Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 150

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145←Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150

I swear this is going somewhere

The Original Barnstar
I swear this story is going somewhere: We buried my uncle this summer. When cleaning out his house and the two-story house he had built in his backyard (after filling his own home floor-to-ceiling with stuff), we found an encyclopedia/atlas well over a hundred years old. I was showing the out-of-date medical articles to a friend of mine, and he brought up how he wrote a Wikipedia article decades ago about a dope band, googled the band and was pleased and surprised to find the article was still there, still contained some of his writing, and had been expanded. He said that he received much assistance in navigating the complexities of the encyclopedia from an OG, and upon looking at the history, I see that OG is you. So thanks! Acorns become trees, Rjjiii (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Evading IP vandal at 'Iran at the 2024 Summer Olympics'

The same previously-banned IP is persistently continuing their personal attacks towards me in Romanized Persian on both my talk page and Talk:Iran at the 2024 Summer Olympics as 77.237.190.180, 77.237.191.125, 77.237.185.111, and 77.237.186.182, while also continuing to vandalize the article. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

KKB Plot

I didn't just copy amd paste, I was the one who wrote it in the first place after editing it months ago. Readers and other users didn't have a problem with it for months let the plot remain with a few changes every now and then. Also, removing the whole plot is not your job either, yet here you are. Thank you. Grammer Plot (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Would you mind explaining, Grammer Plot, under which account you made those edits? Thanks. Also, I just nominated an article for deletion that had been crappy for fifteen years, so that argument of "didn't have a problem with" doesn't really mean much. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    • I made an edit under a different account, Meigh 2005, which I created 2 years ago. Instead of nominating articles to be removed because it is "crappy" why don't you fix it and make it to your liking so that you don't inconvenience others who are okay with a "crappy" article ? Or better yet, leave it. You're the second person to remove the main section of a page just because the details are excessive. It's really selfish, stupid and ignorant. Stop. Grammer Plot (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I'm sure you don't mind that I blocked that other account--it's for security reasons, so it can't be usurped. The things you are saying here are not just uncollegial but also show a bit of a disconnect with what we are trying to do here. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
        • i really don't give two hoots about you blocking that other account and for what reason. i literally – couldn't care less. all i ask of you is to stop removing plots, especially if they are well detailed with time tracks throughout the film or series. Grammer Plot (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
          • You really should have a look at Wikipedia:Civility. Yelling at me is not going to convince me that that poorly written and totally excessive plot is of any encyclopedic value at all. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
            • please don't refer to wikipedia's code of conduct to try and threaten me. it's not going to work. i'm not yelling at you. i'm just telling you that what you're doing is selfish and ignorant. if you really find articles bogus then why don't you fix it ? removing the whole thing is unnecessary and honestly, frustrating. and please don't tell me that it's not your job. aree of course not, yaar. it's not mine either, yet here i am, correcting spelling, grammar and other errors that need fixing. thank you, have a nice day. Grammer Plot (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
              • I'm not responsible for fixing your copyright violations, or your poor writing--either one. You did not fix any of the things in that plot summary; you simply edit warred over it. If you're going to correct "spelling, grammar and other errors", start with what you wrote here. Now go away: I do not want you in my happy place again. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
          • And I see now that it was removed as a copyvio--User:Nthep, thank you: I had looked but couldn't easily navigate IMDB, I think, or maybe I started looking and then became otherwise occupied. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Long hold

You placed an unblock request at User talk:Rootbeerlc on hold on 4 June. The ensuing discussion didn't come to any clear conclusion, but maybe it's time to take it off hold, one way or the other. JBW (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

John McEntee

Hi - why was the edit for John McEntee reversed? There are multiple sources within the article itself that detail that he is a known conspiracy theorist, so why would that not be important to include on his description? This reeks of political favoritism. Jimmyjohn117 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible sock?

I have a suspicion, based both on the username and the edit history, that editor Fix.It [1] is a sock of blocked editor Fix.bkl [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwegmann (talk • contribs)

And 3...2...1...they're at it again with Fix.ab ([3]). Anwegmann (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Jill Stein's biography

I notice that you have recently taken issue with User:DMH223344's edits to Jill Stein, particularly with regard to the ample use of primary sources to deliver laudatory information. There is a disagreement between them and me, and I don't want to begin a revert war. If you take interest in helping to reach a concensus — Talk:Jill Stein § "Political positions" section seems like self-promotion. Thanks! Y. Dongchen (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

I was just about to bring Draft:James Holzier to MFD for the BLP issues when you deleted the draft. I appreciate the diligence. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  • JeffSpaceman, no, thank you--I saw your edit go by and was reminded of the craziness. Then I looked at the French and Italian source (the latter actually mentions him, so it's not utter bullshit, but it does not verify the claims), and decided to nuke it. Lo and behold, I go to their talk page and find them blocked already by the ever-alert Cullen328. One day we'll learn what the "328" part is. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Drmies please do not post this shocking revelation on the Twitter/X cesspool. My 15 year old cover is now completely blown. "Cullen" is a tribute to my grandfather who was born in 1881 and died a year or so before I was born. We share middle names. His casual day-to-day name with his buddies was "Cullen". Nobody calls me Cullen off Wikipedia, though I use and enjoy that name here. As for "328", I regret that I was stupid enough to impulsively include my birth date in my username back in 2009, when dinosaurs still roamed the earth. Yes, my admirers worldwide send me inedible virtual images of birthday cakes every March 28. Please fly to California with your delightful wife and splendid children next March, and I will give all of you a highly personalized tour. Just buy me a birthday cake, if you can afford it. Were you aware that my son and granddaughter visited the Netherlands recently? Turns out that is the preferred name as opposed to "Holland", which English speakers have been using for pretty much forever. Times can change. Cullen328 (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Haha thanks for clearing that up. At home, our preferred name for you is Jim, and yes, "the Netherlands" is preferred. Strictly speaking I'm (also) from Holland, and more precisely, I'm West-Frisian, which is not a subset of Frisian. ;) I hope your family members had a good time. As for the cesspool: I think I have one follower, someone I don't know but who was posting the right things. I get followed regularly by New Jersey boys who live in their mom's basement and pretend to be beautiful women, and I block those immediately, so your secret is safe with me. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Boniface award

I was looking up an author, and came across Association of Classical Christian Schools#Boniface Award. I wondered if it were something of which you were aware. LadyofShalott 19:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

MassimoGiordano1970

On reflection, I think this is probably the moment for us to stop replying to this guy. Either he calms down and follows the repeated instructions he's been given, or he doesn't and he stays blocked. Either way... AntiDionysius (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

September music

story · music · places

Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My story today is about a man who played jazz when it was banned by the Nazis, - you can listen to how they played it later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for help with my talk page! - My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took, - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi, the person you reverted here is most likely a sock of User:Bikrampuri. They have this habit of POV pushing Bangladeshi/Bengali Muslim as you can see here, here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Your recent work

Hello. Thank you for your copy edits on Neil Hartigan. I noticed that there is some grammatical errors that could lead to factual misinterpretations. For example, Pelosi was a friend per source not a classmate, he oversaw Freddie Mac not Fannie Mae per source, and it is Loyola University Chicago not just Loyola University (which is a common college name). Thanks. SevenUp7up (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Concerned about User:Bbb23's actions re:me, User:Keleperkins and Whittier High School

Hello DrMies.

I'm concerned about User:Bbb23's actions.

