User talk:Drmies/Archive 109

__NOINDEX__



Yo Ho Ho


Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Question about user
Drmies, what can I do for this, specifically the last sentence? AnneMorgan88 back at it again and you've warned her once or twice (even in your archives others had concerns of her being WP:CIVIL). Quite honestly, I'm sick of it. She's gone back to Softlander for this same reason. All I've been doing to the Northern Illinois Huskies articles was changing to sport-specific logos and changed the Northern Illinois Huskies men's soccer and Northern Illinois Huskies women's volleyball article names to be consistent with other Northern Illinois Huskies articles (she created them using "NIU".) She has now requested a move which as of this moment, she's the only one for the change. I've been nothing but nice, I've asked her to quit being rude, and I've done lost my patience. It is time for someone else to step in. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 22:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Would WP:ANI be a better place for this? Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get to this earlier; in the meantime, the move request is closed, and left a warning for a different insult. Let's hope that the closure of the move request puts this matter to rest. If their namecalling continues I'll be happy to block. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries! Thanks for reply, I'll definitely keep this in mind! Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 15:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Two days right now. I've ignored the SUBSEQUENT VENTING. Obviously a longer BLOCK will be forthcoming if the same behavior continues after the block EXPIRES. --Neil N  talk to me 18:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request
Hi Doc, hope you are well. I'm having a look through some unblock requests that haven't had any attention for some time, and I came across User talk:Mchirico3489. Mchirico3489 seems genuine and is clearly not an actual sock, and I think could be trusted to not make any further similar edits until it's all been sorted out, but any unblock would require someone with CheckUser rights. Did you get any further with Prof Jones? Do you have any thoughts on what we should do now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine, thanks--you too, I hope. That's the NIU folks? No, I haven't heard anything from him--tried to call, left messages... Hold on. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so nothing's changed. I think it's pretty clear that this was a class, and future similar disruption from one or more of the accounts is unlikely. I don't know if they're still interested in getting unblocked, but I'm not opposed. I looked at the SPI--{{U|User:Timotheus Canens}, do you have an opinion? Drmies (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That ping to Timotheus Canens was malformed and wouldn't have worked. I'm in two minds - either decline the unblock and suggest making a new one should future course work need it (after proper organization) or (preferred) just unblock. I am not allowed to do the latter. (And yes, I'm fine too, thanks ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember this one, another student had also contacted arbcom about this. At the time I was going to just unblock them, since they're not socks, and it'd be easier to deal with the coursework issues that way. But there's a bunch of students and that's too much clicking and I never got around to looking for or writing a mass-unblock script, and then they didn't follow up so I forgot about it. I think unblocking is fine, though I'm not sure there's still any interest. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Tomas Gorny, redux
Well, it's finally over! The DR closed by reaffirming the close. But isn't it peculiar that it took 3 AfDs & a DR to finally be rid of this blight of an article? Who knew that minor businessmen had such a fan base? :-)

In any case, thank you for the thoughtful (and dare I say, brave) close; the DR failed in part due to the strength of your closing statement. Nice work! K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, is that so? Thanks for keeping me posted--I kind of forgot about it. I don't know how "brave" that close was, and I suppose I could have expected a bit of a backlash. I don't really like commenting on a DR, but in this case it seemed necessary. Still, these are community decisions and if it had gone the other way that would have been fine. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

YGM
~ Rob 13 Talk 01:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Berkeley AfD notice
I'm having trouble following. PerfectlyIrrational was warned for removing it. Was the warning valid or was the warning editor confused, as I was confused? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't warn him of anything, I don't think: I accidentally nominated it for AfD, and corrected that. You can see that the AfD itself was deleted. Now, please stop edit warring over that stupid infobox. You have no consensus at all for that entirely inappropriate thing. James, I understand your interest in this, but surely you realize that this was not a civil conflict and the listed people not "parties" in some civil war. In fact, listing at least some of them is likely a BLP violation. You can argue your case on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No you didn't warn him, another editor did. See the warning. That is one reason I was confused. BLP violations should be removed of course and the data could be pared down but the infobox itself is applied correctly per its description. Multiple editors have collaborated on this. Your last edit just broke 3RR – please self-revert. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking 3RR. One of your reverts removed the invalid AfD banner, which should not count. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I protected this page, and intended to comment here immediately after when my connection dropped: so my apologies. As has been acknowledged since, there was no 3RR violation (I don't think any but the most wikilawyerish would count the removal of the AfD notice applied in error) and in any case there is a BLP exception to 3RR. There's plenty of edit-warring going on there, though, so I've protected the page for a couple of days: and if that doesn't quiet things down, I'm quite willing to protect it for much longer. Vanamonde (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I've been away and may have missed some excitement., I hope you noticed that I left a note on the other editor's talk page about that warning, left there by another user, and struck the warning. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I thanked you for it in this edit summary. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, you blink here and you miss something. BTW, my daughter has earrings like that emoji in your signature, but she has them heart-shaped; perhaps you can get that as an option? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

