to come down harder on MaxBrowne, maybe. I'm not exactly sure why John also wants to limit you--an iBan is of course a boundary. Softlavender was on your side, I think. (I don't want to be talking about sides necessarily--this is more to note that there were varied opinions.) I don't mind posting a request to lift the ban on AN, pinging every one who was involved in the "lift" discussion. Look over it again and tell me if I'm missing anyone, but I think that's NE Ent, MaxBrowne of course, Sjakkalle, Cobblet, Penwhale. I would invite all to participate and to keep it short--that goes especially for you and MaxB. The less you say, the better. (Oh! I'm getting company here outside from a little green lizard! Surely that's a good sign.) Shall I do that? Thanks, and may your rook never fail, Drmies (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Drmies, thanks for responding. No, it wasn't obvious to me what auto-archive implied, or I wouldn't have asked if the iBAN was still in effect or not. (If the iBAN is in effect, and apparently it is, then perhaps some admin s/ instruct the other user about overlaying edits? Since the editor has sworn they refuse to check edit histories, opened an ANI claiming iBAN violation after I restored an overlaid edit after documenting it on article Talk, and on another instance reverted my restore with "get lost" editsum. I have accepted the iBAN even though I don't like it, it was not my idea to open the latest ANI that admin JgZ opened, it was only my idea to get assistance & direction when the other editor has insisted they don't have to follow its restricstions when editing, even though the same editor asked specifically for all those restrictions at the original AN that imposed iBAN. I didn't get the direction how to proceed in future [I explained what I've been doing up to now thoroughly in the archived ANI and elsewheres] from JgZ or from the ANI thread, so is there any confusion why I might still be asking the same question at this point? Again, I didn't know how to interpret the archived ANI, it seemed consensus to approve lifing iBAN after NE Ent proposed same, but the ANI was not summarized & closed by an admin or non-admin. Again my thoughts about the iBAN have been already expressed in full, I'm wanting to know what to do when the other editor not only violates its editing restrictions, but also clearly states they won't abide by said restrictions and challenges me to open ANI thread to enforce iBAN, which seems like unnecessary disruption, since why cannot JgZ or some other admin deal with straight-forward violations, and give instructions for how I can proceed better or differently in future if that is required, and instruct the other editor about what they can and cannot do under iBAN? I had and have no other interest to blow this up bigger than simply living under the current iBAN. None of the other things in the ANI thread were my idea, though as stated I agree lifting and both editors editing freely is the best possible scenario. NE Ent has asked how can there be an iBAN when it is knowingly ignored. Or is it only ignored for the other editor, but not when violation is perceived to be a violation made by *me*? (For example, Sjakkalle forcefully warned me of a block for even commenting on the quality of an edit in my user subpage, where there wasn't even a reference made to the other editor. When I conscientiously read iBAN restrictions to ensure I could make such comment on content, before I made it. That is pretty extra-sensitive enforcement of iBAN, but it was OK, I guess, when it was *against me*. Yet when the other editor flaunts the editing restrictions of iBAN openly, Sjakkalle has remained silent.) I would still like to know how to proceed. I have no interest in being threatened or blocked because of this iBAN. IHTS (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • IHTS, there's no consensus until someone says there is one, and the discussion is closed by someone with some weight. So yeah, the iBan is still in effect, and as you can see below MaxBrowne wants another. Really a conversation killer, don't you think? Now, do you want me to propose lifting it? I can't really see in your long paragraph whether you want me to or not. (I just can't address all the past violations and the conversations about it; there's no point to it and we all know about the complications/injustice/etc., but there's no fixing past things. Sorry.) Drmies (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I have not asked anywhere to "fix past things", I've only always asked for admin intervention to instruct the other editor what they can and cannot do under iBAN, since they've not only been undoing edits but openly flaunting the editing restrictions; and a way forward for me, if/when more edits continue to be overlaid by the other editor. That is all future stuff. ¶ I'm not asking you to open an AN thread on my behalf (why not? it seems any proposal by IHTS about anything Wiki is an automatic shooting target for fun, that's why), but you already know I respond positively to proposals (by you & NE Ent) for a lift. Since as you mention the ANI was not closed, and it seems Sjakkalle is admin of weight and believes a lift has merit at least as trial, then wouldn't it be simpler to restore the archived thread, which is allowed right?, and encourage him to evaluate consensus and close it? Anyway even the other editor observed a consensus to lift. And I agree with everyone who has stated the iBAN should be either enforced or lifted (I believe that includes you, NE Ent, Cobblet, JgZ, and [my interpretation] Sjakkalle, and maybe I'm missing someone else too). IHTS (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
          • • Sjakkalle, how about it? Do you see a consensus to lift it? I'm fine with lifting it. No one really wants to enforce it. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Rook (chess) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) "May you never have a rook colony nesting close to your house", it's a big and very noisy bird and will keep you awake all night. Thomas.W ^talk 15:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC) (speaking from own experience)
    • Sorry Homer, I don't believe in Wikipedia as a reliable source, nor do I believe in properly verifying the accuracy of anything I say. Thanks though! Drmies (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
      • You can't use Wikipedia to reference Wikipedia, so I guess you're right there. :) I forgot a rook was a bird too. I did know it was the little tower/castle thing. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I have to say that Max's conduct at ANI may well be among the two or three worst I have ever seen displayed, and on that basis have very serious questions whether that behavior is standard for him, and, if it is, whether there might be serious questions regarding his basic competence to work in a collaborative environment. I mean that very seriously. But if IHTS wants to subject himself to that egregiously unacceptable behavior, that's his business. At this point, like I said in the discussion, I tend to think that Max may have more than earned an at least temporary topic ban. But, if IHTS wants to subject himself to similar conduct, then I guess, if both of them agree to lifting it, there really isn't anything anyone else can really say, other than perhaps that if the lifting of the i-ban doesn't work the next obvious step would be ArbCom, at least to me anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
      • John Carter, just to clarify, I have no desire to subject myself to any of what you refer to, as stated elsewhere I simply feel that iBAN, amounting to roving topic ban, is worse. The other editor has made clear in the archived ANI their !vote to not lift iBAN so I don't know why you're conjecturing what happens if both editors agree to lift. And even theoretically if both editors agree to a lift, it's my understanding the decision to impose or lift is not their discretion, they are only in position to make request(s), right? IHTS (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Ihardlythinkso You're right, I forgot that he had withdrawn his earlier apparent support for lifting the i-ban, and my apologies. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• I first became aware of the IHTS-MaxBrowne conflict at the end of 2013, so this is a long running issue. First I should probably disclose that in general, my impression of IHTS has been wose than my impression of MaxBrowne, in no small part because of a series of vicious, sarcastic, accusatory and downright rude attacks on 23 January 2014 at my talkpage, something that continued throughout the year including him filing two ANI reports against me in one day, both determined to be baseless. With that said, MaxBrowne was the arguably worse offender at the recent conflict on Evergreen Game, having gone back to that article after being strongly advised not to. The arguing with the edit summaries on that article is a clear indication that the animosity has not been resolved, so just lifting the IBAN and letting them go at each other is probably a bad idea. But the IBAN hasn't ended the conflict either. I suppose we could lift the IBAN and refer the case to ArbCom for a binding resolution. If this has been going on for two years, I think it safe to say the community has been unsuccessful at resolving the issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sjakkalle, you consistently distort and misconstrue things to paint me in the worst possible light. One case in point: There was no animosity in any of my editsums at article Evergreen Game. There was clear animosity from the other editor, but there was none from me, my editsums were as professional and unemotional. Yet out of what I have to assume is entire bad faith and personal bias you like to paint me "equally guilty" of showing "animosity". And you talk about "baselessness"?? (BTW, regarding those two ANIs I filed, you're painting them as though I was after a sanction on you ["against you"], when the fact was my goal was simply and only to get clarification re WP:IBAN, because after a good-faith read of WP:IBAN I saw nothing prohibiting commentary on edit content as long as an editor did not comment on or interaction with the other editor. The basis of the ANI was that I sincerely felt your opposite reading of WP:IBAN was in error, and I needed your understanding and my understanding corrected and confirmed. Nothing more and nothing less. The second ANI opened was the very same topic, since the first ANI had been abruptly closed and there was no answer for me in it, only insults.) IHTS (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• If no one is willing to enforce an iban, is it really an iban? I got nothing, at least nothing short. NE Ent 02:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe that answers the question: "What's a bog-standard? NE Ent 00:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)" [13]. IHTS (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Basically what Sjakkalle said. And if the IBAN isn't lifted then it should be enforced. In that case temporary topic bans for both editors would be reasonable. Cobblet (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • On what basis do you want to additionally sanction me? (For asking admins to instruct the other editor to follow iBAN restrictions instead of openly flaunting them?! I've been trying to follow iBAN restrictions, and been consistently asking for way forward to do that. Without receiving any answer.) IHTS (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • If we intend to enforce the IBAN, this diff would constitute a violation of it. As would Max overwriting your text in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • And of course I knew that. But I've asked for what I'm supposed to do instead? (I had gone to an admin for help, but they gave an irresponsible answer, that I should go to Talk:Chess and ask about content consensus?!?) Restoring the edit with polite editsum re the iBAN could have been a peaceful resolution w/o sucking others' time/attention. So far no one gives me clear instructions how to handle a clear-cut edit undo in intentional violation of iBAN edit restrictions. (Go to ANI to involve all that readership, and to receive drive-by insults from uninvolved reg editors?!) IMO this is simple admin issue. I went to two and was accused of "admin shopping" by the other editor! IHTS (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • That's his problem; you were absolutely right to look for an admin who'd be willing to enforce the IBAN. You had two legitimate grievances here: MaxBrowne's IBAN violation, and a content dispute. You did not have to violate the IBAN yourself to resolve the latter. Seeking a third opinion at WT:CHESS would've been a reasonable way to go about it. Cobblet (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
          • I went to *three* admins for help without getting any, on simple iBAN undo violations (in order: The Blade of the Norther Lights, NewYorkBrad, JgZ). I find it weird the idea of getting into consensus content discussion on minor content issue, which could drag out, or produce no interest, or even no consensus, where a simple clear-cut iBAN undo violation is involved. (On one of the undos, even though I pointed out that the book reference says a move is "better", the other editor has supplied "best", which is different meaning and inconsistent with the source of course, but even I've explained this twice to correct their understanding, their edit still remains, in violation of iBAN to-boot. [Go figure.]) IHTS (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • That was nevertheless the right risk to take – that you have no choice but to handle a trivial content dispute in such a clumsy manner is the price we pay for having the IBAN in place. Violating the IBAN yourself was the wrong risk to take, like how MaxBrowne plunged into editing the article without pausing to consider whether it would violate the IBAN. Cobblet (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
              • But that is water over the dam. (I took the risk to restore the edits myself, after doing what I could cooperatively on article Talk, and with polite editsums, thinking an admin would be more forgiving, especially since any involved admin would have their time sunk. I've asked for directions or instructions how to proceed for future if/when more edits are undone. I shouldn't have to open content threads in those cases, and that's problematical for reasons already listed. I don't elect to do that unless that is required, and I don't think it is required - WP:IBAN forbids undoing the other's edits period. The other editor cannot "name conditions" for restore either, which they have done also.) IHTS (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• I don't think I should have to put up with these repeated attacks on my character by Carter. His claim that I am unable to work collaboratively etc is not born out by evidence, and his repeated exaggerated criticism has been highly disruptive and unhelpful throughout every single discussion. I am on the point of requesting an IBAN against him. MaxBrowne (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think the evidence of your high-handed attempts to dictate conversation at ANI, including closing a subthread because you personally said it "wasn't serious" or words to that effect, implies otherwise, possibly probably to several people other than you. There is I think no possible way that, at least to my eyes, anyone other than apparently you could see that particular edit as being anything other than disruptive and unhelpful, to single out just one comment. I am more than willing to allow ArbCom to review the conduct of all involved at ANI however, if you are. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hey hey y'all drop it please. Not here. Not anywhere else either unless it's your own talk pages. Please. Also, I believe it's Mr. Carter. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Next section please