What's going on here? Why did he do that? BOOMERANG for what? YOU at least are aware that I'm not a vandal or anything like that, but it feels like Bbb23 is assuming bad faith here. I know I should probably try to talk it out with him, but he seems to have his mind made up about Keleperkins and me. I get that he's an experienced editor, but I got well over 30K edits myself, and he shouldn't be treating me like a vandal. And I'm afraid if I discuss this with BBB any further, he'll impulsively block me...can you make sure he doesn't do that? pbp 01:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Purplebackpack89, Wikipedia:Appealing a block says that Third party appeals of blocks are allowed, but generally discouraged. I am curious why you are going to bat for this particular editor? Most recently, they have tried to add an list of non-notable red-linked alumni to the high school article, based on the unreferenced claim that they had gone on to prestigious universities, an obvious violation of WP:BLP policy, and flat out bad editing. They also created three obviously inappropriate templates that had to be reviewed and deleted. They made a series of incompetent edits to Irving Thalberg Jr. that had to be reverted. In 2019, they tried to write an article about Patty Caretto despite the fact that an article about her has existed since 2019. They misspelled her name and created a worthless draft that had to be deleted. So, we have an editor who appears to be a net negative, and we all know that competence is required. What is your substantive basis for challenging this block? As for your final request, what can one administrator do to prevent another administrator from blocking someone? Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Even if third-party appeals are generally discouraged, they're not VANDALISM...
I do not consider Keleperkins incompetent and I think he should be given more chances. When I look at him, I see somebody who has potential, but needs to be made more aware of Wikipedia's policies.
I will provide more info in an email pbp 02:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89, as for your restoration of content in the history section, you have left eleven paragraphs unreferenced. Certainly you know that the onus is on you to comply with Verifiability when you restore contested content. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Many of the paragraphs can be sourced from the citations I provided. I also believe that BBB acted in error deleting the entire section rather than tagging it. pbp 02:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
But you have not done so, Purplebackpack89, even though the burden on you to do that before or simultaneous with restoring the content. Why should readers be forced to rummage around in the references in unrelated paragraphs hoping to stumble on verification? You earlier reminded Drmies that you are very experienced. Act like it then, instead of pursuing grudges against administrators trying to protect the encyclopedia from incompetence. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Have you looked at the article lately?
Also, IDK why you've turned this into hammering me about sourcing. The problem here is a bad block by BBB, and erroneously referring to contesting that block as vandalism and issuing an inappropriate warning. Guy should lose his mop.
Finally, I do NOT, and will NEVER, consider Keleperkins to be incompetent, so stop calling him that. pbp 03:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89, so the number of unreferenced paragraphs has declined from eleven to nine since this conversation started. You should have taken that content to your sandbox, trimmed the trivia, and referenced all of it before restoring it. Instead you want to defend an editor who has, as far as I can see, not made any good edits for many years. I pointed put six specific examples of bad editing by this largely inactive editor in the last five years, which took me only about ten minutes to find, and you have provided zero evidence of any good edits from that account. And you get all indignant about me hinting at their possible incompetence when evidence of that is is glaringly obvious and unrefuted. Your call for Bbb23 to lose his mop is both bizarre and unsupported by any evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
@Cullen328:, neither you nor @Drmies: nor @Bbb23: has answered the questions I posed...
  1. Why was it appropriate to tag a block contest as vandalism, and
  2. Why would I get hit with a BOOMERANG?
pbp 15:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I think I can assume that "vandalism" here didn't mean "writing dumb stuff in an article" or lying about a date or something--it probably meant "disruption of a serious kind", and I think Cullen has outlined how a. the editor was seriously disruptive and b. your particular response was also disruptive. If you want to question a block, fine, but this isn't really questioning a block. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) PBP, I'll answer these two questions for you:
1. First and foremost, Cullen has addressed that the editor has not made any good edits for years. Even though I don't know much about the editor, I'll go along with what he said and agree that the editor did not make any good edits for years (I hope Cullen gives me the benefit of the doubt). I can probably agree that it's not vandalism, but as it says, it's generally discouraged to write a block appeal for someone else even if you are trying to act in good faith.
2. Bbb23 is really experienced as an admin, and considering how long he's been on here for years (long before I even started editing), people would say that you are considering the block by Bbb23 to be a "bad block" when it really isn't. Because of that, they'd be calling you out for this and say that you should be blocked per WP:BOOMERANG.
I'd rather not interact anymore on here, so I better get back to writing my theatre paper due on Friday. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'll keep this simple. Your unblock request for the user was absolutely wrong and deserved to be reverted. I should not have called it vandalism, and I apologize for that (I do agree with Drmies that your edit was "seriously disruptive"). I should have told you on your Talk page that you are not permitted to create unblock requests for other users. It is true that in very limited circumstances you can challenge an administrator's block of a user based on the change to WP:AAB in 2021, but that does not mean you can do so by posting a formal unblock request. In addition, those limited circumstances do not apply here. They are not intended for "bad blocks" but for egregiously out-of-process blocks, and, even then, you are supposed to first discuss your concerns with the blocking administrator before bringing it to the attention of the community, usually at a noticeboard like WP:AN. I hope this makes some sense to you, and we can put this unpleasant matter to rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
@Bbb23: @Drmies: almost there, but not quite...
  1. It wasn't disruptive (or in bad faith) on my part, and it's inappropriate for either of you to claim it was
  2. Nobody has explained this whole BOOMERANG claim
  3. Are either of you contending that Keleperkins added inaccurate information to articles, or just that what he created didn't really meet our inclusion standards? Did you really try to explain what does and doesn't belong on the project before indeffing him? When I look at their edits, I see a guy who IS legitimately trying to improve the encyclopedia (therefore I question the NOTHERE rationale for an indef), but doesn't understand the inclusion policy, in part because I'm not seeing enough effort to train him in it.
pbp 16:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
You can be disruptive without editing in bad faith. I am not going to discuss the merits of the block of another user. If they wish to make an unblock request, they can do so. I blocked the user on September 3. On September 29, over 3 weeks later, you challenged the block on behalf of the user. Why? Were you in touch with the user through e-mail? I have nothing more to say on this issue with you. I strongly suggest you go find something else to do that is more constructive than this protracted conversation about an incompetent, disruptive user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, the boomerang thing. That's standard. It doesn't mean that I would block you for taking me to ANI. It means that your conduct would be scrutinized and that you might be sanctioned by another administrator. I'm surprised you think otherwise.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
PBP--I'm sorry, but you are wrong in item 1: it was disruptive, for reasons outlined in various places above, and the rest follows from that. There are things you could have done that could have led to a block review in a non-disruptive way; I can imagine a "help" request or whatever from the user on their talk page, followed by some chatter back and forth with the experienced editor offering advice, etc etc. Or the experienced editor could have asked the blocking administrator, perhaps on that administrator's own talk page, about the block, and taken it from there. That's not what happened here, not at all, and as a result we're here--or, you're here, now in the company of three or four other administrators and editors, none of whom seem to really agree with you. You can accept this and we all move along, or you don't, and then I guess we don't. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Apology

Yo Drmies I'm sorry for all my draft pages bro. I didn't even know it was vandalism so I hope you can forgive me. If you want you leave me a message on my talk page bro. Again, my bad for all the draft pages it was irresponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddellas (talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Pierre Sprey edits

You're not wrong that the Sprey article is a mess. However I think it may be overkill to simply blank an entire section of the article. The whole reason Sprey is a notable figure is because of his involvement (however significant or insignificant it may be) as an analyst aiding the conceptualization the what would become the F-16 and A-10, and his subsequent criticism of the F-15 and F-35. There is extraneous information in that section and I'm not sure of the right way to structure the article but his connections to the A-10 are necessary for a proper article about him.