SPA account
with that "single purpose" being "revert everything VM does". Perhaps related to some recent blocks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

email
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Concerning remark....
Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ? Drmies (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * VM seems to be insinuating that Khirurg has a similar view or is somehow connected with an alleged neo-Nazi of Greek origin. There was no need for VM to bring up Khirurg's old username of "Athenean" in that discussion, and there's also no evidence of Antonopoulos carrying out, for example, anti-Azeri activities. Khirurg, on the other hand, has been active in those topics of Wikipedia so that is a direct reference to him. And even when Khirurg requested such evidence, it was never given. This response signifies that he'll never give it. I've also looked at the Stormfront forum myself, and didn't find anything anti-Azeri or anti-Turkish said by Antonopoulos' account. Now, I know that VM's aggressive language and curses may not enough for administrators to take action, but this is on another level. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see that insinuation at all, but you are welcome to ask another admin what they think. In fact, Khirurg's "In addition to the usual incivility, aspersions and character assassinations, VMs post here contains a number of canards" is eminently blockable, and had I seen it at the time I might have blocked for it. You may say that VM's language is "aggressive", and you know he has been blocked for incivility, but I have not seen it rise to any blockable level in quite a while. As for the name change, User:Volunteer Marek's comment is plenty flavored with sour grapes, and I wish they had included an "OK" in their edit summary, but I have no doubt that Marek will abide by that request--which, again, could have been phrased much more diplomatically. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd agree with you if it weren't for the totally unnecessary use of Khirurg's old username. There was no need for that, except to associate a certain "Athenean" with that of an alleged neo-Nazi of Greek origin. And the whole anti-Azeri stuff just puts the icing on the cake for me. Antonopoulos had nothing to do with anti-Azeri activity. But you are entitled to your own interpretation of the text, however, in my view, what VM did there was rather obvious. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose it is possible to see it that way, as a low blow, but it's just not obvious enough to me. Look, I'm not the sole judge here, and you know that; if you want a multiplicity of views, AN is a better venue. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to note that nowhere did I mention the person's name until Khirurg brought it up first. Also, I know it's a sort of thing that leaves you feeling like you need a shower, but if you read through that guy's posts on SF you can find what I'm talking about, though there isn't as much anti-Azeri stuff as the other "things".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for hatting. I really don't know why I said anything there. If he'd said the editor was rude, or polite, or right, or wrong, or convincing, or his own worst enemy, or had particularly good or bad judgement, or smelled of elderberries, I'd have ignored it completely as SEP. It wasn't even lying, it was just the blatant casual lack of any concern for the truth that got my goat. I'm sensitive to that lately, for some reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well. Before you know it we'll all be in the grave. In the meantime I'm drinking a delicious beer. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Link to copyvio youtube file
Drmies, at a time when MartinEvans123 was asked to remove all copyvio youtube links from his pages per WP:LINKVIO, you added on his talk page a link to a youtube page whuich seems to be a copyright violation as well:. It is unlikely that you were unaware of the situation, so this seems like a deliberate WP:POINT violation. Please remove that link as soon as possible and refrain from adding such links anywhere on enwiki in the future. if the youtube page was not a copyright violation and actually uploaded by somone who holds the copyright to that song (or if the song was released in to the public domain) then of course you may ignore this post. Fram (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ! Of course. Thank you--and I wish that "Standard YouTube License" was defined, clearly, somewhere. But, eh, "It is unlikely that you were unaware of the situation, so this seems like a deliberate WP:POINT violation"? I'm sorry, but...well, I don't know how to say this delicately, so I'll just say that you're talking out of your ass. Yes, I was unaware, but thanks a lot for the AGF. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah. Yes. I'm sorry that I missed out on Wikipedia_talk:External_links, a page I don't remember ever looking at, a page where I haven't made a single edit ever in ten years on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the link, and my apologies for assuming that your post was not a coincidence but a pointy gesture. I didn't mean that you should obviously be aware of discussions at EL or COPYVIO, but that you were aware of the discussion at MartinEvans talk page which lead to the drastic pruning of his talk page and user page. To return to his talk page during this discussion to post a copyvio youtube link seemed to much of a coincidence. I'm glad that's sorted out. Fram (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you--no, I rarely look at other people's talk pages; I'm always scared they're like EEng's and will crash my computer. I did not know of any pruning there, but after reading that discussion (I just pinged you from there) on Talk:EL I understand. Look, forgive me the slip; I suppose I should have known better, though I'll maintain that it's not as clear as you or I would like it to be. Have y'all asked the legal team if they have an opinion? After all, it's their paycheck. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why I tried to make it clearer for everyone :-) I don't intend to make a big fuss about you or anyone posting such youtube links, I'll contact people when I see it happening and ask them to remove it. Only when people start looking for weak excuses about why they should be allowed to keep such links and so on may it be time to take things further. This is not a "you posted a copyvio, you should be desysoped / banned / scorched from the earth" type of problem, it's very easy for people to forget that this is not allowed on enwiki, and of course the more we tolerate it, the more it will happen. Fram (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm but the "not allowed on enwiki" part--if that's so clear, why have that discussion? Drmies (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * if it is not even allowed in articles, why should it be allowed elsewhere? I (and many others apparently) thought that the existing policies and guidelines where clear enough (like the "no excpetions" at ELNEVER), but apparently this wasn't good enough for some people. It is obvious, but it wasn't spelled out enough to avoid wikilawyering. Fram (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