IHTS, I just looked over the discussion that led to the iBan. I mean, I'm not that excited about the San Diego game, not like {U|Bbb23}} for instance, so I did a little copying and pasting. That unholy discussion takes up 66,000 characters; over 31,000 of those characters were yours. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. In fact, if you want me to propose lifting the iBan, I'm going to ask everyone involved to refrain from commenting on other, unrelated matters. So let me know. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That was awhile ago, Drmies. I since am a student of the Eric Corbett art of being laconic. There was also a lot of mud thrown there. IHTS (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I know. Just saying. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've answered your main query above. Ok, IHTS (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate interference by disruptive editor; also, it's halftime. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unrelated to the iBan, or unrelated to the San Diego game? NE Ent 01:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC) This game could be awesome, but it's not. Any of these your favorite, Ent? Drmies (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Request of restauring "All-Africa Games sports"

Hi, I put on first a request to you as an administrator who deleted the page All-Africa Games sports. I created the page since a few days, maybe one day after, a request of deletion was put on Wikipedia, reason is that the article does not introduce any additional or relevant information. At this time the article was poor however i puted a template of "article need expand" and some days after I worked hardly to expand the article. But the article was deleted by vote yes, but as an administrator, u can see if it's correct to delete or no the article. All multisports competitions have similar articles (Olympic sports, European Games sports, Asian Games sports, Pan American Games sports ...etc), I think All-Africa Games can have the same article. Thank u to read me and best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fayçal.09, thanks for your note. I don't wish to answer with a simple link, but if I did, that link would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That those articles are like this is not a reason to keep this article, and considering the discussion, I think it's rather the other way around, that the AfD discussion, even though it had only four participants, established a reason to delete the other articles. Now, that deletion wasn't so much my decision as it was my reading of the consensus of the AfD discussion. You can always try Wikipedia:Deletion review, but you would have to argue that I read the consensus wrong, and with three votes to delete and yours the only keep (your argument being refuted by another editor) I think it is very unlikely that the decision will be overturned. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Drmies, thank you for your answer and your explanation. Yes I understand your meaning and I guess that it will be difficult to restaure the page because the vote. In my modest opinion, I think that the article have a merit to be in Wikipedia same as all the same articles. I will try to take a request. Thank you much. Greetings. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I wish you all the best with it. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Triangles - and since you mentioned it.

As related to this Since I was considering the very same thing, I did send an email to User:Arbitration Committee .. User:Arbcom seems to be a blocked account which redirects to the more formal "User:Arbitration Committee" ... funny thing too - I was also wondering if the "ping" thing would work for them (if they have email notification turned on, I assume it would), but I figured I'd take the formal route. I won't say Great minds think alike - mainly because I question my own ... but I do trust yours. — Ched :  ?  20:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I fully expected a redlink to show up, but it didn't. Turns out it's a non-edit account, kind of like NE Ent's, set up to enable email. On the more serious note, I do want ArbCom members to hang around in those places and take action/respond/get involved. They're supposed to be editors and usually admins too. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • [14] NE Ent 20:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) agree, and wish they would have made some sort of "group" declaration, rather than an individual bit of "confusion". I could make a guess .. but it would be speculation.

On a secondary note - I also have noticed a marked positive improvement in an editor above, and am very impressed. Since I'm hardly a 'favorite uncle' - I've resisted commenting in the IBan topic threads, but I do think they've made some very valid points.

@Ent - that crossed my mind. I'm also remembered of the saying: "It's not the lie that bothers me, as much as the fact that they think I'm stupid enough to believe it." — Ched :  ?  21:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination for Sheila Cameron (artist)

I am the editor who created Sheila Cameron (artist), which was nominated for deletion and then for speedy deletion by Olowe2011. Thank you for closing the speedy nomination before I even got around to contesting it — I was in the process of drafting a comment at the Administrators' noticeboard about it instead.

The change to speedy was noted as being solely because "the subject of the article in fact requested for the article to be made." As I understand it, while per WP:COI editors are strongly discouraged from creating articles about themselves, requests for uninvolved editors to create such articles are perfectly acceptable. SheilaCameronArtist made her request appropriately enough at the Teahouse, though it's true she could also have used Wikipedia:Requested articles. (I have no prior connection with Sheila Cameron; I just like helping articles that seem to merit inclusion but need an uninvolved editor to work on them get onto Wikipedia. Other articles I have helped with in this regard include Kossila Oxbow and Canberra Innovation Network, both of which had been started by editors with COI, and passed AfC review with my assistance.) Given the very existence of Wikipedia:Requested articles, I didn't see how the mere fact that Sheila Cameron herself sought to have an article about her and her work included in Wikipedia would make the page merit a nomination for speedy deletion. (I'm not sure of the exact basis you used for declining the speedy nom.) Is this correct, or have I misunderstood Wikipedia policy regarding the creation of such articles? This is my first time having an article I created nominated for deletion or speedy deletion, so I'm trying to learn about the process. Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• User:GrammarFascist (are you the nicer cousin of GrammarNazi?), I didn't remove the speedy tag--I forgot who did, but it wasn't me. I did remark on that at the ANI without having to explain anything about speedy deletion since that wasn't necessary there. That thread was closed very quickly; conclude what you will about that editor and their charges.

  You are correct: there is no "speedy deletion because of COI" or something like that. Have a look at WP:CSD--it's not there. If I remember correctly the speedy was db-person, which is A7, and it was denied/removed by someone saying "importance is asserted" or something like that. (I could look this up but Volunteer Marek wants me to pay attention to the close of the Auburn game; my apologies.) Now, to "avoid" (or deny) speedy deletion per A7 the only thing that is necessary is a somewhat believable claim of importance, that's all, and that editor thought the article made that claim (and I agree). That doesn't mean it won't survive AfD, of course, but that's another matter.

  As for your creation of that article, that's nice of you, and I think that's the kind of thing we ought to do. I got no problem with it, and I hope for your sake that your article survives--though, honestly, I have my doubts; it all seemed a bit thin. But who knows! Thanks, and I hope I answered all your questions.

Oops, I thought it was you; my mistake. (Like I said I am new to the Administrators' noticeboard and to both kinds of deletion nomination, so I suppose it was inevitable I'd make a mistake of some sort.) I have already concluded several things about the nominating user but am doing my best to assume good faith and maintain civility. I appreciate your kind words about my having created the article and your well-wishes for it to survive AfD review. I can acknowledge it's not an overwhelming case for notability, but I prefer to err on the side of keeping articles that are close to the line on establishing notability, whereas Olowe2011 seems to prefer to err on the side of deletion. Well, this is why decisions are made by consensus. I just hope some third parties come to join the discussion, as the nominator and I seem unlikely to come to agreement on our own.

And my username was based on the fact that I am definitely what is commonly called a "grammar nazi" but I wanted to avoid a username containing the string "nazi" for the obvious reasons. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I AGF and assume that the esteemed editor just loves pasta and trains that run on time. Plus good grammar. I do agree with you, Drmies, that the notability of this artist is "thin", as I expressed in a discussion on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is he still here?

You can start here. Then take a look at his Talk page, including the warning from Yunshui back in 2014, not to mention the rest of the warnings. He also left a similar rant on another user's Talk page (there he incorrectly called the user an administrator). Then go through his contribution history. God, he makes bad edits and most are the same sorts of edits he's been warned about in the past. I reverted a few of the more egregious ones, but he rolls on. I can't decide whether he should get a final warning, should just be indeffed, or what, but you know cowardly me, I feel now that I'm WP:INVOLVED (although that wouldn't of course preclude a warning). You're probably busy on game day, but maybe you'll have a moment between beers.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Pff. "Self-appointed administrator"--if they only knew how many editors I had to bribe to sneak you through AfD. Haven't had a beer yet, but we've had a pretty productive Sunday so far, and I'm watching Julio Jones, former Alabama player, defeat the Cowboys almost singlehandedly. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for All-Africa Games sports

An editor has asked for a deletion review of All-Africa Games sports. 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.

You have been mentioned in an Arbcom case

Hello User:Drmies, you have been mentioned in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complaint_against_administrator_conduct and if you desire, enter a statement, and any other material you choose to submit to the Arbitration Committee's attention. You may find useful information by reviewing the following links as well:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration

Wikipedia:Arbitration guide

Thank you for the attention you have given this matter. Olowe2011 ^Talk 12:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

reason for the revert at Arbcom

Hey I just wanted to let you know I reverted you because USER:JustBerry chose to transclude his statement in the arbcom case.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved Thanks Mcmatter. Drmies, the template is there, as users were removing my comments earlier due to a template break of sorts on the page. Also, edit conflicts started to become an issue as well. --JustBerry (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• I understand. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: It appears that transcluded statements are not permitted. I've changed it accordingly anyways. --JustBerry (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• JustBerry, the first time I removed it I thought it was some sort of place holder that I accidentally copied when I copied the heading. The second time I thought it was another type of error, that it was something weird in "my" section which I could remove because I saw your section just below mine--not realizing that the thing was your section. So sorry, I had no idea what I'm doing. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• No worries. There appears to be quite a lot of editing conflicts/mistakes due to the high activity of the page today - it's happening to everyone. --JustBerry (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Comment Moved to Appropriate Section

Just wanted to inform you that your comment has been moved to your statement section here. --JustBerry (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters

Howdy! I'm noticing some disruptive editing at List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters, namely the resubmission of much of the same fancruft crap that you cut from the article. It has been reinstated a few times by Dedham, Massachusetts IPs, and more recently by BFlatley, who (even if I hadn't looked at this intersection report) is clearly the IP editor logging in to continue the disruption. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Nottingham Bluecoat Academy

Could you help me understand this revert?[15] —Sladen (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• What does "Trust" mean? Why should it point to a content section, and there be a Trust section pointing to the article for another school? Drmies (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Sladen, it just occurred to me I didn't give much of an answer: what I reverted was edits by IP82.25.11.240, who is a block evader who is possibly related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry (singer)/Archive, according to Ponyo's comment at an ANI thread. There's another IP involved as well, and it seems to be a pretty prolific socker. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for trying to expand your answer. Yes it would be useful to know the basis on which the WP:REVERT was being made (reverting is often a last-resort, only for when it isn't possible to take an article forwards—the only basis I can see here would be WP:DENY if an editor had already been blocked). I have reviewed Special:Contributions/82.25.11.240's last few edits, and haven't seen anything unproductive yet; likewise I can't see a mention of User:82.25.11.240 on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry (singer)/Archive; nor in the linked ANI oldid 683329226 any reference to User:82.25.11.240, nor from a casual technical stand-point why a user on an `82.24/14` NTL cable model appearing to edit Nottingham-ish related subjects might have anything whatsoever to do with an Italian 86.5/16 block. Please could you assist me to understand, and help point me more precisely to additional diffs? —Sladen (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Sladen, I'm not quite sure what you mean with "Italian"--86.5.176.46, mentioned in the SPI and blocked by Ponyo for disruptive editing and block evasion, locates to Nottingham. In addition, that IP as well as the two I blocked share an interest in Ross Bagdasarian, Jr., Ross Bagdasarian, Sr., and associated articles, such as a slew of Alvin and the Chipmunks stuff. What the involvement of the 86.5 IP is with the Harry SPI, I cannot tell you, but what I can say is that it's not just DENY; their edits are...not improvements. I mean, this (again in the Chipmunks field)--and none of the edits are explained. And then there are lots of small edits to infoboxes that do not appear to be article improvements to me. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

      I've had a look at my .bash_history from the other two and the two IPs I whoised were Special:Contributions/87.1.112.159 and Special:Contributions/82.25.11.240. The first differs from 86.5 so that leaves me a little confused about where I copied-and-pasted those IPs from. Hopefully the mix-up and copying and pasting on my end explains the mistake.