As to the reason I made my edit, I think it's fair you reverted it; my wording was bad. To explain better, the section is about Sprey's favor of the F-16 over the F-15 as a fighter and states the the F-16 is "highly successful". It then mentions that Sprey has continued to criticize the F-15. This wording therefor lightly implies the F-16 as more successful than the F-15 and that his criticisms are therefore valid. However Sprey's criticisms are commonly deflected by pointing out that the F-15 is the most successful active fighter jet with 105 kills to 0 losses. I should have worded the section in that manner, wording it as something like

"Sprey continued to be critical of the F-15 fighter, though proponents of the F-15 have argued it is also a highly successful design, commonly referencing it's aerial combat record of one hundred victories to zero losses."

Though I think that wording could still be improved. TaqPCR (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  • The whole article is written in a fairly convoluted way, and "entire section" is incorrect: the part that was properly sourced is moved up. What's deleted is two passages: one sourced to what appears to be a chat at a conference, and the other unverified. Also, we can't really deal with implications or suggestions, only with what is positively stated in a reliable secondary source. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    Honestly you're right not much was lost from that section.
    I did some more reworking of the defense analyst section a bit more to pare down extraneous details, particularly overly wordy descriptions focused on the fighter mafia and their concepts instead of Sprey, and improve the flow of it including grouping the parts discussing his work on the concepts that would become the F-16 and A-10 together in one paragraph, and then his later public comments about the jets that were created. TaqPCR (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor

Was wondering if you could take a look at this:

Guardiansmells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GuardianH (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've reported and reverted @GuardianH:. They have been blocked.
If they turn up again, I would suggest reporting straight away to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Knitsey (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
The edits have been rev/del by Pickersgill-Cunliffe. Knitsey (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Haha thanks to everyone for handling this. I'll forgo my usual ANI2.0 fee. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah that LTA. GuardianH, this is not the first time they're picking on you, right? I have seen those edits before but I don't remember who they attacked. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@Drmies Unfortunately, the person behind this particular user has been at this for quite a long time — about a year, I would guess, and always with the same request that I cannot oblige. I have no idea of who it might be but they've been able to evade several, several blocks only to come back again (perhaps they are using a VPN?). I never thought I would get so determined a shoulder devil. GuardianH (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Well is there a name, an SPI, an LTA report? That might be helpful in blocking though it might do little to prevent it. I'm really sorry you have to deal with this. People are sometimes awful, and people on the internet are more easily more awful. Have you emailed Trust and Safety, or ArbCom? Drmies (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
My assumption has always been that this particular user has been banned on a parent account via an SPI reported some time ago for similar serious attacks, but has been determined such that they have found some way to circumnavigate the IP ban by way of a VPN or some other program. This "user" has varying degrees of interest, as they pop up every other month or so reverting my edits and leaving those messages. From which particular SPI I have no idea. If they've been able to circumnavigate the original SPI I don't know how fruitful another one can be.
I don't know what Trust & Safety or ArbCom can do if there is no way to pinpoint this user's actual location and/or the person can just bypass it, and even then I don't know if it is just one person. Doug Weller semi-protected my talk page for these attacks and others. GuardianH (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Trust and Safety and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. These are really important in matters like this. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For hard work cleaning up the site and being very active. Thank you! نوحفث   Let's Chat! 20:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Block suggestion

Greetings, I saw you just blocked these IPs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.29.179.155, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.29.151.66, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.29.164.227 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.29.162.92). I just discovered that probably this user User:100jan0vski is related to them because both of them are from Tetovo, Macedonia and the edits made by this user are identical to the ones made from those IPs. Here you can see that he sometimes edit with two of the banned IPs (77.29.162.92 and 77.29.164.227) and with his own user indistinctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? AlejandroR1990 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I saw your report but I have nothing to see on the connection. The user was warned for logged-out editing; let's see if that works. Also, IPs aren't "banned"--this may seem like semantics, but it does matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Helloooooo

Can I ask for a rev/del (if you think it's needed) on [4] please. It doesn't look like they're going to come up with a reference. Knitsey (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What's wikitweet ?

You mentioned it to me a few days ago on an article talk. What is wikitweet?? Graywalls (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Template

I am reverting the users edits, they have been adding numerous unrelated characters to the templates. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sock

ERFWillNeverRip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of CrazyLoverFutbolLoko who you blocked. Thought you might be interested. C F A 💬 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Empanadas

Empanadas are delicious. Spam is disgusting. Polygnotus (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This may or may not be a stupid idea, but please check out Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Alternative_to_normal_talkpage_notification. Polygnotus (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Unregistered user suspicions

Hello, I'm just contacting you as you're the first on the suggested list of Recently Active Users. My question is, is there some easy way to vet an unregistered user who only has a handful of edits in their entire edit history? I feel like this issue comes up from time to time, where I'm getting in an argument with someone who could well just be a troll or a one-issue-only editor or some personal vendetta warrior who often disappears from existence after something like a month or so. (In other words, are there any quick signs to know if I'm wasting my time talking to someone?) You can see my disgreement with this user (or users?) here. I really don't mean to be hastily accusatory or cynical, but I've been burned more than once. It's a serious inquiry to avoid this or future frustrations. Thanks for any support you can give. Wolfdog (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Hmm interesting, Wolfdog. I'm sure some of the talk page watchers can add to these quick comments. In this case (I haven't looked at the actual edits) it seems like a drive-by user who's riding a hobby horse from a few different IPs (geolocate may shed some light on that). The longer answer is no, that's not an easy way, and the best thing to have is the thing I'm missing: a longterm memory that recalls details about article content, usernames, geolocation, etc. So earlier today I reverted a new user who was adding presidential election data to small communities in Massachusetts, and I know I saw that the other day--but I can't recall article or editor names. But very often returning trolls have their hobby horses, and some editors keep records of returning trolls; I know User:Binksternet does, with IP addresses etc., and I think User:WayKurat does as well, in sandboxes/user space--but they're dealing with people who've been screwing around for years.
    Wasting your time--in this case it's weird. You got two IPs that geolocate to South America, but it all started with an IP from elsewhere. I checked for proxies but found nothing; still, I think you are dealing with one single editor who's riding a hobby horse. My advice? Well you did the right thing by opening a talk page discussion, but I'd add that you can make sure, every time, to welcome and/or warn such editors, to create a paper trail of warnings that can, eventually, result in a block or semi-protection, if necessary. But these are all practical things and, I'm afraid, don't really answer your real question, which is a really interesting and difficult one. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Responding to ping. Yes, I keep a list of long-term disruption cases relevant to me, which I compile as I identify them by style and behavior. (Drmies, one of the cases in my list is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanover Research, which I listed because they were adding presidential vote tables to lots of city articles in a partisan manner. They are likely a different person than your recent encounter.) The key to catching them is to keep engaged in a general interest area for an extended time, after which you'll be better equipped to identify repeated efforts of disruptive behavior as coming from the same person. Geolocation of the IP is a critically important factor. Named accounts don't give away location as easily, so it's more about behavior and style similarities. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, both. Seems like the best course of action is to wait it out a bit. Wolfdog (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2024 (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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~ Pbritti (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

“It doesn’t say anything about representing Fayetteville or whatever”

The article provided as a source, word for word, says “ The interwoven “O-Z” monogram is symbolic of the interconnectedness and individuality of the communities in our region, anchored by its four largest cities: Bentonville, Rogers, Springdale, and Fayetteville.”