71.255.80.138
Could you remove their talkpage access...? Thanks. 185.188.6.168 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lady  of  Shalott  02:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) 185.188.6.168 (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A Glass Breaker for You!

 * Hmm...that's interesting. I have one of these in my car--it's a Dutch product so it's good. Every single Dutch person should have one in their car; I don't know that they do. The likelihood of my ever using it in Alabama is close to zero--but you never know. Thanks, on behalf of the Beastie Boys too! Drmies (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Bloody good idea. I've just bought one. ad-man's wet dream, me -But, OOC, why would you be likely to need it need it more in NDL than in Alabama? actually, thinking about it, in AL I suppose you'll more likely to want to stay in your car, with the doors locked, than get out! :p &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * More water in NDL, everywhere you go--simple. Here, not so much. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, canals, yeah. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not skip straight to the big guns. Grainger is unloading them for just under 10K, which is a bargain. Now you can snip mailboxes off instead of just hitting them with bats during a drive-by.  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  15:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mate I might wanna get out the car but I don't want to cut it in half! :D &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Aw dang, I got all excited someone was awarding you a glass beaker when it kept coming up in my watchlist. I guess I should lean to ead. Ivanvecto (Talk/Edits) 17:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Jacob Hiegentlich
Mifter (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , almost 6,000 hits that day: thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mention Nazi and you get that, sadly. - I could enter a church to the stats which just mentioned a Prussian King ;) - one of my childhood memories. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * ComputerJA, I appreciate the note--but I did undo part of the edit. Let me tell you why. First, I don't see the entire article as a biography: a significant chunk of it is his literary work, for which I was fortunate enough to find some sourcing. Second, what you had as "early life and career", I think that's kind of a misnomer: I suppose it is to be read as "early life and then his career", rather than "his early life and the early part of his career", but I just don't like splitting of "death" from "life", especially not if separated by a section of his literary works, which at any rate, as a scholar of literature, I tend to treat separately from biography. (Not just because the author is always dead, mind you...) Regina Martínez Pérez is a very different case; in that article, your sectioning makes perfect sense, but it's a different kind of biography because it's a different kind of person. Does that make sense? BTW, thank you for writing that article and bringing it up to GA--it's an important topic. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks for the explanation! My experience on Wikipedia is mostly on the same topics over and over again, but I do try to venture out a bit with GA reviews and DYK copyedits. I'll keep an eye for articles like this one in the future and make sure to not make the same mistake. Cheers! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 15:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, please don't call it "mistake"! Drmies (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Usage pointers
I really dislike the use of "suicide" as a noun to mean the person who died in such a manner. Lots of people object to the phrase "committed suicide" - that one does not bother me, but the noun usage for the person rather than the act does. I'd like to propose we change Category:Suicides and its substructure to Category:Deaths by suicide. I would like to back that up with pointers to discussion about the usage. Any ideas where I should look? Lady of  Shalott  13:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That's a good question. But...do you mean pointers to on-wiki conversations? I vaguely remember it came up once or twice--yes, I do think we talked about the "committing" part once. (Personally I don't have a problem with "suicide" as a noun for the person, but I'm relatively uninformed on the topic--Dutch uses "suicider", you might say.) Drmies (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked the OED: "suicide", first entry: "One who dies by his own hand; one who commits self-murder", first recorded in 1732; "The or an act of taking one's own life, self-murder", first recorded 1656--for what it's worth. The first one is noted as less current in modern usage. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that was ambiguous the way I asked. Your checking the OED is closer to what I had in mind, but I'm thinking more like current usage recommendations (from psychology or social work, for instance). I'll fully admit that my interest is personal. To use suicide as a noun for the person feels... dehumanizing, maybe, for people who were very much human. It also does not seem in line with the way we discuss deaths via other means. A person is not a "cancer", "heart attack", "auto accident", or "murder"; though one may be the victim of any of those. Lady  of  Shalott  19:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I justhappen to know some reference librarians. I'll hit them up. Lady  of  Shalott  19:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, you do, don't you. I hope y'all still have a paper copy of the OED. Don't let them move that to storage! Drmies (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of River of Blood (monument)
Hello! Your submission of River of Blood (monument) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Andrew D. (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting edit of mine
Thanks for reverting this. I was in the process of reverting it myself when I got the notification. Was an edit conflict. They weren't blocked when I loaded the page and you blocked in between me loading their talk page and warning them. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, I know--I just hit that button a bit quicker than you did. Thanks for staying on it, BTW: they managed a lot of vandal edits in a short period of time, and we need editors like you to keep an eye out. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment and that is what I am trying to do. I just got granted the rollback right within the past hour so learning Huggle (and that is how I found it). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP
The IP user 94.174.217.89 has done a number of disruptive edits (see here) however there is not a 'vandalism-only account' option to report them as in Twinkle so just thought I would let you know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Faustus
Thanks for moving Faustus to Faustus (band) – I entirely agree that the band is not the WP:Primary topic. I was just wondering when you intended to complete the post-move cleanup, as there are currently quite a few entries in Special:WhatLinksHere/Faustus that should point to the band, Faustus (disambiguation) doesn't have an entry for Faustus (band), the hatnote at Faustus (band) contains a redlink... I would offer to help, but unfortunately I'm exceptionally busy for the next five days and may well not have internet access for a week after that. (I have no personal interest in the page about the band – it's on my watchlist but my only contribution to its confused history was a single link disambiguation.) Regards, Qwfp (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of River of Blood (monument)
Hello! Your submission of River of Blood (monument) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bounder (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also pinging, the article's co-writer. All the best to you both, The Bounder (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The doc is probably grading. I'm hardly a co-writer: I basically just hunted it down and inserted the coordinates. I appreciate the gesture, but for that reason and because I don't do DYK any more, I should probably remove my name. However, how about:
 * ALT1 ... that on the links at the Trump National Golf Club in Virginia a monument commemorates a Civil War massacre that never happened? —or:
 * ALT2 ... that the Potomac never ran red with blood at Lowes Island, Virginia in the Civil War, but the monument at the Trump National Golf Club says it did? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yngvadottir, I was, in fact, grading! It's almost done. I listed you not just as a gesture, but also as a thank-you for your very real help. If you don't want the recognition, that's fine, but I am still going to be grateful to you. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Further details on the Battle of Lowes Island can be found in the First Encyclopedia of Tlön. Vol. XII. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 👍 Drmies (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been at Wikipedia a long time...
...and I thought I'd seen it all. But that was one for the record books.