      For the five-month old The Chipettes Chipmunk's edit by the IP, this appears a self-revert by that IP in the middle of a set of edits; if one looks at the full set of edits[16] performed on 2 April 2015 it would appear, on the face of it, to be constructive. —Sladen (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Request for Arbitration Committee judgement arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Dr, I'm wondering if "I'm from Covina" is another alias of [17]. Might be worth a check. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting--let's see if we can drag Bbb23 away from the TV for a bit of CU (he's a huge Monster Truck fan, you know). Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• What else could he possibly have to do? 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• This person is persistent, though. I'm not familiar with the master but apparently they're interested in some dumb "feud" between rappers (Drake and someone called Meek Mills), and this one has been editing that as well. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Very. 'Course, it's all Greek to me, but I first ran across edits by this sock [18]. There are some common threads. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The two of you are having such a good time at my expense. Common threads? Yeah, they use IPv6 addresses just like you, 99. So there. The following accounts are  Confirmed:

• I'm from Covina (talk · contribs · count)
• Ailurophile95 (talk · contribs · count)
• Vibrasse (talk · contribs · count)
• Hiraeth Wikipedian (talk · contribs · count)

Say goodnight Gracie.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Bbb. Prolific sock--one can expect them to continue showing up in the Romani/hip hop venues. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Bbb. I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Samael - Worship Him

Greetings... A while back you helped me make the Sarcófago article a good article. I'm currently editing Samael's Worship Him album. You mind giving me a hand? Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I did? Sure, I'll be glad to have a look. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Musicaindustrial, that's going to be a difficult thing unless some more sources pop up. There isn't much to work with. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's as much fun as you make it

-- User:Funkatastic has given you a large glass of milk, since you seemed a little down in the dumps. Hey man, was just looking at an edit you made over at Drake (rapper) fixing the end of the Pusha T section. First I'd like to thank you for removing the opinionated content, just wanted to shoot a quick message about the edit summary. There's really no need to put "this writing is atrocious" when making an edit. I agree that whoever wrote that did a fairly poor job, but we're not here to bash anybody. I don't know who originally wrote it, and I truly don't care. Just thought you could use a pal to remind you that though we're all here to make Wiki a better place, it'll only be as much fun as you make of it. Sure there are plenty of dumb asses out there who we need to protect pages from, but editing can't be enjoyable when you let other people's stupidity get under your skin. Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk who might need/deserve it. Enjoy!

[Wiping off her milk moustache as she speaks :] Darwinbish has drunk your milk! The milk made her happy and she'd like to give you a great big hug for leaving it where she could reach it. Spread the WikiLove by giving her more things to drink, unless you want her boys to pay you a visit! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 13:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC).

• Oh Bish, you drank my milk? Drmies (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, darwinbish drank it. [A little dubiously:] I'm sure it made her all mellow! Milk is so soothing! Bishonen | talk 13:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC).

PS: You know, this blue thingy isn't closed, it'll just go on and on. Not sure how to fix it. I'll see if this works. Bishonen | talk 13:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC).

It did, but I didn't mind being in the blue thingy. You moved the /div thingy, right? So I imagine in your part of the woods the sun has gone down for the next six months? Drmies (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Question for you

Hello. Since Bagumba is on vacation, I'll ask you. Can you take a look at Talk:Saint Peter's University#Layout disagreement? I just want you to look at the article and give us your thoughts. I think someone besides Beyond My Ken and myself needs to comment. In my opinion, the other user is being rude and not really helpful as I'm acting in good faith and trying to work this out. If you don't want to comment but know of an administrator that works in the university articles, please let me know and I'll ask them to comment. Thanks. Corkythehornetfan 21:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrators have no special remit concerning content, so why would you want an admin, in particular, to comment? Certainly not to intimidate me. BMK (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, interesting to note that you posted this here 3 minutes after I warned you not to canvass. Please read WP:CANVASS, which is a policy. BMK (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• But BMK, I am an administrator in particular: I'm me! Corky, as we all know, BMK can be a bit rough around the edges. I keep thinking that age will smooth him out, like a pebble in a river, but it hasn't happened yet. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• There are problems with both but there are experts on these matters; I'm not one of them. The Eric Corbett cabal knows, since they write up GAs and FAs all the time (somehow that makes them special, boohoo). I'm thinking that User:Dr. Blofeld will know too, and he probably knows all the acronyms leading to the MOS sections.

  Look, Corky's version (scroll down to the peacock has the image properly aligned in the section; BMK's does not. Corky's has two pictures sandwiching the text of the Athletics section (a no-no), but BMK's, again, has images on the left in a sort of continuous column, which also isn't pretty and, I think, not recommended. Corky sandwiches Recent developments also, but so does BMK, with an image in the History section on the left and the infobox on the right, and an image on the left right below that runs into the History section. So, as far as I'm concerned, neither of you are winning a beauty contest--sorry. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I originally had place a gallery in the Recent developments section. Like all of my other edits in that article, it was reverted. The gallery fixed the sandwiching problem, but apparently that wasn't good enough either. Thanks again for your input. The article has been removed from watchlist and I will no longer edit that page. Corkythehornetfan 22:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather the two of you got together to improve the article...but I haven't looked at the talk page; maybe the differences are irreconcilable and a divorce impending. Still, I'm an optimist. If you can work it out one way or another much will be gained. BMK? Drmies (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, Drmies, you know the esteem in which I hold you, but I amn't buying this at all - he's talking rules and I'm talking visual quality and effectiveness. There is no aspect of CTHF's layout which is an improvement on the current layout. I'm sticking by my offer: if an independent uncanvassed editor thinks CTHF's layout is better than the current one, I'll de-watchlist the article and anyone is free to screw it up in any way they wish to (which is generally what happens when one applies MOS indiscriminately without any feeling for what works and what doesn't). BMK (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, undoubtedly y'all should find someone more knowledgeable than me if you want to find someone to settle this. BTW, as for canvassing, my interactions with Corky have been very limited; if anything, judging from all the years we spent together and all the articles we share, I'm much more likely to side with you--though that kind of judging is very limited. Anyway, my limited experience tells me that in both versions there are things that are against the rules and visually unappealing. Sandwiching is against the rules; having pictures run from one section into the other is unappealing (and maybe against the rules, I don't know). Take it easy BMK, Drmies (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Likely ...

... an author you know and maybe would like to flesh out: Frans Pointl. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I added some words. Never read him--I suppose he came too late for me, but I'll pick it up next time I'm home. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Bollywood music

I've seen a lot of dialogue on this talk page about Bollywood, and a lot of dialogue about music. Does anyone have any opinion or helpful advice on "Ainvayi Ainvayi"? I've never worked on a Bollywood song article before, so I don't know the places to look (beyond what I found). The song is repeatedly mentioned as a "hit" and a "chartbuster" in various articles, so I think there must be sites or lists or charts or articles (reviews?) I'm missing merely because of complete ignorance. Any help to add to the article would be appreciated. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• The language of "hit" and "chartbuster" is what counts as objective terminology on the subcontinent, I believe, but the real expert here is SpacemanSpiff. Funny you should mention this--this morning I brought a couple of Bollywoodish CDs back into rotation in the kitchen. (Don't tell Spiffy, but they're CDs I got for free with jars of curry sauce. Real classy stuff.) Drmies (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Doc, you know that I'm no expert on this, I stay away from this kind of stuff. I'd say this doesn't pass WP:NSONGS, and the coverage is only in the context of the soundtrack/film. The film coverage from HT or ToI, especially what's only online and not print is woeful and would rarely pass WP:RS as they are often promo puff pieces. If the song had won Filmfare Award for Best Female Playback Singer or had a write up on it, I'd right out say it's notable, but at this point it doesn't seem to be. —SpacemanSpiff 15:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The coverage is not only in the context of the soundtrack: multiple Top 10 lists in RSs, top 21 Bollywood songs of the last 100 years, etc., plus an IIFA award. In any case, I'm looking for sources, and help on adding to the article, because I don't know where to look. Does anyone have any advice? Surely there are specific or even hidden sources to check into -- the song is very hard to Google because of all the fandom it has and because that completely unrelated movie was named after it. So I need specific sites to check, but I have no clue because this is not my area at all. Softlavender (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'll ping MichaelQSchmidt whose skills in researching things like this are top notch. I can't guarantee that this will be of interest to MQS but it is worth a try. MarnetteD|Talk 16:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Marnette. It may be the case however that specific knowledge of Bollywood and/or Indian websites or chart listings is required, which is why I think I need an expert on Bollywood music and the sites that review or list or chart it. Sometimes you can't get to those things unless you know the specific site (or publication) names. Softlavender (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I just remembered that another editor to check with is Ssven2 who lives in India as is a valuable editor and researcher. MarnetteD|Talk 17:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call myself a researcher (even though I'd like to be one someday, lol). I don't very much work on Bollywood song articles though. You can ask User:Bollyjeff or User:Jionpedia.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 00:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply Ssven2. Softlavender well get you to an editor that can help yet :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK, thanks Ssven2. I'll ping Bollyjeff and Jionpedia: Can you two help find sites, sources, charts, lists, reviews, and coverage for "Ainvayi Ainvayi"? Since I don't speak Hindi, don't live in India, am largely unfamiliar with Bollywood, and have never heretofore worked on a Bollywood article, I'm having some trouble. The song is repeatedly called a "hit" and a "chartbuster" on the internet, so I'm sure there is more out there than I have found. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Me... I like the efficacy of WP:INDAFD, and what it offers for "Ainvayi Ainvayi, Band Baaja Baaraat". If a song topic meets the basic inclusion guide it is almost a certainty it can be shown to meet WP:MUSIC through its creation, use, and reviews. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, I'm looking through that. I think it's clear the song meets both GNG and MUSIC, though others may disagree. Anyway, any help from our two Bollywood experts would be welcome as well. Thanks everyone. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Survivor: Worlds Apart