Please review your decision to block me from editing a page when I was trying to add useful information about a sports team that represents Fayetteville. You and the other users haven’t bothered deleting the bit about the Naturals who also don’t play in Fayetteville. It’s unbelievable I can’t add useful information to Wikipedia without it being reverted and me being blocked from doing so. Afcnwa (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed the user (sitewide).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23. It gets worse, though--here, for instance. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
That's what's so great about Wikipedia: there's no bottom. I'm practicing not being cynical, but it's not working.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Could you check if User:LogaemS is a sockpuppet of User:Archiepo? That new account has the same interests and writing style.

And don't worry @LogaemS if you are not a sockpuppet, we are just making sure that a blocked user isn't breaking the rules. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I'm guessing, by my watchlist activity, that you kinda went through a lot last night. I figured you wanted some Cute and Wholesome on your talk page.

I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Greetings

I got introduced to The Hu by stalking your page about 5 years ago and thought I would return the favor by mentioning Otyken to you since I think you would like them a lot based on the style of The Hu. Enjoy! Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 04:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Another new one I really dig a whole heck of a lot which I recently discovered, but isn't really related to those styles is Broken Peach - Fight Together. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 05:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
When you've got them saying Christ I despise this community, but at least the admins have each others' backs (diff), you warm the very cockles of this black, black heart 'o mine.

BusterD (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I guess, Buster, but believe me I don't take pleasure in such interactions. Then again, I'm not going to roll over every time someone insults me. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I know you've got larger fish to fry. Been that kind of day for me as well. BusterD (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Sorry man. Are you in academia too? ;) Drmies (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
        • I'm my own guy. These days I'm mostly taking care of friends and animals, and writing offline. Sell something from time to time. Today I've split time between online junk and wrestling rascally pooches. When are we having the Wikiconference NA down in bacon gravy-land? Indy meetup was fun this month. Lotta hard work for the organizers (who made it look terrific). Found a nice apartment a few blocks away; helped hone my Gen Con feng shui a bit. BusterD (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude.

If you don't like someone's contribution in articles such as M Dot R, edit it and move on. Snarky remarks and belittling alienate new users looking to make a meaningful difference on this site. As an administrator you should not only know this, but also project humility and understanding toward others. Sprucecopse (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Hate to break it to you, but that's far from rude. "So much needless verbosity, and so much talk by the subject--whose career is as yet thin" is an accurate assessment of the materials being removed. The bit about Jamaica was very much a WP:NOT violation, and other elements did not speak to his notability.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    • It's great that his lackey was able to come out of the woodwork and defend his master, unfortunately I am not interested in discussing this user's behavior with anyone besides himself. Sprucecopse (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • When I edit an article I'm not going to check and see who all is in the history and how new they are. Note I remarked on things like "needless verbosity", not on any person who may have wrote that stuff. I don't know who wrote that stuff. "Project humility"? I'm sorry, but what the fuck? I'm not Gawain. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Oh you don't even need to do that, maintaining an amicable approach is beneficial for all of us, regardless of experience on the site; it makes Wikipedia a friendlier place. It's also great that you mentioned the aspects you found problematic, though I would suggest reflecting on how that is communicated. "So much needless verbosity, and so much talk by the subject - whose career is as yet thin" is ironically enough verbose in itself, "removed verbosity and self-sources" is sufficient. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a wiki admin is astounded that they should project humility and civility... and Wikimedia wonders why so few people who join actually contribute in the long run. Lol. Sprucecopse (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
      • You're not exactly a model of decorum yourself. "Lackey?" That's personal and far out of proportion to "needless verbosity." Everybody's edits on this project are liable to be ruthlessly edited by people who disagree with your idea of how things should be composed. And no, you don't get to dictate who you are talking to. Acroterion (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Sprucecopse, I think edit summaries should be explanatory, and I think you agree with me. Thanks for all the snarky remarks and the advice. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I should lead by example. I recognize my choice of words weren't very constructive in creating dialogue. I apologize, though I want to add that I stand by my belief that a neutral tone in edit summaries will lead to less discouragement for the previous authors checking in on an article in the future. Sprucecopse (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Swati

Please can you check Draft:Muhammad Ali Swati is not the same content as the article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali Swati, which you deleted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Account Plakosa

Hello adminstrator, there is a user Plakosa who edits the same pages related to religion and theology, this user is likely a sockpuppet account of an earlier user Rajputbhatti who was blocked for edit warring and abuse of editing privileges. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of rajputbhatti but feel free to check. Plakosa (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Cookiemonster1618, I'm not going to check someone unless there is significant evidence. You are welcome to add something to the SPI. That other user, that's over ten years ago. Plakosa, you seem to have gotten yourself in hot water pretty quickly. I noted that Khirurg warned you for edit warring; in my opinion, they were correct to do so. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Noted Plakosa (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Plakosa, you are free to remove material from your talk page, but it's not always a good idea to do so when your edits are already being scrutinized. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

Confused about Special:Diff/1252983912. Did you meant to actually remove it? I put it there, because there's considerable coverage about this, and I believe WP:LEAD says prominent controversy is suggested to be included. I put it back with a solid source, because I wasn't sure if you actually meant to take it out. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Re-open discussion on POV pushing ANI report

I am requesting that this ANI discussion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#SheriffIsInTown%E2%80%99s_POV-Pushing,_User_Conduct

Be re-opened as I believe the user is continuing his POV pushing, I would also like to request more admin opinions on the matter after the re-opening of the discussion. Titan2456 (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this please

[5] signing their comment as M.Bitton. I reverted amd left level 4, only warning. Knitsey (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity

How did you know Ritmos de La Habana (talk · contribs) was a sock?

Also the "dry-aged beef" comment above caused me to laugh out loud, so props for that. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Was it the 🌮 or the 🌯 that gave the game away? Knitsey (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, is that a MidAtlanticBaby calling card? I didn't know. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
No, not per se, but they're trying to mix it up. I guess it's a step up from periods. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Who says they're not capable of growth, huh AntiDionysius (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Experience, though noon auctoritee / Were in this world, is right ynogh for me. I'm not going to give up the game, because MidAtlanticBaby is watching; they were trying to get their edit count up so they could come here with their silly complaints, like this. Knitsey, is that a taco? It's not a sausage lonk. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Goodbye Knitsey (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
🤔💔 Drmies (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
But, I deleted a ton of their "Oh yeah motherfucker?" crap on your Commons talk page, exceeding over more than 100000 bytes. Also, it’s not an authentic taqueria taco. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for that! Yeah that was quite a mess over there; I think someone protected my talk page there. I hope so anyway--I can never find the things I need on Commons, like speedy deletion templates and what not. Are you an administrator there?