Lucky I didn't say anything about the dirty knife!  E Eng  14:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm is that a copyvio? :) Drmies (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas

 * Village Pump (policy)
 * My Talk page

This article received a lot of attention a while ago and then was relatively dormant until recently when an editor started making trouble. Perhaps I should post this at WP:BLPN, but there is a lot of history to absorb, so I thought I'd drop it off here first.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait--"here"? What is this, Dear Abby? "I am an American. I just don't have the right papers." -- that's very nicely said., that edit war does not seem to be going your way, and accusing others of a lack of good faith by throwing in "Youjustdon'tlikeit" is really a blow below the belt: "the others" seem to have some pretty decent arguments, as the discussion at the Village Pump indicates. I'm tempted to close that discussion already, since there doesn't seem to be a single person who agrees with you, but I suppose we should let it run for a bit. In the meantime, given the recent history of the Vargas article and the clear consensus of that Village Pump discussion, I urge you not to restore your edits lest you be guilty of disruptive editing/editing against consensus/edit warring/BLP violations, not necessarily in that order. Bbb, the American Politics Arb thing was brought up, but I am not so sure that's applicable. I don't know if the editor has been notified; I see nothing on the article talk page to suggest it should fall under that jurisdiction. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * BLP, on the other hand ...? &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  16:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You should only make as much money as Dear Abby did. I agree it's not American Politics. There's nothing like arbitration sanctions to kill an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Drmies, I have a problem with my sister-in-law, her husband (my wife's half-brother), and my sister-in-law's cousin, Eulalie. The problem is unfortunately causing a dispute with my wife. They have a dog, and they think it's a Chihuahua. I firmly believe it's a Great Dane. My wife thinks it's a Cocker Spaniel. The dog has no opinion. How can we resolve this before we all stop barking at each other? Yours, Unhappy Beast.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Eulalie? You are Roderick Spode and I claim my five pounds! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Bbb, did y'all get married in Georgia? Drmies (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the Appalachians, but I'm not sure which state. I've never been good with geography. Is a marriage license made out of tree bark (nothing to do with the dog issue) valid?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Shirley you are familiar with the old joke, "If a couple from Alabama get divorced in Georgia, are they still brother and sister?" Drmies (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How'd you know the dog's name is Shirley?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Quotes by himself are not reliable sources. It is a FACT that Vargas is a Philippine citizen and not recognized as anything other than an alien in any other country. There are a million sources to prove that. Bbb23 only reverted my edits because he just didn't like me saying anything remotely truthful about his idol. All he is trying to do is WP:CENSOR facts that he doesn't like, even if they break no rules. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 00:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User talk pages are not a place to collapse discussions as WP:NOTFORUM.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Show me the rule where it says that. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 03:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Um... I did? Actually you did. It's WP:NOTFORUM (but see also WP:UP). Now that "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles..." (emphasis mine).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You collapsed my plea for dispute resolution? What were you thinking? I don't suppose you have a way of resolving my problem, do you? I mean, Boing!'s comment was funny, in a British sort of way, but it sure didn't satisfy Eulalie. Indeed, she'd never even heard of P.G. Wodehouse, and butlers are about as foreign to her as evil city ways.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Speak English. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 00:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , Bbb is a US resident whose status I cannot at present verify, but I will tell you that if you want to boss someone around on my talk page (which is a happy place), you damn well better say "please". Drmies (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll admit that made me ROFL. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 01:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That might in other circumstances be a good resolution, but no one in my family speaks English ... except the dog.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, apart from all the jokes on this section, let's go back to my original response.