Hey, so I noticed that you also called out CloudKade11 on the talk page for that season of Survivor. This is honestly a problem that's been going on for a while - he thrust that mostly false section upon the page, with NO consensus even though he claimed there was "overwhelming consensus" on the talk page (which is blatantly false), also with minimal sources, or sources that were literally just the official episode recaps on CBS, and when I tried to call him out on the biased and unnecessary nature of it all, and even tried to edit it further to balance it out for the sake of neutrality, he threatened to ban me. Do you think maybe you could do something about him? I think that whole section should've been removed a long time ago, honestly. Any help you can provide would be great. 169.231.23.209 (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, something I thought was interesting to note - on the talk page for that season, literally the ONE other user who agreed with CloudKade was a user by the name of 5teevee5 - which just so happens to be a sockpuppet account for CloudKade. 169.231.23.209 (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Right on. I'm putting this here for shits and giggles. The editor should count themselves blessed not to have been blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Haha, thanks - you're awesome. It is pretty merciful that they haven't been blocked permanently, though I can imagine that they'll put up one heck of a fight once they come back. If it comes to that, I really hope they just don't go back to the previous edit warring, because that won't get anything done. But thanks for all your help. 169.231.23.209 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering that they've been blocked for edit warring before, and that they've been socking to make their point, a return to edit warring will likely result in a really long block. Besides, I have no doubt that five minutes of digging through the edit intersections will reveal more tag-teaming between master and sock. So I'm not worried. Thanks, and Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

It's that time of year again, Hutspot and herring all round.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wait, wait--what? Het ontzet van Leiden is near? (Hutspot--bleh!!!) Drmies (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We have our National Holiday, 25 years, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Mauer im Kopf, the feeling of banging your head against a brick wall every time you visit the WP:Great Dismal Swamp..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Reflexively posting Maurerische Trauermusik: [19]. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I try to avoid it (the swamp). Last time was when you (Ritchie) helped me restore talkpage access. Free speech. Did you see my adopted kitten? --the monster Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(after ec): very appropriate, the group I "always" sing with on 3 October, performed Mozart's Requiem today without me, missed too many rehearsals to feel ready. I listened in for the dress rehearsal and look forward to Fauré's in November, - one event on 7 November is a sing-along, you can all join ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

For a better mood, now on the Main page DYK ... that Bach's first cantata for the inauguration of the Leipzig town council, Preise, Jerusalem, den Herrn, BWV 119, was performed again in 2015 in the Nikolaikirche (pictured) to celebrate the millennium of Leipzig? - Perfect timing, - DYK has its moments: it's the very church where the Monday demonstrations started, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

OMG, Mozart's and Fauré's requiems. two of the bestest musical pieces ever .... Softlavender (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC) ETA: Can I sing the Pie Jesu? Softlavender (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Who knows? I don't see a soprano assigned yet: Wiesbadener Bachwochen. Organist Gabriel Dessauer who conducted today. You'll manage to find the link to sign up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! I paid my €12. We'll see what happens! Softlavender (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

News you may not like: Pie Jesu will be sung by Yi Yang. Better perhaps: I got a GA today (18th Sunday after Trinity) which was composed for the 11th, my heart swims in blood, so I guess in about four weeks the one for the 15th maybe ready? Will nominate the one for today later, needs expansion first. For articles open for review, watch WP:QAIPOST, and feel free to add yours, it's open for all, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh man ... and I was doing my vocalises to prepare.... Hey don't stress out on those GAs and dates; I'm sure Herr Bach will understand that modern life is more complex than raising 20 children and being Kapellmeister and writing a new composition every week or less. He didn't have 45 electronic gadgets to keep up with. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Blue Ivy Carter

Is it technically possible to re-create "Blue Ivy Carter" as a redirect without conflicting with all of the previous deletions? I'm asking because it is visited every month despite it doesn't exist.[20][21][22]. The redirect would point to Beyoncé#Family, for example, and to avoid re-creations, it should be full-protected until Carter becomes notable on her own. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at JustBerry's talk page.
Message added 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a gentle reminder: do you agree with the plan here? JustBerry (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord

That short content fork had 490 links to it, even though the article (and the Russo-Syrian involvement) began only five days ago: [23]. I don't have the time or tools to remove the redlinks except on the main Russo-Syrian article. Maybe someone else has a quickie way to do it. And/or maybe the link should be salted. Pinging Materialscientist? Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• It was in Template:Syrian Civil War. I removed it; that should lower the number drastically. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, good thinking. I found it in another template as well and zapped that, and am now removing the links in actual articles. Do you care to delete this redirect page, to stifle further temptation: September 2015 Russian air raids in Syria? -- Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, that's what G8 is for. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion, please

What do you think of this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Most unusual. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Kinda have to wonder if it isn't something else and not what the one-edit alleged "NBC employee" claimed. Also interesting to note that ML hasn't been here for over a month, but this account comes out of nowhere with "Wiki-love" and a compliment. I'm betting sock. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would he need to create a sock? Makes no sense. In any event, the person is real. Even the silly user name is the same as the Twitter account for the Toronto Maple Leafs. I believe Heller is Canadian. What's worse than a sock? A journalist! Block them all. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't saying he had created a sock, Bbb23. But, since you're here and I have your attention, I asked this a day ago at your talk page: Isn't this the definition of a polemic laundry list? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Bbb, you actually believe that Jake Heller, the real person, is behind that account? Leaving his phone number on the talk page of someone who is clearly not know for their prolific contributions? Drmies (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, Winkelvi says he didn't say ML had created the account, but he doesn't identify whom he does suspect. Do you suspect anyone, or do you just figure it has to be a sock because of its weirdness and out-of-the-blueness? Besides, ML has had a fair number of edits, given that he's only been editing this year and pretty much took off the entire month of September. Glancing at his edits, they also look political. I dunno. What's gained by the impersonation if that's what it is? I don't have a better alternative. Someone should call him. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Is crap like this ok?

{{Anti-feminist}}. I only ask because the related Category:Wikipedians interested in Anti Feminism has been languishing at CSD for quite a while now, despite meeting the empty for four days criteria, so guessing that my opinion may not be all that common. —SpacemanSpiff 06:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• No, but it does answer the question of why the user who created it is still single (see his userpage). Softlavender (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• There's other problematic stuff too, but Drmies and I have been handling the worst first. A soap factory is available at User:Veera.sj/sandbox/Cruelty against Husband in India, but the good Doc let it be after deleting the mainspace version at AfD. —SpacemanSpiff 08:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that; it explains another of his curious userboxes. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wait, wut, I let something stand? I don't remember that. I know I closed the AfD early. You know, I don't know. An anti-feminist userbox looks like one of the dumbest things in the world to me, but hey. I think in general we're of two minds about it--we don't want offensive stuff but we can't really define what's offensive, and we want user pages to be relevant to the Wikipedia experience but we allow for really personal stuff. (Not my user page--it's ALL business.) Oh, I removed that category. There's also Category:Users who experienced domestic violence as a husband, with one member. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• That category is from this template: {{User who experienced domestic violence as a husband}}. I let it go when I was getting this one deleted through MfD so that we could deal with one thing at a time. I think this is more of a "hate template" than a support one, that's why I asked, I'll probably take it to MfD sometime if no one else wants to beat me to it. —SpacemanSpiff 03:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

List of compositions by Viktor Kosenko

One for you (with thanks), one for me, and one for Krenakarore who has apparently created something very extraordinary. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, Well, you know I come to you for complicated cut/paste fiascos and we've got one with List of compositions by Viktor Kosenko. @Krenakarore left me this note. Checking out the revision history of List of compositions by Viktor Kosenko, you can see that Юрій Булка moved Krenakarore's work from sandbox to mainspace without proper history attribution, although, thankfully, he did give a link to Krenakarore's sandbox page. Can you sort this out giving article creation credit and edit history to Krenakarore? I would if I could, but I can't, so here I am. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

About University College of Medical Sciences

It is not my personal commentary Dermies, the page of UCMS is already in the most worst condition. The page is like an advertisement which isn't in accordance to article that should be on Wikipedia. And I cited all the paragraphs in the article. Tell me how I could improve the article. TechLion (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, if it's not your commentary, where does stuff like "UCMS has a pretty huge campus" from, followed by a long list of amenities for students? "The library offers various facilities such as membership,borrowing, reference, referral, photocopying, internet facility etc." is...well, that's what a library does, so it's redundant at best, as is this, "The library strives to provide the required academic environment to the students". So I'm sorry, but this language is not neutral. In addition, a look at the sources gives us this and this--these aren't reliable sources, they are basically data portals, directory listings. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Much appreciated. Cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Anytime, old friend. Hope you and yours are well. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Chronicler of the Winds

I started expanding a sad stub when the author died, Chronicler of the Winds. There would be more in German but it's a topic where lack vocabulary. Translations welcome, and some competence to expand the lead of the author. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Herman Brood

I just noticed that you wrote several articles on Herman Brood. Last weekend I was at a backyard show of 'rock and roll Nico', aka Nico Bijl. Very nice! Three grannies playing they were still young, wild rockers. Very cute! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ha, geweldig. A heart and soul rock and roll junkie... I remember my uncle, who was totally cool, had Cha Cha, with that cover that my grandmother must have hated. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Piano player reminds me of someone--of course, Rob Hoeke. I should have pulled him out of my sandbox instead of letting Hollycochran run off with it, haha. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing of the Polish census of 1931

Your recent reversion of population summaries reported in the 1931 Census is disruptive to the page. It is not OR to accurately report what was published in a national census, on a WP page about the same. If you seriously think this a violation of OR, I suggest that you make your point on a relevant noticeboard since accurately reporting what was published in a census is standard procedure here on WP. (Please see the most recent U.S. Census for examples of this 2010 United States Census.) I looked, but didn't see where you objected or complained that accurately reporting on the U.S. Census was OR. Perhaps you can explain your reasons for not doing so? In any event, you have ample opportunity to find RS for criticisms, reasonable or not, of the published results of that census which might be addressed on the page. It is impossible to do that if the actual published results are not accurately reported such that the criticisms can be understood. Translations and transcriptions: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions I have given you the rule and the link. If you continue this course of behavior, I will conclude that you are being disruptive, contentious, and demonstrating ethnic animus. However, I am concerned that your reversions, which deleted much data without any claim that the data was not accurately reporting what the census published, or mathematically proven from the same, without comment non the relevant talk page was motivated by some desire to censor what had been published by the Polish government in 1931. You also made no further comments on the talk page which looks like POV blanking.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you sound like a broken record, and I don't think I need to add to what Irina Harpy already told you, which in short is "no". Slightly longer, "no, that is not correct". My suggestion was "discuss it on the talk page", and I think it's a suggestion that fits in with our way of solving disputes: talk page first. Article talk page that is, not my talk page. As for "disruptive", you're edit warring. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks :)

I appreciate the thanks. I recently reverted an edit as it seemed unconstructive, and the user has made yet another unconstructive edit. I'd like to ask you to look into the situation just in case it occurs again. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• I left a warning template for the St Michael's College vandal--which other edit do you mean? Thanks for helping keep the place clean, Drmies (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Check my contributions - other than that vandal the other unconstructive editor I've been reverting today. The user has been given two warnings now. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Gotcha. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I forgot to substitute the warnings originally, I've fixed the error now. Thanks for your support :) Leeds United FC fan (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • And also, do you think that it would be more reasonable of me to assume good faith on this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Howard_Marshall&diff=prev&oldid=684789436? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
      • NOOOOOOOOOOOO..... :) Drmies (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jim Semonik for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jim Semonik 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/Jim Semonik 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Rodleen Getsic

Please see my comments directed to you here. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha

[24] I'm going to be chuckling over that for a while. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I also laughed at that one. HighInBC 17:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, but it wouldn't have occurred to me if one of the recent RfAs hadn't brought some crats from way back out of the woodwork. I was exaggerating of course. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Issaouane Erg in Sudan?