Zzuuzz, in regard to 120.142.140.148--PhilKnight suggested six months. I don't care either way, but that's what I've been doing. Should I rethink/think about this in the first place? Drmies (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Psst, it's me! Go to your Commons preferences, choose the Gadgets tab, scroll down to the maintenance tools section and enable AjaxQuickDelete and Quick delete. You're welcome!-- Ponyobons mots 21:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to sound mystical, but it depends. I think 3 months is good starting point. 6 is not particularly abnormal, though probably not really necessary. Then there may be indications that it's been used before, or blocked before, or that's it's extra-static, in which case it can be increased. I've seen a few 2-year blocks for one edit and no other history. That's probably a bit excessive. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Hmm OK--one of the ones that was used today had a two-year block from ST47's bot. I kinda wish I could take that tutorial that would teach me a bit more about this kind of stuff, and that that tutorial existed. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
ST47's bot (sometimes) used an increasing scale, starting with 2 weeks. If the proxy remained open then the length was increased. I don't think a tutorial can really teach much of this stuff, but if it's any help, I've seen nothing from you to complain about. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
And I should probably offer this very recent example. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
About Drmies replying to me, no I am not an administrator on any project, but when I say delete in this context, it means literally text removed. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 20:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Old English Studies and its Scandinavian Practitioners

Hope this finds you well. Just noticed the above (D.S.Brewer, 2024: Bjork) is open access from Boydell & Brewer, here, if you're interested. All the best! SerialNumber54129 11:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Thanks--if we had world enough, and time! But yeah I'll have a look. I suppose you know about the American (Southern) fascination with Old English. I have not yet figured out how that matched with their Tennyson-inflected Arthurianism and their Scott-inflected medievalism. Drmies (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Account at Bengalis

Hello there is a sockpuppet account named John Kumar Ibrahim who evaded their block by creating a new account and restoring the same old edits that they were blocked for at Bengalis. They even left a message on my talk page with the same copy pasted message that they are not a sockpuppet account when their edits indicate that they are, and given their edits at that article, the evidence supports the conclusion that this. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:RfPP

Hi there,

I see that you forgot to reply to the request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Help:Adding open-license text to Wikipedia and add the protection icon to the page, I've just done it for you. :) Aydoh8[contribs] 04:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

October music

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My story today is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his Lamento. - My story on 13 October was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page now because of the date. I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

IP cat pest

Hi, IP user 86.40.54.89 (User talk:Drmies/Archive 149#Possible IP evasion?) is back and has resumed their prolific but substandard category editing. I reverted them for a few last week and they returned with improvements (though still not perfect) but this week it has gone back to stuff like this, all minor but not correct, fiddly for others to fix, and something they have already been warned about already. Unfortunately I think when one IP is blocked they still continue to edit from another - 109.255.177.252 - so may do so again. Crowsus (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Continuing to add unsourced content, unexplained removal of maintenance tags, repeated addition of unsourced content

Hi Drmies, Found that there were 2 IP address ranges 2001:1388:A44:0:0:0:0:0 and 2001:1388:A45:0:0:0:0:0 All edits from the IP address found to be the same person. Harassing and deleting content in other articles which had administrators warn and rollback more than 30 disruptive edits Found the latest edit, redo it. Repeatedly adding unsourced content and deleting maintenance tags by correcting them and not explained in the article Nine (singer) in terms of being a fan club Due to adding content to live broadcast activities to sell products Duplicate content is added which is not important. As with most of the content in this article concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality.

There is a sockpuppet account named Rosalinares1 who evaded their block by creating a new IP and restoring the same old edits that they were blocked for at Nine (singer).

Please see Nine (singer): Revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nine_(singer)&action=history

Please see this edits: 2001:1388:A44:5700:28FE:5648:2A79:8595 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:5700:28FE:5648:2A79:8595 2001:1388:A44:EDDB:98F3:C8BE:82C6:175D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:EDDB:98F3:C8BE:82C6:175D 2001:1388:A44:23CC:DCF2:FD41:F2BA:FCE3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:23CC:DCF2:FD41:F2BA:FCE3

Revision history Nine (singer) has only one person, IP addresses starting with 2001:1388:A45 and 2001:1388:A44 all are the same person The edits will be made in the same way, namely adding information to the article without the source in Nine (singer) and deleting and disturbing other articles. which always has admin rollback This person made repeated changes with new IP addresses like this.

The article Nine (singer) does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Much of the content in these sections seems to be little known events and awards. Likely of interest only to a small audience.

Much of it should be removed:

The entire article was edited by the same person, unexplained removal of maintenance tags, and recently used a new IP address to add a lot of unsourced content.

repeated addition of unsourced content I think examining a person is difficult. This person from Lima, Peru uses a different IP address every time they resolve. Every time delete and add information to another article. will be reversed Then edit again with the new IP address.

This person created information in the Nine (singer) article and also caused mischief in other articles. Add information without references Administrators always roll back edits that this person deleted on other articles. Editing that disturbs another article and edited and added information only to the article Nine (singer) The person using all IP addresses in this Nine (singer) article is the same person who removed the maintenance tag without editing it.

The person using all the IP addresses I attached is the same person. I'm only giving examples because there are many. The entire article Nine (singer) has an IP address from the same person from Lima, Peru, but the IP address in the update is different every time the information is added. This person deleted the maintenance tag notice. Delete without correcting Most articles lack references. As I looked at the article's history, Nine (singer) has been doing this for a long time, but no user has come to check on this person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:F15F:C574:7A91:49D9:AAC9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:7B00:F810:2A14:7BCB:F48B

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:7B00:358F:FBE6:A148:46A0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:40B6:504C:F2CB:D823:F9B

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:AEDB:F872:834B:5232:4D3E

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:EA0C:2594:EA67:F737:FD4B MeetHoneyBee (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

unban request at AN

Hi Drmies, since this is a WP:3X ban I don't know if I'm expected to notify you personally, but just in case, since you're the original block admin, please see WP:AN#84Swagahh unban request. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

VMLY&R (Companies)

Hi Drmies, could you take a look at what's going on here? TaylorLvx has clearly gamed to autoconfirmed so I thought at first it was an obvious sock of TruthEditor3, but on second thought they seem to be editing against each other. Strange. C F A 💬 21:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SerialNumber54129 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

Can you help me? The game summary had a different looking format when I was adding and editing the content. Someone came in and changed it and I would like to have it reverted back to its original format Rolltide pisco (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Serious, serious

Once there was User:Pinzunski, whom i was sure was a sockpuppet of Martimc123, but the investigation yielded nothing. Now, we have User:SukunaZenin, and i am SURE they are a sock of the first account mentioned. They continue to add stuff like transfer speculation to Francisco Trincão or Ricardo Velho (i let it "slide" in the latter, only composed the wording, but reverted the former altogether); now, through an IP (this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:6832:2C00:E10F:9A77:CE09:D3D7, i also use them, no problem there from where i stand), they resorted to serious insults ("fucking keyboard warrior", "biggot" (sic)) and, as Pinzunski before, warned me that there would be serious consequences if i continue what i'm doing: what am i doing? Trying to make articles readable, without tons of unencyclopedical material (some of their additions are good, i do admit it; the first time around, the legal threats were so "substantiated" that, following two or three days of them, we never heard anything more in that regard).

Attentively (oh, this just in, i'm leaving because: 1 - my summaries will never improve and i realise that may be unfair sometimes; 2 - can't take more of this abuse. Whatever any further investigations may produce it's neither here or there for me, cheers), continue the great work RevampedEditor (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

At Kerem Aktürkoğlu, through a new IP, they reinstated EVERYTHING you have reverted (with an "interesting" edit summary to go along)! a promise to you: i won't leave of course, have done NOTHING contrary to WP guidelines (if you except the summaries of course), but i will only edit with my account from now on, no more laziness/not logging off.

Cheers --RevampedEditor (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You're next!

I recall reading that Danton shouted this at Robespierre as he was trundled off to the guillotine. Can't recall the source. Can you?