Quotes by himself are not reliable sources. It is a FACT that Vargas is a Philippine citizen and not recognized as anything other than an alien in any other country. There are a million sources to prove that. Bbb23 only reverted my edits because he just didn't like me saying anything remotely truthful about his idol. All he is trying to do is WP:CENSOR facts that he doesn't like, even if they break no rules. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 01:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. Lauritz Melchior is my idol, and I don't think he was born in the Philippines. I'm gonna find out from the dog where Denmark is. I think it's one of them foreign places like California.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Bbb, you're acting awfully high and mighty for someone who has a picture of bordellos on their user page. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OMG. Bbb, you better explain yourself. Also, you misspelled "drone"--I didn't even know you had one! Drmies (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have one. I rented it in France while I was at the bordello. I wanted more of a top view, if you will. They spell drone in French differently, sort of like Macron is not the cookie (macaron). BTW, it's not a run-of-the-mill bordello. It's his-tor-i-cal. Run by Madame Mummy Dearest.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Is Bbb23 editing under the influence or something? THE DIAZ talk • contribs 03:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Konni Burton meta-discussion
I have to say that it's nice to see a civil, respectful and intelligent discussion of something to do with pro/anti Trump stuff. Kudos to you and. Toddst1 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that so rare? I mean, I've seen plenty of bickering, but I find that a lot of Wikipedia editors are perfectly capable of reasoning. I don't know where you stand on stuff, and I think I really don't care, but I was pleased to see you revert and then revert yourself, with a explanatory edit summary, which showed that you thought stuff over and backtracked. I've done that once or twice, maybe not often enough. I pinged, who, a little birdie tells me, is a tree-hugging liberal pansy but is also something of a wonk and likes to get things right--before they put that green liberal sauce over the whole enchilada, of course. Alright, let's see what's happening on that talk page. Thanks for the note! Drmies (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

108.178.115.3
For an IP user that wants to protect someone who's long dead, they sure are harassing me on my talk page. With this and everything else, can this user please be blocked? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Stevietheman, have you told them to stop posting on your talk page? Drmies (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe my reverts with the edit summaries should have made it very clear. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 03:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, yes, but there's a general tacit consensus that edit summaries don't count as communication: not everyone reads those, esp. not new Wikipedia editors. Well, I told them on their talk page, as I'm sure you saw, to stay away from yours. Let me know if they do not respect that. BTW, their edits aren't so great, but that section deserved a bit more verbiage: that Mannox dude was a beast. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally, I agree, but in this case, the user knew I was removing their replies by what they were saying when trying to reply again. I think someone with common sense would know that after a couple removals that I don't want their stuff (read: wild accusations) on my page. As for the article, I have no interest (despite the IP's ridiculous claims) in keeping out useful, well-written edits based on RS.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 05:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not been asked not to post here. So I will defend myself one last time against this total BS. If you want to delete it after reading it, that's fine.

Stevietheman sure did waste a lot of his own time undoing my edits and repeatedly commenting on MY talk page for someone who claims he wants to be "left alone". And I just noticed he posted - TODAY - yet ANOTHER attempt to delete my sourced additions to Mary Nolan's page concerning the lack of laws that existed to protect Nolan from physical abuse at that time. Interesting for someone who claims not to be against relevant, sourced information.

And no, I did not know he had an editing tool that was automatically deleting my replies (to his repeated comments) on his talk page. When I saw my comments omitted I was not surprised though, I simply figured he was somewhat humiliated on his own talk page by my besting his failed arguments. I don't disrespect anyone's privacy, so after suddenly (given his active involvement up to that point - and clearly his still active involvement today) receiving a direct message on my talk page requesting I not "comment" on HIS talk page, I was more than happy to put that to rest. Why would I feel any further need to comment there? I'm sure it will annoy him for me to say this, but I was relieved - I felt I had won that battle. Then the next day I totally accidentally opened his talk page from the edits section instead of the one directly above it, scrolled down thinking I am viewing someone else's talk page (who is actively involved in the discussion) only to find this "innocent" man (who apparently claims to feel "harassed") referring to either me, or the topic of domestic violence (way worse offense), as the following, and this is a direct quote: "FWOMPT = "a fucking waste of my precious time" and openly discussing trying to get me blocked from Wikipedia. Nice. So I left one simple, few sentence post letting him know I have seen this lewd comment, taken a screenshot of it, and only due to the fact he is attempting to get me "banned" from Wikipedia - so RIDICULOUS - I felt I had every right to tell him he is now reported to the proper administrator. Something I don't want to do - so dumb - but I had enough of this hypocrisy. This is my last comment concerning this phony victim. (ALL this - for my simply fighting to expose a heinous crime of domestic abuse that was being repeatedly watered down and outright omitted by MANY users, not just this one.) If you view MY talk page... contact was initiated by this person, and every one of my comments was in *response* to his. And like I said, he is STILL at it - attempting to get my sourced additions concerning lack of domestic violence laws in 1930s America omitted from Mary Nolan's page.