Hi Drmies, thanks a bunch for starting the article on Issaouane Erg! Just for that fantastic photo alone I'm very glad the article exists. There was a questionable bit in it, "and the erg's southern portion is located in Sudan", that I've removed, because it doesn't seem possible for the Issaouane Erg to reach all the way to Sudan according to the maps people have made. That originated from some text you added back in 2010, "The Issaouane Erg is located near the Ahaggar Mountains, and is part of a major dune field, the southern part of which is the Sudanese erg." which could mean something other than the later editors assumed. I'm letting you know in case I made a mistake. -kotra (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds good, Koutra; it wouldn't be the first mistake I made. I'm glad someone read that article; it was difficult to get going and I never really found the sources I wanted. There's probably a ton in French, offline. But yeah, that photograph; I probably got to it by accident, from following an article on Erg or so, or getting there by mistyping something in Dutch, haha. Thanks for the note. If you got any other suggestions, any other exciting topics, let me know. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Mail call

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

• Done. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2015 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Asking for explanation

Thanks for closing the discussion. I think, as an admin, you had evidences behind saying "It is clear that Mhhossein is an editor with a particular and strong POV; no one denies that, nor is it in doubt that Mhhossein has, at various times, been particularly hard of hearing." Please let me know why you've got to such a conclusion toward me. Knowing that I may have a better experience editing here. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments at the ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response. My comments at the ANI thread showed that I have strong POV and had been hard of hearing? By the way, what's wrong with having POVs which it self helps to reach NPOV? Mhhossein (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    • NPOV is not reached by the butting of opinionated heads. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

WUWT

I don't understand your closing remarks on WUWT. Do you believe the arguers for choice#2 have won? Do your words "it is hardly an overwhelming consensus" mean you believe there is no consensus? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Those who advocate "denier" have more people and arguments on their side. "It is hardly an overwhelming consensus" means exactly what it says. There's consensus and there's consensus. Some consensuses are stronger than others. I'd love to be able to say that there's a clear victor in this bloody duel, but there isn't. It was a nasty fight, "denier" won, but not overwhelmingly so. The moment you draw the proper consequences from the fact that "fight" is a metaphor, you'll realize that it's a poor metaphor: it's not about winning or losing, it's about the combined weight of numbers and arguments, and in this case that balance goes one way, but not by a lot. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

oppose rationale

Can I correctly infer this rationale for opposition is to help correct deficiencies in the current population of editors with administrator WP:UAL? NE Ent 23:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• That would be overreaching. I saw a list of pictures of admins on...what's that site called? Dramapedia? I'm not the worst-looking of us. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I look like a cross between Keilana and Master of Puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Need active editor with chemistry background

Dr. M, are you aware of any active editors who have a strong academic chemistry background -- with or without doctorate? I need someone to review a bio for an early-1900s chemistry professor, someone who has a strong feel for the academic discipline, and can provide critical comments and suggestions for improvement to the article. The subject professor was very prominent in the early years of Vanderbilt University and had a strong impact on Southern intercollegiate sports of that era. Article has strong GA potential, but chemistry is far outside my graduate school background. Any suggestions would be welcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm...not off-hand, though I'm sure that there's some among the regular watchers, who make up the finest audience on Wikipedia (yes, I'm talking about you, anonymous reader). My go-to editors for academic subjects/biographies are DGG and Randykitty, and they may have suggestions for you. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Helpful hints, anyone? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• What kind of chemistry? I might be able to help you. Otherwise your best bet might be to inquire at WP:ELEM. Cobblet (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Cobblet: Sorry -- I missed your short response when looking at Liz's below. I need someone to review the William Lofland Dudley article for its academic chemistry aspects and make suggestions for expansion and additional references. Interested? It should not be a huge project or big time sink. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dirtlawyer1, I'd look at Category:Wikipedian chemists and see if there are any familiar names. I noticed admin DMacks is in the category, maybe he could help or know of someone who could. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Liz: Thanks, Liz. That was kind and very helpful of you. I'll take a look at DMacks, as well as the other active names in the linked category. I missed that "Wikipedian chemists" was a subcategory of "Wikipedian scientists" when I was looking at Category:Wikipedians by profession; looks like a case where category diffusion was not intuitive nor helpful to the reader. BTW, what's your previous collaboration history with DMacks? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I was checking out a article he deleted (Gaurav Adhikari) because I had concerns about the editor who created it (and who has since been blocked). Now that I'm doing admin stuff, looking over deletion logs, I'm running into a lot of admins whose names are unfamiliar to me. I've always checked out new editors I happen to come across and now I'm doing the same with admins I don't know. So, no, we don't have a collaboration history, I just crossed his path. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

Before I jump the gun and do something I will regret, is this canvassing? [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to discuss this with me first. As I noted at the discussion these notices were done in accordance with WP:APPNOTE. Calidum 01:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not required to address you or anyone before I ask an administrator a question. I clearly said above that I didn't want to do or say anything I would regret later. My question was not in regard to you but my judgement skills in regard to what I thought might be an issue, Calidum. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Calidum, Winkelvi has a point. For some reason he values my opinion, but he'll be the first to tell you that he doesn't expect my agreement. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Calidum 01:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi, I can't be bothered to look up the canvassing policy; I'm totally enthralled by the Giants and the 49ers. But I remember it laying out some conditions like, the message should be neutral and the group of recipients should be non-selective (like, don't pick those who agree with you). I haven't checked all the names but it seems that all of those at the GA3 review were there, and the message certainly is neutral enough. In other words, I'm glad you didn't jump. :) Ah, Taylor Swift. Sounds fascinating. For shits and giggles (another great American expression) I'm going to look at the article and the GA conversation. Best, Drmies (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a moment, Drmies. Personally, I hate the 49ers and hope the Giants are putting it to them. Perhaps I will have to take a look at what's going on there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I watched Odell Beckham's warm-up exercises. Amazing. Eli just threw a pick; it's halftime but your Giants are up 7. I read the first GA review. Fun. I read the second GA review; Calidum, you didn't ping Hullabaloo, haha (not that you should have, let me be clear, just in case a literalist is watching, etc.)--I love disagreeing with him, but he's on point in his comments, and they still apply to the version that passed GA. I read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taylor Swift/archive1 and I gotta hand it to old SNUGGUMS: I strongly agree with their user name, but they know what they're talking about. Calidum, I don't know if you edited the article much, and I sure don't mean to offend you, but the delisting seems to have been warranted. HOLY SHIT, she gets 235k? Christine de Pizan has only one-tenth of that--she must not be very important... Drmies (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Commenting since I was pinged. Not sure what my username has to do with anything, but I'm glad you see I know what I'm doing :). Reading through the article and its references before delisting it was a monster. Nowhere near up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A purely random comment, SNUGGUMS. Didn't you use to have a couple of Xs around your name? Judging from recent ANI comments I may be up for a site ban or be delisted as admin, so let me ask you quickly, can you put your expertise to work on articles for other singer-songwriters, such as Christine de Pisan and Marie de France? There's more at List of troubadours and trobairitz... all pre-Billboard of course... Drmies (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. As for those articles, I'm afraid I can't help much beyond prose quality. Hope you don't lose your mop! Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Your response to my query and to the other editor above is one of the reasons why I value your opinion: you don't take Wikipedia too seriously and model a healthy attitude and perspective that more editors and admins should emulate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to say I'm not proud of my attitude: I'm probably too honest too frequently too hastily. And it's easy for me to take Wikipedia lightly when it doesn't concern my own edits...huge difference...I'm as short-tempered as the worst of us when it comes to that, but I don't think I've ever made an INVOLVED block or other administrative action.

Atmosphere is important and if I were the only one determining the atmosphere here this wouldn't be a very happy place. The best admins are those with a sense of humor. That's Dennis, and TParis, and Floquenbeam, and K-stick, and a whole bunch more. And man do I miss Malik. And Wadewitz of course. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY on transgender individuals in articles about themselves and in passing in other articles

Per your suggestions in your closing of this recent discussion, several of us have developed two threads that are now open at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles.

You've said you're neutral on this issue. I don't know if you want to keep an eye on things in case you wish to close again or whether you'd like to participate actively and let someone else close, but I figured it was good to let you know that your recommendations are now active. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Darkfrog24, thanks for the note. I wish y'all the best figuring this out; it's important. May the discussion is productive and not antagonistic; taking the focus away from a specific individual in a specific context has advantages and disadvantages, and I hope that y'all will allow for the flexibility called for in individual cases while setting a general rule. I'm glad I don't have to do it. Please let me know if there's any way I can help. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

NY vs. 49ers

Very entertaining. Good plot. Some of the twists were predictable, but there were others I didn't see coming. I admit, I often feel bad for the guys that have to do the job, but I do enjoy the entertainment. — Ched :  ?  03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I come bearing a gift

Ashutosh Sharma Activist. Apparently he's the one to call if Alabama decided to impose a stricter last order time at bars. —SpacemanSpiff 08:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• You haven't gifted that to AfD yet. Well, Spiff, I'm getting a bit old for late-night fun, you know? I'll be one of those old fuckers calling the cops on the kids yakking on the streetcorner after midnight. But power to him! Drmies (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm an idiot; I saw your post and nominated it at AfD and then realized that the reason I didn't do it in the first place was because I wanted to file an SPI linking to the paid editing sock group I'm tracking and was going to G5 it. Will wait for the SPI result now. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I have too much respect for you to disagree with you. Oh god, an entire group? Good luck with it. I think Bbb23 hasn't reached his quota for blocks for today yet--though they're probably too distraught, with that last-second TD by Bell, to feel up to the task. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Derevation