These things didn't happen back in Nisus' day, but only "old timers" like us recall those times. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Haha, I quit teaching that: there's no point anymore in assignment texts that are more complicated than an Instagram poem. Shame--no more Virgil, Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare. Then again, that nursing students have to take humanities classes provides our bread and butter, but the use for them is pretty limited of course. It gets worse if you ask a class full of lit crit seniors what their favorite books and authors are, and none of them get any farther than some YA books. Euryalus, I always thought you had one of the best names of any admin, and I'm so glad you're still around. Plus your name has an article, which is cool. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
True. Luckily I am yet to be dragged to admin recall for my flagrant disregard of WP:IMPERSONATE. As Robespierre verifiably said, "To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty." Our turns will come.
And re assignments, isn't that what AI is for? Apparently allowed in University essays these days, provided there's some tiny fleck of individuality, or idiosyncratic use of commas, or some other trivial variation. Bah humbug, as someone once said. Anyway: hope you and yours are well. I have a reference book of eighteenth century Dutch warships somewhere, will write an article on one of them for you provided you can explain why the Dutch have such a confusing system of weights and measures. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • It frightens me to think that lit majors would rely on AI. I write because I like to write, not because I'm made to. I can understand people focusing on YA, because it's what they're used to (and it's still better than TikTok or YouTube shorts), but going into literature while feeling like writing is a chore... As for the Dutch units of measure, it all boils down to two arnhemse meisjes to each speculaas, and two speculaas to each stroopwafel.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • In all seriousness, based on our article I suspect it could be used as much. If is "the weight equivalent of 120 cubic feet (3.398 m3) of shipping space", by extension one could use it to measure capacity or displacement.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah might do that. I've also worked out how to change Amsterdam feet into English feet (because I dont think we have an Amsterdam feet template). But apparently the Admiralty of Rotterdam (and not the others) used Maas feet for ship dimensions. Wtf is a Maas foot? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • If the Maas is the Meuse, then I'd expect that the Maas foot would be the Rotterdam foot (that city being on the Meuse). Our article gives that as equivalent to 312.43 millimetres (1.0250 ft), citing a 19th-century French textbook.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's very helpful. I have a few reference sources on Dutch warships of (mostly) seventeenth century, and might try a summer task of filling in some of our blanks in their coverage. Labour of love really - these kind of articles get a handful of views a day and most of those are bots. But whatever. Starting point is being able to translate the basic numbers of ship anatomy before going on to the easy part of their actual history. Hence questions like these. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Page 415, near the bottom. Notates it as an "ancient" unit of measure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Since you pinged me

Since you pinged me, but I think that conversation's going pretty far off topic, I guess I'll respond here. Also, pre-emptively, my apologies if your question was rhetorical. If that's the case, then I guess you can just remove this from your talk page. But I think you were genuinely curious, so here goes. I don't think any of the admins, in either the recall or the AN/I thread, were intentionally covering up for another admin's poor behaviour. If I did, I would have said. Yes, I do think some of them could and should be a lot firmer on other admins, but it's really freaking hard to tell somebody you know and have worked with for years that they're behaving inappropriately. I can't fault anybody for assuming good faith of their friends/acquaintances. Well, I mean I could, obviously, but it would feel petty and vindictive and I won't.

I get that people do it, though. The fact you can have a situation where Person A says something mean, Person B says Person A was wrong, and Person C thinks "Yes, I agree, but Person A is my friend and I don't like Person B enough to jeopardize that" isn't great, but it's really common. So common, in fact, that we've ended up with a situation that's even more worse- there's an unwritten social rule that in either scenario, should Person B say something against Person A, everybody etching will assume that they're now friends/allies with Person C and therefore agrees with everything else Person C does. Or, alternatively, we take it one step back and deliberately read bad faith into the situation by saying "Person B didn't tell their friend to stop- therefore they must stand by Person A's actions and we must punish them as well". Which is also not great! My saying this isn't particularly revolutionary, I know, but it's true and I think I've made peace with the fact that I can't change any of it. The only thing I can do, I think, is try and avoid copying this behaviour myself.

I guess all of this is to say that I think I can understand why you think I'd be acting differently, but you asked, you pinged me, and I figured you deserved/wanted an answer as to why I'm acting in the way I am. Does this explain where I'm coming from? Feel free to ask again, or feel free to tell me to sod off. Again, if it was a rhetorical question all along, apologies. (And I mean that quite genuinely). But also, while I'm here, could you explain the wounded deer comment? I've been trying to get what you meant by it. Could you clarify/expand? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  • I think there's some A/B/C confusion, and I don't think C said B was wrong because C and A are friends. You got a couple Cs here saying what A said wasn't wrong enough to fire them from their jobs, and that's what we're talking about, really. Never mind that A, B, and C are not coming into this the same way: B was actively looking to get A demoted, and if a couple of Cs don't agree, then B is looking for another forum in which to get A demoted--this procedure, which seems to be a relative easy way to demote someone.
    A wounded deer is a deer that's been shot or whatever and is now attracting attention from other hunters, and is a much easier prey. And anyone can shoot--one of the signers of the anti-Fastily petition has 300 mainspace edits and a very tenuous grasp of WP:RS, and has voted "you're fired" (basically "per nom") in both the recalls we've seen. I find this problematic, yes. The ArbCom procedure is much more difficult, and I think it should be much more difficult, since it's so easy for admins to make enemies. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    • On your first point- if I'm going to be Person B in this scenario, you might want to note B was a bystander in the original thread - there was no "trying one forum, failing, and looking for another". And do you find it relatively easy? I don't. The recall petition can't demote anybody by itself- the community would still need to decide next steps at an RfA. And I don't like the term "demoted", but I think it's interesting that you chose it. Being an admin isn't a reward, and being a regular editor isn't a punishment.
      And thank you for explaining the metaphor. I'm not particularly interested in discussing an identifiable no-name editor's behaviour in a public forum, but without notifying them (It's so middle school), so I think if you have issues with any individual editor, you should bring it up to them, not me. I do find your point about Arbcom interesting, however. I've had a lot of people tell me recently that they think in similar lines to you. I can't say I agree. Maybe it's just be being youthful and optimistic, maybe I'm just not that swayed by the long list of enemies in wait argument, but I think most currently admins would sail pretty easily through an re-RfA, especially if we're going by the 60% and up + trust the crats to discount spite/bad faith !votes. There's a couple admins I think who wouldn't pass, but most have already proven that they're not going to start out-of-process blocking everybody who questions their actions. And I do think it's interesting that you think Arbcom should be less strict. Desycops and admonishments are pretty rare, especially once you consider that most of the behaviours that get administrators desysopped or warned would earn a regular user a nice little enforced Wikibreak of varying lengths. That's probably enough of me being anti-establishment for one day, but I am curious as to what solution you would propose instead. How poorly would you have to view an administrator's conduct before you took action? And, seeing as you have the block button, how poorly would you have to view a non-admin's conduct before you took action? Under whatever new even more strict Arbcom you have in mind, how would those answers look? What avenues would you make availible to discuss administrator conduct? How severe would a potential infraction be before you even examined it? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries removed

Thank you for removing those edit summaries. There are similar issues at White-rumped falcon and Termite. This is a problem that's been coming up repeatedly, probably by a single IP editor. The least said about it the better. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Page Protection for multiple articles