Thanks for your note at Talk:Qubool Hai/GA1. Many experienced editors like @DMacks, Ravensfire, and Vensatry: have reviewed subject user's nominations and have written kind notes to them in their reviews. At first what I felt was like a lack of competence is now bordering disruption and IDH attitude. AfD for requesting merger, quick failed GAs eg 1, eg 2, eg 3, one GA nom that I simply reverted Talk:Singh_Is_Bliing#GA_nom_reverted and now they are one step ahead with this FLC nomination. The user also has few more GA nominations awaiting review (Talk:I (film) and Talk:Akshay Kumar). Don't know what to do here! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Good question. SpacemanSpiff? When do we start blocking for CIR and IDNHT? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you have to ask Ravensfire here about the sock aspect before anything else. I remember an ANI discussion on this not too long ago. —SpacemanSpiff 02:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Here you go, Bbb23 had removed the tag as no SPI was done in a long while after the addition of the tag and therefore this tag was offensive. But if the behavior is repeating itself (I'm not saying it is, as I really don't know what all these accounts have been doing), then there might be something to consider. —SpacemanSpiff 02:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Didn't know there were sock suspicions. The AfD I just closed is of the same level of ineptness as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karanvir Bohra, and they're interested in TV and film (actors). But that's just one account I looked at. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Why don't you start a list of all the Wikipedians who are incompetent and hard of hearing? Then we can have a pool. The editor (not among the cast) who picks the right master gets a prize (TBD) and the CU who confirms the connection gets a wiki-annuity for life. We can find a 'crat to close the contest.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

To me majority of newbies in bolly, tv and such popular areas are hard on hearing with no competence. Meanwhile Jackie Chan is also a GA nom now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The master for the account is TekkenJinKazama (SPI page here). If you look at this reply from Derevation to a couple of comments from me on their talk page, you'll see me calling him Jin in that section repeatedly. Prior to that account he'd created dozens of socks, took a bit of a break then returned making small, useful edits. Then he went back to his problematic ways so I called him out on it. As you are seeing now, getting Jin / Derevation to reply to criticism is extremely difficult. You have to use a stick many times to get them to reply. Look at this recent stuff - he replied a couple of times to Dharmadhyaksha but nothing substantive about quality of reviews. And now he's "on" a wikibreak that I firmly believe is just because of the heat pointed his way. You can read through his talk page and find several discussions about some of his editing habits that are problems. I keep hoping he'll change but keep getting disappointed. Ravensfire (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm at my quota for blocking, but I can't help but wonder why they aren't blocked yet. Are we headed that way? The Chan article doesn't look so bad that a quick-fail is a quick option. On the other hand, we expect the nominator to respond to comments and improve the article and I think we have established that they aren't capable of doing that. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

New nom John Abraham (actor) and quick failed by User:Cirt already. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Derevation_and_Digvijay411_as_GA_Reviewer_and_GA_Nominator. — Cirt (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

From reading above, sounds like a sock investigation or at the very least, a block for meatpuppetting, would be the easiest way to address this ongoing disruption of our Wikipedia Quality improvement processes from Derevation (talk · contribs) and Digvijay411 (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama. If you have additional evidence you can add, please, add it there. If you are an admin, action would be appreciated to stop this ongoing block evasion, socking, and disruption of Wikipedia's Quality improvement processes. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

AN notice

Since I will likely link to a discussion on your talk page - I think it is only right to make you aware of this — Ched :  ?  02:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ralph Hermann

Hi any chance of starting it from Dutch wiki?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Haris Medunjanin - Grammar fire needs to be put out

Hi there kind fellow user,

in this article's reference #12, I am having a bit of a trouble translating it correctly. I suppose the "primal" form of the verb is afhaken, but what does that mean in English? Ahah, that's where you come in!

Thanks in advance, keep it up --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Afhaken" (I suppose The Banner could have answered this for you, but he's probably a PEC or Den Bosch fan) means to, well, to leave off, to quit, to throw in the towel. It has a mildly negative connotation. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Withdraw

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Yet_another_pointless_iban_violation and consider me done with all things IHTS and MaxBrowne. NE Ent 14:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed DYK

I have an article ready about the former Michellin starred restaurant "De Rôtisserie" (User:The Banner/Workpage16. I like to connect it with a Did You Know, but I have no clue how to do that.

What I have in mind is this DYK:

1. ... that in 2000, restaurant De Rôtisserie was torn down to the ground by the restaurant guide Lekker but received a Michelin star a few months later?

Hope you can help me with that. The Banner talk 14:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, I have some comments, if I may: (1) Don't use Dutch wording at all, only the English translation. (2) Don't state a falsehood in the DYK (the restaurant was not physically altered by the review). (3) Give a precise citation for every claim, including the quote from Slijtersvakblad. (4) Don't use quotation marks for restaurants, companies, or publications -- no punctuation for restaurants and companies; publications should be italicized. Correct your English: "The" not "De" ("De new owner"); use an unambiguous word like "quarrel" instead of a very ambiguous word like "row"; etc. Hope that helps! Softlavender (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I started with the typo. You also point at the troubles that translating sayings can give. They are difficult to translate when you don't speak Dutch, but I do take advice for when I did it wrong. What do you mean about the quotes? They are properly sourced as far as I know. The Banner talk 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. You haven't actually fixed the typo, only made it into another typo. :-). You've now sourced the quotation, but you haven't made the other fixes. If you like, I can copyedit your draft for you and fix them. Just ping me here, as Drmies' talk page is so busy I may forget to check it. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I did with the sourcing of the quotes was to move the sources closer to the quotes, forcing me to double one of them as it also sources the next sentence. But the sources were there.. The Banner talk 22:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I made some tweaks; I'll do a few more. If you're not in a rush, Banner, we can write up the monastery as well and make it a double. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You mean an article about the monastery itself? I know nothing about that, except its location. The present article Mariënhof is about a second restaurant in the same complex but with another head chef. And no, I am not in a hurry. The Banner talk 22:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The Banner, are you sure about Amersfoort? How about Soest? I haven't lined up and read all the sources, but I wonder if, given the turbulent history of monasteries there, maybe that was a temporary name for the place. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Bij Amersfoort? Or maybe boundaries changes since the 1400s? Drmies (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The first time I mentioned the name I have blundered and written Mariënburg instead of Mariënhof, as I did correctly in the rest of the article. But it is truly Amersfoort, see here. The Banner talk 08:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Léopard des neiges

	Léopard des neiges
	Yeah, long time no see. Léopard des neiges for you. Hafspajen (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wow. What an amazing animal. And elusive, Hafs. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thick tail, indeed. Hafspajen (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Drmies. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Sign this

[36] NE Ent 01:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just did, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Shiny Joe Ryan

The user talk message states that there are no references for Shiny Joe Ryan but there are actually a number of references (4 references in the reference list.)

Graveyard Poet (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• What's needed are references from reliable sources; please see WP:RS. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The references used are from the record label website for bands the musician has been in and is currently in, the musician's solo recording project, as well as an interview with the musician. What makes these sources unreliable?Graveyard Poet (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you can start by actually reading, studying and comprehending WP:RS, Graveyard Poet, and then you will understand. To establish notability, we are looking for significant coverage in independent sources, and interviews of the subject and coverage on the website of their record label do not qualify as independent. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Tony Abbott

It was indefinitely semi-protected; why temporary? --George Ho (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

indefinitely - temporary? .... arghh ... my head hurts when I come here. — Ched :  ?  04:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant "temporary semi-protection", which sets expiration date. --George Ho (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• George, I don't understand the problem. I don't think it was ever protected indefinitely, though it's move-protected indefinitely. If you want it protected indefinitely, I don't object, but ask at RFPP please. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ask Calanecc; he did that in July 2014, according to protection log. --George Ho (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• And undone by TigerShark, if I'm reading the log correctly. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I misread, it was Favonian, who enabled indefinite protection in October 2012. I don't know why TigerShark did that. --George Ho (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• No worries. It doesn't affect the main point, of course, which is what you want indefinite semi-protection. Again, I don't mind, but I prefer you ask at RFPP so another admin can make the call. Indefinitely semi-protecting such articles can be a big deal. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

helllo

Hello Drmies - I just wanted to drop by an leave you a note. I've noticed that you may be lonely; ... because nobody every stops by and posts to your page. I hope you are doing well - and please don't be discouraged that you never get a ping. I'm sure that in time - people will realize that you are here on wiki, and will stop by to say hi. I will tell all my friends to stop by and say hello ... all my best. — Ched :  ?  04:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• That would be nice! But that disambiguation bot was nice enough to stop by and leave me a message, so I'm not entirely alone... Drmies (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

hello

Hello Drmies - I just wanted to drop by an leave you a note. I've noticed that you may be lonely; ... because nobody every stops by and posts to your page. I hope you are doing well - and please don't be discouraged that you never get a ping. I'm sure that in time - people will realize that you are here on wiki, and will stop by to say hi. I will tell all my friends to stop by and say hello ... all my best.(posted after (edit conflict) baahaahaa) — Ched :  ?  04:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Twice is better, Ched. Yes, it does get lonely in here sometimes, and I appreciate the help. BTW, I read the book and passed it on to someone whose parents lived those days in Montgomery; thanks again! Drmies (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Help requested

Could you give me a hand with User:Alex jirgens‎? The user is readding OR, blog sources, among other issues because it "aggravates" him. I tried to tell the user the rules of Wikipedia, but they weren't willing to listen. I issued a 3RR warning on my talk page (before realizing I have to do so on their talk page) for edit warring. I am running low on patience, so could you have a word? Thank you in advance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If any admin talk page stalkers see this post before Drmies, please feel free to help out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Their last edit, on WJZ-FM, cites a decent source, so maybe they're listening? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

More IP shenanigans against me

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

And now the IP got himself an account and nominated an article I created for deletion. What should I do? (You can respond here or to my e-mail). pbp 17:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I think you should look at WP:COLOR and make the colors compliant... :) Drmies (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for blocking ChasHB. I have lightened the text color of Whittier to make it compliant. pbp 17:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I appreciate it. Hey, I think that high school kid is going to be bored with it soon. I hope so anyway. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Anna's article

You know, I hate to say this, but you really are bit too involved here to go around making all these administrative actions. You've weighted in on the talk page discussion, on one particular side, you've made reverts to the article, on one particular side [37], which is the same as BMK's side, you've unblocked BMK after they edit warred (8 reverts in less than 24 hours, 6 within 1 hour) to essentially make the same revert that you made and then you went and protected the page, on one particular side. Yes, I know WP:WRONGVERSION and all that, but here you are

1) participating in an edit war on one side

2) unblocking what could uncharitably be called your tag-teaming buddy in that edit war

3) protecting YOURVERSION of the page.

I'm not going to scream bloody murder about this (if it was some other administrator I would) and not going to even ask you to undo your actions, just letting you know that you REALLY need to step away. Wait, actually, I am going to ask you to undo one of your actions. Not re-block BMK or anything, but to unprotect the page. I don't care if BMK is blocked or not, but protecting your own preferred version is pretty obnoxious. And since now BMK has promised to step away from the page, there's no need for protection since presumably there'll be no more edit warring (if I was cynical I'd speculate that the main reason you protected it was because you know BMK was probably not going to keep their promise, so you effectively protected them from themselves). Volunteer Marek  05:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK has said he will no longer edit the article [38]. This removes the prospect of edit-warring, so the article should be unprotected. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Marek, I figured someone would protest, and I'm kind of glad it was you since you're a pretty reasonable person--I like to think I'm one too. Look, the version one protects is always going to be the wrong version, and I think any admin would have done the same; well, I like to think that anyway. I have edited the article, of course, twice, but what I reverted was so much worse that I don't consider it a content edit: that was blatantly in violation of the BLP. By the way, I really have no interest in the article outside of the BLP.