Hey I know I don't usually ask adminstrators to do page protections but now it has gotten serious because the same editor 2601:42:0:4000:f914:fa4b:3a66:3ad2 keeps adding the same edits at multiple articles that are not proven nor found in the cited source they cited. So if you can please do page protection on those articles. Thank You. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Sure thing. It's a longterm problem, I know. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Hey can you also add a page protection for Portuguese language as there is vandalism going on with one user changing the population numbers and dates and claiming they are found in the source when they aren't. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
      • No, Cookiemonster1618, I'm not going to do that. There's been two edits from that range, only two, and they explained what they were doing. You say they were wrong--OK, fine, but then explain it to them also, on their talk page (the most recent one) for instance, or leave a note on the article talk page and leave a message on their talk pages using the TB function. So, it's too early for protection, and I don't yet see evidence of vandalism. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Minesocks

Thanks, I was suspecting all three of those accounts were the same person, but hadn't formalized a report yet.
5.95.128.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had similar edits, so a little surprised they weren't included. Guessing there wasn't a technical connection, but would you have a look at a behavioral connection? All of their 150 byte+ edits added the same wikitable entry content as the confirmed socks. diff 5.95.128.24 and diff TES2.0 for a comparison. Can provide more if other diffs if needed, though they are all more or less the same. Zinnober9 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Reversions in Hohenlohe and Malaspina

Hi @Drmies:! I've seen your reversions on the tables I edited recently.

  • I was sure that notability issues were related to creating pages for unnotable people; I don't think listing them causes a problem, and erasing everything I done isn't definitely the best solution. Also, Wikipedia is a collaborative project; instead of erasing tables for lack of verifiability, let me invite you to improve what's already there!
  • The tables I make are not genealogies; they are lists of rulers, ordered chronologically by beginning of rule, that somehow intervened/ruled in a part of a territory. For the Hohenlohe case, it's normal that, in Germany, there were lots of rulers, branches and divisions; they had the habit of splitting their inheritances between many children. I only make these distinctions with colours in one table, instead of many separate tables or long lists. Of course, for the Malaspina case it is very difficult to be concise; the family really split up a lot.

I'm sorry if you felt confused. I agree some tables can be hard to understand (The House of Malaspina is definitely one of them), but you can always message me first with your doubts, before undoing in seconds a work that took a lot of time to be done. I won't even bother about your erasings in a page that was clearly under construction. Just speak to me first, instead of justifying in-between edits. Thank you in advance for your understanding! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note and the sympathy, but I'm not confused. I'm not "justifying in-between edits": I'm removing a ton of excessive, poorly formatted, unverified, and unencyclopedic material. No, I am not going to improve a genealogy of this size--that's for a different website than ours. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Drmies:, please, tell me which website were you thinking of, because I wouldn't want to throw all my work to trash. I understand that for the Malaspina case, the table got too big, but I don't think it's the case for the Hohenlohe family. As so, I'll revert your erasing in this page. As I told, the page is under construction, and I would appreciate your respect for my work. Thank you in advance for your understanding! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Apparently misleading userpage

Hey Drmies, how have you been? GreenStoneThrow, who left a weird message on my tp[6], claims on their userpage to be Radix and to have some advanced rights like that of Wikimedia steward. It seems that GreenStoneThrow copy-pasted the userpage of the true User:RadiX. I notified RadiX of that [7], but almost 3 weeks have passed and they have not edited on enwiki yet. Maybe an admin should take a look at this, if time permits. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the userpage. Per el.wiki, the user is a sock of an account that hasn't edited en.wiki in a couple of years and is not blocked on en.wiki. I'd block GST but they haven't edited since posting that stupid message on your Talk page on November 1. If they resume editing, I'm happy to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
That reminds me that maybe one day I should re-read Radix, which I think our user was named for. Very, very weird book. Images from it sometimes return to me. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Bbb23, do you know what's wrong with the range calculator tool? Drmies (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Look like some more collateral damage due to Fastily's resignation.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Don't know if there's something better, but I use {{blockcalc}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks--I appreciate that. But the tool was broken a few days ago already. Anyway, yes, another loss for our community, which is how Knitsey put it. Did you see this and the responses to it? I noted in one of my comments on this or the other recall: users with little experience and sometimes even less sense get to weigh in and it all counts up to 15. Who's taking bets on who's next? I don't think Floquenbeam is in any danger yet. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Safe, only because I so seldom do anything around here anymore; but if you recall RFA #2, there were quite a lot of non-fans. Feels like the French Revolution. Who's next at the guillotine? Maybe one of the people who supported it the first two times. That's how guillotines work. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I will get my knitting needles out. Don't we have an essay somewhere about sitting too close to the guillotine?
@Drmies, I said on the recall that toxicity from RfA's has now transfered to the recall process. Knitsey (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Floq, thanks for reminding me of that shit show--I had kind of forgotten. Glad you are still here. Ha, you have that too? Every time you see one of those old records you start clicking to see if the editors you remember are still here? Sad. Knitsey, I don't know about essays--I teach essay writing but prefer not to read too many. And yes I agree re:toxicity. I don't know, but I'll put down some money on the recall process being re-evaluated three recalls from now. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
@Bbb23: thank you, much appreciated.
Btw, since the recall process was mentioned above, let me offer another point of view. I agree that the recall process gives weight to votes from inexperienced editors, who probably have no clue about things. However, on the other hand, it has the great benefit of making it easier to make admins accountable and desysop those who lose the community's trust. I know the vast majority of admins are constructive and I highly appreciate their efforts (apart from the Graham case, I have always voted "Support" in RfAs), but a few admins for a long time took advantage of the complexity of the desysopping process to misuse their tools and get away with it. In the Balkan topics this has become an obvious issue in recent years. Like the admin who blocked, without a prior warning, an established editor with a clean block log for making a single revert (they had had many content disputes on the Kosovo vs Serbia articles before, which puts in question admin's neutrality). Another admin wanted to topic ban an established editor, without a prior warning, for a single edit (they had had content disputes on the Croatia vs Serbia articles). Another one protected his version of the article after running out of reverts. Even more blatant was the admin who threatened to block anyone who reverted a recent edit, which had failed to get consensus on the tp, and which was supported by admin's "friend" (admin's own words). Or like the guy who, almost immediately after becoming an admin, went to a content dispute and decided that a recent edit did not need consensus on the tp, and blocked an editor for restoring the long-term version (the editor, a newbie, quit editing on enwiki). IMO only an easy process of desysopping can deter such blatant misuse of admin authority. The number of active admins has gone down and it is a serious problem, but it is as much of a serious problem that the overall quality, at least in the Balkans topic area, has gone down as well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, yeah, what you're describing is a whole nother kettle of fish, and if you decide to take any action on those issues, please let me know. I think you know me as a straight shooter, and I do believe that deep content involvement is not a good thing, and such matters should be dealt with in broader forums than obscure article talk pages or project pages. Then again, I think we both know how ANI discussions on Balkanized topics often go--they rapidly devolve into name calling and accusations of partisanship, and rarely offer solutions or even clarity. Well, you now have a tool to use if you want. I'm not happy with how the first two recalls went, though I also realize they were based on real and genuine concerns; I still think it's too blunt a tool. Perhaps Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop will be productive. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Those cases are one year or older, so now it is pointless for me to report them. If they were fresh cases with the recall process around, I would seriously consider reporting them to the wider community. I agree that the recall process is too blunt. My concern is that some people will misuse it to put pressure on good faith admins or to take "revenge" after a dispute. IMO 3 changes should be added to the current rules. An editor should not directly open a recall petition, but instead should complain about the admin at ANI/I. Then another editor with a certain level of experience, say with at least 10k edits and 5 years of editing, is allowed to open the recall petition. If the petition fails or the RfA is successful, then that editor who opened the petition is not allowed to open any petitions for a year. Some conditions like these are needed to serve as a filter and prevent such a potent tool from turning into a joke. How the community refines the rules will decide whether the recall process eventually serves its true purpose or not. Only time will tell. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Bluebird207

This individual, whom you blocked a while ago, has created this attack page User talk:162.128.128.7. It's not aimed not at me but I'm sure he did one especially for me once. Not sure if you want to permanently remove it, or what the procedure is. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

He's still going, creating User:Roger Eight Roger solely to have a pop at User:Roger 8 Roger and to dig at him (and me) in edit summaries. The account's been blocked but maybe scratch it completely for R8R's sake? This guy seems completely unhinged. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I guess he's too far gone to stop now, so let's see what happens next... ! Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

You might wanna do a WP:DUCK block for Ynm011 (remember this guy? User talk:Ynm010). Thanks. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me

as to why I might have been pinged in such illustrious company to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads? I know my memory is not what it used to be, but I don't recall ever showing any interest in roads, let alone ones in the US. Of course I will understand if you are as stumped as I am. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Nature abhors a vacuum

...but all the world loves a vacuum cleaner. The Roborock article is indeed a curiosity. I take pleaure in removing fluff from such articles. There will probably be almost nothing left. I shall leave no corner unmopped.TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice!

Nice comeback to this hater here.

Hello Drmies, Cooldudeseven7 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 15:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Michael Herren

If you have time, could you take a look at the Herren article? Seems like your kind of subject. I'm having a dispute with another editor about a lot of material they want added to the article. I suspect the article should be expanded but not the way the user is going about it. Maybe somewhere in the mythical middle? All I can think of is the song from Cabaret.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Oh, he's an outstanding and important scholar, but yes, this kind of resume writing just won't do. Everything based on a Festschrift--we can't have that. You may have seen I got busy on Lisa Vollendorf, which is a similar case. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

2R at Murder of Wang Lianying

Howdy, Drmies and stalkers. Murder of Wang Lianying is linked from the main page, and I'm at 2R for reverting a link to 'sex scandal' when the sources indicate that the case was more eye-catching due to its modernity and restoring a mention of sex work in Shanghai removed by someone who does not appear to understand the word "courtesan". I'd appreciate it if anyone could keep an eye on the article, as neither of these reverts crosses the "obvious vandalism" threshold set by WP:3RR. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Both of these threads featured disruption around courtesans in China: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163 § User:清风与明月 multiple issues (August 2024) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166 § User:清风与明月 Continued Tendentious editing. (September 2024). Not sure if related. Folly Mox (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Slim Jxmmi

Would it be possible to decrease the protection of this redirect from admin to extended-confirmed protection? The attempts to override the AFD were six years ago, and there is a draft in review at Draft:Slim Jxmmi. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  • I see User:Asilvering took care of it--thanks. Hey, that reminds me: you ran for admin and I supported you. I see you didn't win enough people over, which is a shame and I'm sorry. I can't help but think that this is yet another case of someone having done so much good work that they ruffled feathers along the way. Well, FWIW, I think you'd have done a great job and I hope you're not too disappointed. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Dimitri Alexandre Blaiddyd

I don't oppose cutting down the plot material, but having no coverage of his role in the game beyond his backstory makes it difficult for readers to understand critical discussion of his character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Hi Cukie Gherkin. As someone who played the game, albeit with the Black Eagles, I tend to agree that the coverage on Dimitri's role in the game is a bit excessive, better suited for Fandom than Wikipedia – and ironically also not sufficiently comprehensive, as it fails to cover the three alternative storylines (though to be fair, as far as I remember, his role in the Church and the Black Eagles storylines is the same). I agree that keeping some of it makes sense, but at most a paragraph. If you look at featured articles on video game characters, like Ada Wong and Jill Valentine, we don't provide beat-by-beat information on their roles in the games.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think you even understand your own retort; is this written by AI? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Abigail Thomas

For such a well-reviewed author who, after all, mainly writes about herself, there is precious little biographical information available. I've ordered her books as Christmas presents for my wife, and will read them myself once she's had a shot at them. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  • I forgot to mention that Memoirland was kind enough to choose my picture of Washington Square on a summer afternoon for their Substack extract from Thomas's reminiscence, [8] so I thought I ought to return the favor with an article for her. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I have also sent you mail as well regarding something I have noticed on my watchlist. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I saw! I even responded! Drmies (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Username

Tryptofish has brought you some footware. Anyway, happy holidays!

I just noticed DrMees. I can't tell if it's just a coincidence, or if the account has an ulterior motive in the choice of username. I figured I'd let you know about it, and you can decide whether or not it's an issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

November music

story · music · places

greetings from a trip -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Another possible sock

User:Iphone5Sgold [9] was recently indefed for years of unsourced and unproductive editing. A brand new editor, User:Giantmotion [10], has identical editing practices and came into existence just days after the original editor's indef ban. I have a feeling this is a case of socking, or if anything, WP:DUCK. Anwegmann (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for all of the tedious admin work you do so much of! It's quite valuable to all of us and the Wiki as a whole. Sandcat555 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious edits?

I note you reverted a sock editor here and a new editor made a bunch of edits related to that same template - is that suspicious or am I being paranoid? BOZ (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Indentation

(talk page watcher) Can I ask why people are using bullet points instead of colons to indent on your talk page? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to provide feedback

Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my recall process. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

BLP violation?

I saw your recent reverse-edits on Brian Krzanich and I thought I come to you to sort things out. Not here to argue or dispute, but I just want to know what's going on with the "BLP violation" you're referring to (something I did)? Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 18:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Well, yeah, the first part of the edit, "The news of his adjoining brought in renewed criticism toward him and backlash from detractors etc"--that cannot possibly come from the two sources that follow it, because the one is a press release from the company that hired him, and the other is a rehashed press release, and none of them (obviously) contain those damning words. The second part seems UNDUE to me in its repetition of things already mentioned. I have my doubts about the weight and applicability of that publication, Tom's Hardware, in BLP matters, and the second one, from that TrendForce website, seems to rephrase much of what was said in the Tom's article, and I just don't think that TrendForce, given what they say they are, should be used for (negative) BLP information. But I'm also wondering, given your regular contributions which is mostly to rappers' biographies, yeah, where did that edit come from? Drmies (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I found sources that I thought were legitimate or reliable to add to a piece of what I wanted to add it to. For example: Justin Combs was blacklisted from California property rentals due to his involvement with his father's "white parties"; here they are - [11] [12] - if I think they are good enough in my personal taste, I thought of including it somewhere. Hope you understand. I do not intend to violate anything in bad faith unknowingly. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 19:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    • But, again, to let you know, I know the moderate knowledge that all the sources are not BLP validated. Even if so, hopefully, you will never have to be disturbed by me violating the regulations every time I edit something here on WP. No issues with you. Crisis averted. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 23:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
      • My question really is why you got interested in that article and where not only that impetus but also that information came from--in part because there are some differences with the way you usually cite, and in part because you've never edited articles like that before. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
        There are two reasons (even if you don't believe me):
        1 - I saw the Krzanich news years ago and thought it connected with #MeToo, because the news reports said so. I did not think it was unreliable or illegitimate if any.
        2 - I wanted to try to expand my edits outside of music and do something more freely, but only if real from somewhere I catch within.
        That's all. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 01:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Oh

Norvellshoodie (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_150&oldid=1263969999"