  You have options, of course, and WP:RFPP is the first, but it's narrow. The better solution is to figure this out on WP:BLPN or, as Ymblanter suggested, on WP:DRN. But I repeat that, given the BLP, and given the fact that it's not just editor BMK and admin Drmies who think that at least the edit is questionable, the onus is on those inserting it. Nomoskedasticity, that is why I won't unprotect: I'm happy to have other admins look at it and to have the community weigh in, but I can't just undo the protection after BMK says he'll step away. (I don't doubt him, by the way.) In other words, if I unprotect I will have made my protection useless since I wasn't protecting the article from him. That I chose "content dispute" as a rationale and not "BLP violation" is because I think it's not the most blatant BLP violation and there's room for discussion, not because I think that the matter is trivial or that it doesn't matter which way the cookie crumbles. Also, that was pretty exciting last night. No one wants to see Kentucky win a football game anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think there's now pretty strong consensus for inclusion of the modified text (which was partly based on your suggestion). And there's sources. I don't really see a need for protection. That game was too close. And I sort of feel sorry for 'tucky, they've been trying really hard, coming close, but not getting it. Volunteer Marek  15:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Swarm might need to be convinced as well. Hey, again, I don't have much interest in that article though I might participate in a general discussion on some noticeboard--I hope you know I don't have a dog in this fight. I did put up a new edit notice, for you. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

[39] What did I tell you? At this point it's not about the actual dispute but "winning" a battle for BMK. Their comments over at BLPN and WP/AN are of the same nature. Yes, yes, I know they promised to step away from the Anna Politkovskaya article and technically they did not promise to step away from the Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya article but if you think that distinction is relevant or that these actions are made in good faith you might as well lay down your admin tools right now. (Congratulations on giving them punks from Texas a well deserved whoopin' btw)  Volunteer Marek  14:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. It was hard-fought. Listen, I guess I'm sort of feeling you here, but look, if there's an editor on the opposite side (ahem, yours) who reinstates content saying "mostly not a BLP violation", then any use of the tool should follow that particular edit. I'm kind of tired of the whole thing and it's being discussed on many boards and talk pages, so I don't think you really need me--I know you're not here to say "I told you so". Seriously, I'm quite shocked to see "mostly not a BLP violation" as an edit summary--so reinstating partial BLP violations is OK. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you're the one who unblocked, yeah, I do sort of need you here. If for nothing else to just tell'em to chill out and leave that article alone. Volunteer Marek  15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, thank you for the point about "tell'em to chill out". Does the wording of this note to one of the editors involved work, or can you suggest how it might be improved? —Sladen (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who made eight reverts in 24 hours and got blocked. And I don't appreciate your condescending attitude. Volunteer Marek  16:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, you surely have the ability to actually investigate what I did. If you don't want to take the time, that's fine -- but then your shock reflex needs another function. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD: Quick explanation?

Hey. I saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Southern–Georgia State football rivalry. By my head count, there were 4 !votes for deletion, 1 !vote to keep, and 2 !votes to move. You arrived at a consensus "keep" when a majority of the rationales were to delete an article about a one-game football rivalry. Does that mean that you believe that the keep rationale was that much stronger than the delete rationales? To my way of thinking, this looks like a marginal delete or a no-consensus outcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Did I click the wrong button? Let me see. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• OK. I see two "moves" and a "keep", and the one "keep" is also a "move". Your comment from 14:03, 10 October 2015 also seems to support a move. A "delete per nom" counts a bit (there's two), but it does not seem to take into account the additional issue of the renaming argument. So I count a bit differently: I count three "move/keep", and three "deletes"--Paul McDonald's is in itself valid but, again, does not weigh the "move" argument. It's a weird one, and ordinarily I would have agreed perfectly with your headslapping, but I figured moving it would be giving it a chance. I was going to add something like "and if Dirtlawyer doesn't like it, no prejudice against a new AfD" but that seemed kind of redundant. So yeah, I can understand your hesitation and, if you like to bring it up at deletion review, you have my blessing. We're here to improve the project, and I will not take it personally if you want others to look at it. (Of course I kind of hope that in the meantime that rivalry article will be impressively improved.) Ha, I guess, in a way, this is a case of IAR. Really, I don't mind being proven wrong here. Later, and Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No clue what to do anymore

Ok, it was made clear here that the editor in question could continue to make as many changes as he likes to player names before anything gets decided at Tennis Project. And that Me reverting him gets Me in trouble. Of course he continues to do it as I mentioned at Bbb23's talk page. So I throw my hands up on that.... and now he is reverting any attempts I try in making sure we'd don't overlink when not really needed. Something I've done for awhile now. And then he warned me about it that another ani would be on its way if I challenge any of his changes. He and I obviously don't see eye to eye and he brazenly points that out. And from the last ani there is nothing I can do. Should I just leave wikipedia now since there's not a lot I can edit with this new user around? He doesn't follow what I was taught a decade ago... in that you revert once and if it doesn't go your way you take it to talk or tennis project before continuing to make changes. Heck, an editor told him to discuss the adding of an extra column for references instead of adding them to the usual spots... a discussion was opened but he simply keeps adding the columns to article after article while waiting for a decision or an rfc. He doesn't seem to care about protocol and I think this is going to keep on happening. Any advice would be appreciative because this is really getting annoying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, a quick answer (haven't looked but at the things you linked) is that in this edit of theirs I can't tell what the disruption is, because I can't "read" the code, I don't know what's accepted in that area, etc. (removing "female" actually is a good change: you should go through and remove that everywhere you see). If it is disruptive/against consensus/whatever, the best thing to do is to get a consensus against those specific changes. If you can get that (at the tennis project page or so) then it is easy for me to act against what is then established as disruptive. I mean, I am assuming you're correct in your observation, and I assume that cause you've been here a while, but I can't warn or block based on that good faith, as I'm sure you understand. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I would ask that rather than assuming you take a look at the facts - "cause you've been here a while" has no bearing on it. Show me where Fyunck tried to discuss this before reverting my edits. I've tried (as requested by the Admin) to go back to the discussion on using historically accurate names here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. Fyunck has chosen to not to continue the discussion (other than two comments that are complaints - not constructive discussion). Fyunck is actually the one being disruptive here. Tennisvine (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• A look at that project page proves two things--you have a bit of a battleground attitude, and Fyunck is not the only to disagree with or question your comments. Stuartyeates, you suggested an RfC, and I think that's an excellent idea; perhaps you can help set this up. I wonder, given that we're talking also about maiden and married names in some of those cases, whether the discussion at the Village Pump, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_121#MOS:IDENTITY_clarification, has any bearing on it. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I came to the issue via one of the noticeboard discussions but am an otherwise uninvolved editor. I'm happy to take a look at a draft RfC and give feedback (because a badly worded RfC won't actually help because it won't give clear answers). Stuartyeates (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Stuart, and you are absolutely correct. Tennisvine, Fyunck, other interested parties, here's a way forward. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• But now it seems we need 3 RfC's, one on how to use player's names in tables, one on changing where we put references in tables, and now one on when we overlink on tables. Plus do we keep on changing these items in one article after another while the RfCs are ongoing? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• It might be considered poor manners. But this is really something you can discuss with your opponent too. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I actually hate the term opponent. But perhaps you aren't getting the gist of my complaints here because that is the main problem I have here... not the fact that these items could change. Let me make sure you understand exactly my beef as I've tried to explain it to the other editor. In long lists I would have the players name spelled the same throughout, regardless of marriage or not. Some agree with me some do not. If it came to pass that more wanted different spellings... I have no problem implementing that at all. That's what consensus is to me. I'm not in favor of an extra column for refs. Some agree with me and some do not. If it comes to pass that more want the extra ref column... I have no problem implementing that either. I have always been in favor of removing the duplicate player/tournament links in tables. I've done it a long time and there's lots more to do. As far as I know it's been consensus for a long time though poorly fixed. If consensus changed that to link everything I would be pretty damned pissed, but again I would not hinder its implementation. My huge beef right now is that even though he has been reverted by multiple editors, even though these items have been talked about, even though he was warned about making these changes at one particular article, Tennisvine continues to change ALL these items on multiple articles. That is against wikipedia protocol, really against that warning, and as you put it "considered poor manners." That is my only complaint. We don't want to get into edit wars and he doesn't care. If he didn't keep changing these articles against longstanding consensus there would be no problem. The proper formula is if you make a change and it gets reverted, you bring it to talk and don't make more changes. He seems unable to grasp this. It's like a hostage situation.... while negotiating for the release of a hostage he goes around capturing more. There is no good faith under those conditions. That's why I'm so discouraged here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  I understand, but it's difficult for me to act unless it's all very clear. That is, I can't warn someone for editing against consensus if I can't point at a consensus. You have three issues where you claim they're being disruptive: start with one. If they're clearly going against an already existing consensus they're being disruptive, but it has to be something more than "this is how it's always been". If they're being reverted by a multitude of other editors, you can claim their disruption--in that case, though, you have to lay that out as if you were making a claim on WP:AN3, though focusing on edit warring rather than on a 3R violation. In other words, you have to make it easy and accessible to a dumb admin like me who doesn't edit in that area. Or you can always ask GiantSnowman, who's more sporty than me, to have a look. He's a decade or two younger than me (where has time gone?) so he's probably more trigger-happy. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  LOL... I probably want something in between. Someone who is more into sports but not trigger-happy. Someone who gives warnings and explains how things are supposed to work with reverting, but uses blocks as a last resort. However the problem still exists. None of the rest of us want to edit war with him so instead the three items we're talking about keep getting changed on article after article. If we try and slow him down we get blocked along with him. Lose, lose for us. The overlinking shouldn't require an RfC but I can see where the other two items would have more sticking power if they had an Rfc to back them up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Oy!

It has been suggested, in this AN subthread, that I am violating my unblock conditions by particpating in the BLPN thread you requested that I open, and in the thread Ymblanter finally opened asking for a community review of his actions in blocking me. You might want to say something about this, but I also fully understand if you decide to stay as far away from it as possible, as the discussion has become rather toxic. BMK (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@BMK. I think this your edit was a violation of your promise never "return to this page" [40]. Was not it? My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And then .... and then ... Drmies said "I don't want it to not be your concern anymore". So let's all worry a little less about who said what where and focus on the topic at hand: whether we should include the obviously well sourced totally not BLP violatin' factoid the murder occurred on Putin's birthday. Voting is now open at Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Support NE Ent 20:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And then... I unprotected the page per a request at RFPP, since it looks like it isn't necessary. (Just letting you know Doc, and well put NE Ent.)--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Regarding this, I don't need or expect you to say anything about it, but I would appreciate your letting me know if I do go beyond what you intended to be the conditions on my unblock. I don't believe that I have, and because of that I don't think I'm testing any boundaries or editing in "bad faith", but if you think I am, I'll pull back (which, as you know, was my initial impulse in the first place). Thanks, BMK (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• BMK (and Volunteer Marek), I asked you to not to return to that article and I would unblock you. Whatever you do elsewhere is really not my concern: it is not my place (and not my intent) to issue some sort of a topic ban. The problem, and the reason for the block, was the edit warring. So you removed it on an associated article as well, I believe (don't really want to start digging around right now), but if you're not edit warring there, I don't see what the problem is. I think (sorry Marek et al.) that the focus should be on the more important matter, not on what BMK is messing with this time. Removing the material until there is some sort of consensus that it's not a BLP material should be the proper way to go--call me old-fashioned. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

When we think nothing can surprise us anymore, and BAM!

Hi, sorry I wasnt around when you pinged me, I just saw a little ago what was happening, I will help Chillum to solve this sock problem. Its gaining gigantic proporsions. I really need to ask you something, you can help me with your sysop experience: when a user clearly lies in a AN report, should I report it? Cause it lied with intention of manipulation, it was a planned action. FkpCascais (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good question. As an admin I certainly feel I have the authority to, for instance, remove a false report. I've seen experienced editors do the same thing on boards, and I suppose we've all removed trolling messages from talk pages. If it's on AN, you can be sure plenty of admins are looking at it so pointing it out is certainly welcome. I don't know all the ins and outs of this sock hopping; there may be ranges available there that can be blocked, but typically article protection is about the only option. But yes, report it, point it out to admins--especially in such a case that's easily done because you have something to point at, in this case a pattern of disruption in a particular field or a particular group of articles. You guys in the trenches are frequently more familiar with those matters than any one admin. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

American Bully redirect

Hi Drmies. Last November you put the redirect at American Bully under permanent protection. It appears you did such as a new editor kept trying to reseda lush it as a separate article, despite the discussion resulting in its status as a redirect from December 2012. Here's the thing, the user was correct, and the original decision was wrong on the facts. The American Bully is a separate breed and has been recognized as such by the United Kennel Club, one of the three major breed-recognizing organizations. The breed standard is here. I made a note about this in various places before, but decided it was time to go straight to the admin behind the protection. oknazevad (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hello oknazevad--those redirects (and the subsequent protection) are based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Bully, and while it's been a while I probably did so following a suggestion by some of my go-to dog editors, including Hafspajen and Sagaciousphil. In addition, what Pit bullpb wrote up was unsourced and, honestly, not very encyclopedic. In other words, there was no reason to let them have the article, and they simply wrote it up three times without discussing.

  Now, I'm not opposed to you writing the article up again and giving it another chance; I don't doubt your good faith. So I'll go ahead and unprotect and wish you the best of luck with it. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, the previous article, while stubby, was essentially correct, and did fit the guidelines for dog breed articles. It just needed better source placement, that is, inline citations, not just the general sources slapped on the bottom. I am planning to use it for the basis of the article, just filling out details and refs as needed. May take me a bit, because life and all, but it'll exist.

PS, while I do say my name on my user page, I prefer being addressed by my username on Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Does the breed have any notability yet outside of the UKC? dogbreedinfo.com is not a reliable source and should not be used. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

HoP

Deaf ears there I think. His response to the block is "My copyright issues were only recent and i've been given little time to redeem myself, but im not going to beg for mercy, screw you m8. I'll wait." I don't really see 3 months as 'recent' considering he has simply carried on since then. Doug Weller (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Timelines

Dear Drmies, are you actually trying to tell me that a band with over 7 line-up changes doesn't need a timeline? Also, if it's already made, what is your point in deleting it? Who are you helping by taking down something I worked on to help people who are better at learning things by visualizing them. Certainly there is no point in you taking them down. Please, mind your own business because timelines are my specialty. They're the only thing i work on and i would appreciate it if you would not vandalize something i work on in my free time to add visual aid to band member sections. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronsmiley2345qwerty (talk • contribs)

• Well, I think the material is mostly redundant (I didn't revert all of them) and seems indicative of an excessive love for cute colors--I see that in many places in the project. Whether they are visually helpful in the first place remains to be seen, but that something that is relatively unimportant (except for for the fans, of course) takes up so much space in an article (and on the server), and probably doesn't apply with WP:COLOR, yes, that's problematic, at least to me. This talk of minding your own business and vandalizing, that's really not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologies that came off wrong. I didn't mean to sound angry at you. I see you took down some of them with less changes. From now on I'll only do them for bands with 5 or more line-up changes. (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronsmiley2345qwerty (talk • contribs)
    • No apology necessary--I survived Maiden getting a new singer, I can handle worse. Look, I'm not about to blanket revert your edits; I tried to be a bit picky. I can see cases where a timeline has some purpose, but please do keep in mind some of the things I mentioned. Those vertical lines for albums etc, those weren't clear to me at all. More importantly, the colors--in some cases you have colors inside colors. PLEASE read WP:COLOR if only to get a feel for how important this is. And, finally, what's the point of spending a lot of time and bytes on a second, no, third representation (one in the text, one in the member section) when the articles themselves often need so much work? It would be much better for the project and the readers if you spend energy and time on that part. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content on Hisako Kanemoto article

Hi,

Unsourced filmographies in Japanese voice actor articles are an ongoing problem that the relevant wikiproject is aware of (Please see WikiProject Anime and manga), and some dedicated editors are working through the affected articles. Articles needing attention are generally tagged with {{refimprove}} or {{no footnotes}} (or similar templates). If absolutely necessary, commenting out unsourced content, or moving it to the talk page is also generally accepted. I don't believe outright deleting content is a helpful action. And so, I've replaced the content, and commented out unsourced roles until the problem can be properly addressed in the future.

Also, AnimeNewsNetwork is considered an acceptable site for references (provided it's referencing "news" and not the "encyclopedia" part of the site), so please don't disregard content referencing AnimeNewsNetwork. If you disagree, please direct your queries at the WikiProject.

I can't see what's wrong with the agency reference. I'm not an expert- but generally I'd err on the side of keeping content until I know what the wikiproject recommended procedure is. For the youtube reference, I'm not sure how to deal with that either. Surely there must be an acceptable way of referencing youtube announcements?

Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• MsMarmalade, if ANN does nothing but rehash press releases, then what is the value? What can it deliver that's already not in the credits? But the basic problem, which is bypassed in your comments, is that without reliable sourcing we have nothing but a resume. And if it's a resume, then adding the name of the agent makes it only spammier. And by that point certainly we're not writing an encyclopedia: we're just gathering resumes. Like Interfolio, only free, and with YouTube links. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• As I said, take it up with the WikiProject. From what I understand ANN is valued as a reliable secondary source. And mentioning the agent is a widespread practice. I could try and come up with justification, but I don't actually know why it's added. If you do end up contacting the WikiProject, I'd be interested to follow that conversation. But until then, I'm gonna keep aiming for consistency between articles. —Msmarmalade (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 19#Template talk:Navbox#RfC: Should the default colors for this template be changed to satisfy AAA level accessibility color contrasts WP:COLOR? If so, to which colors?

Thank you for your detailed, very well explained close here. I'm glad to see no one's contested it yet. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Cunard, thanks. You know, I was reminded of the Jenner-discussion. Here also it wasn't so contentious or difficult as it looked initially--in this case the light bulb went on when I fully realized the consequences of the fact that two questions were asked. Initially the zeal of some editors in that discussion was a little off-putting, but that also wasn't a real big problem. I do hope editors can work it out; I will admit to you that the technical details could have gone over my head and it took me some time to do a proper reading.

  I thought we had cleaned up the list of RfCs some, but I noticed it was a pretty long list again. I hope you're getting some help. Thanks for organizing it: you're doing an important job even if few people realize it. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that sounds like the Jenner discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification we discussed here. Excellent analyses of both complex-looking discussions!

  Thank you for the kind words. The WP:ANRFC backlog increased because I listed many more discussions there but with the help of you, AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs), MrX (talk · contribs), and others, it's getting cleared fairly quickly. Thank you all for your hard work. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• If you're in the mood for closing long discussions about templates, can I interest you in the very back of the TfD backlog? Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Archive navigation templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 31#Template:Doctor Who episode list (first opened in July)? They're still floating around because by this point basically everyone active at TfD is involved somehow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it won't be today. Plus, that "T" in "TfD" always complicates things for me... Drmies (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Opabinia regalis, I was wondering whether you had just fallen from the heavens, and I see that in a way you have, after dormancy. I've seen you all over the place, being all helpful and reasonable and stuff. Thanks for coming back; we need more of you. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Those aren't so bad really; the real headaches are the ones full of back-and-forth about whose CSS is better.
  Fallen from the heavens, huh? I'm stealing that ;) Better than 'crawled out from under a rock', even if that's more accurate - and also provides a convenient surface to bash one's forehead into when being helpful and reasonable isn't getting anywhere. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Your assistance requested

Not a big thing, but likely COI and an apparently non-notable subject at Martone (Entertainer). I've restored the applicable templates several times, and am tempted to AfD the article. Any input will be appreciated. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Don't underestimate the speedy deletion process..! Thanks, and keep warm, Drmies (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you. You know I'm partial to speedy, but sometimes when an article has been constructed that meticulously--even with a preponderance of poor sources--I'm unsure as to whether an admin will be willing to delete outright. And there was a half-hearted, though unsubstantiated and rather thin claim to significance. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Danny Hesp

Hi there my great fellow user,

two favours I ask of thee if possible, one very easy the other average: 1 - can you translate the first ref I added to this guy? 2 - can you please add some more refs to article if you can find them? Maybe the two I added are not 100% reliable.

Attentively, keep it up --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'll translate the VVCS article from the Dutch wiki when I get a moment. I'm kind of proud of him for picking that up. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Fort Worth Circle article

Dear Drmies,

I moved the Fort Worth Circle article into the mainspace this afternoon. I appreciate your help in getting it ready.Papernpencils2015 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good work! I'll have a look in a minute. You have lots of friends: Rosiestep and Xanthomelanoussprog have been working on articles for members of the circle, and Rosiestep was interested in the article itself as well. These are good people. Thanks for your note, and thanks for your efforts in improving our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Well, that's looking pretty nice. What to do...there's a few book citations in a different format. See if you can format those in the same way as the others, with a brief footnote and full bibliographical information in the "Bibliography" section--just follow that same format. What this article cries out for is a couple of images, of course. You could consider cutting up the final section ("The Art") into two--one for the later careers of the artists, many of whom now have articles, and one for "Legacy" or something like that, to discuss their reception and those retrospectives. User 99 (don't know how to ping you) and Mandarax, your help will be greatly appreciated. As far as I'm concerned Texas is a foreign country (though Texas A&M is in the SEC--bleh), so improving this will also mean globalizing Wikipedia. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• The more I look at it the more I am impressed. Great work. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Papernpencils2015, I really enjoyed reading the Fort Worth Circle article. Thank you for creating it. I agree with Drmies that adding images would be a good. Don't know if you have access to any. I added a couple of categories, but there may be others which are suitable for inclusion. Hope to keep seeing you around! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)