By the way, it's nice to end the day on a positive note, so THANK YOU Drmies for being the only person - at *any* point in time during all of these long threads - to AGREE openly that Mannix was a violent monster (per your comment above). You have no idea what a relief that is to hear given two days worth of fighting off multiple users omitting my edits and additions. - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for the note. You know, you come in somewhere with guns blazing, don't be surprised if people get defensive. If you had continued to post after it was clear he wasn't interested, I would have blocked you for harassment. As for the article, as I indicated, all the material was there, at least potentially; it didn't require editorial commentary. This is an encyclopedia where we let the sources speak, and fortunately that user added the right source in 2014. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, only Mrs. Drmies and a few selected Wikipedia users get to call me misogynist. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Errrrrm, I have never disagreed that Mannix was a violent monster. I don't know where you would have gotten an idea that I did.  I have never taken a stand on this, and Wikipedia isn't about taking stands anyway.  This is part of the many baseless accusations that you keep putting forward.  I request that you stop this.  All we're supposed to be here for is developing encyclopedia articles, not seeking justice.  There are many venues for seeking justice -- an encyclopedia is not one of them.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, you have been blocked for violating WP:3RR and exhibiting very negative/disruptive behaviors. Nothing more than that.  All the folks, including myself, who you incessantly attacked, did not deserve it.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Khirurg
Seriously, can you have a talk with this guy? Here he again shows up to an article that he's never edited only to make revenge edits (cuz his little WP:AN hit job backfired) and to of course tag-team with EtienneDolet. No talk page comments, no nothing, just jump in and start another edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

(and his edit summary is BS too as its obviously crap sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but mind the user name, Marek. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting
Thank for correcting Gr8_deepesh for that edit, and by the way, you have 200000+ edits, did you edit all yourself or you automated or scripted that? Please reply. Gr8 deepesh (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of them go by way of Twinkle, automated warning messages and such. You may not have realized it, but there is a lot to say about Pelandaba. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me, I won't be back.
Since you left a note on my talk page graciously inviting me to leave a comment here, I decided to take you up on it. I was a Wikipedian years ago. I left in mid-2011. You just reminded me why I left. I saw a route map diagram called Template:White Pass and Yukon Route that was ugly and neglected. The person who created it obviously is not very familiar with Route diagram template and had left gaps in the diagram as a result of bad code. This template had had only minor bot-edits since July 2016, so no one else was working to improve it. I thought this would be my opportunity to make my first contribution to Wikipedia in six years. I planned to break up my improvements into several edits to document what I was doing. Two minutes after I saved my first edit, you reverted me so my planned second edit got caught in an edit conflict. In two minutes, you somehow determined that my first edit was "unhelpful." This kind of condescension and assumption of bad faith is exactly why I left Wikipedia in 2011. The good news is you won't have to revert any more of my edits, because I don't plan on making any. The only reason I have an ID is because I contribute to Wikidata. From now on, I will limit my contributions to that wiki. CroMagnonMan (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , if I misjudged your edit, my apologies, but you could just revert me, with an explanation. One of the things (and I looked as carefully as I could) that struck me was this heading, "Mile (KM) 	NameNote1", which seemed to me less helpful than what the template had before. So I didn't assume bad faith--I just thought you didn't know what you were doing. If it is me who didn't know what he was doing, that's fine--I can live with that. As a matter of fact, I'll be happy to restore your edit. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted my page about me?
I created the page "Creepinbehindyou" because i am the artist Creepinbehindyou and I think i deserve a wikipedia page

May 9th 2017
 * I understand. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Wasn't it 20p?"
It was, but Brexit hasn't devalued the pound that much yet! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. So now a pound is even less than half a kilo? This is crazytalk, Ritchie. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything that you could buy with 20p anymore. Even 99p stores don't sell stuff that cheap. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's always those flights for 50p... :) &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've seen the deleted version now, and it was worse than this revision of Micaela Schäfer (which I deleted but was overturned at AN). Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, yes it was. I was really shocked--it was the worst I'd seen in a while. Thanks for your help--obviously my f***ing RefTools still aren't working. I'm doing all the ******* citation templates by hand--which sucks, esp. for edited collections with one author and three editors. At least those three didn't have middle initials. Damn Festschrifte. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you haven't tried it in a while, you might try WP:VE; I use it almost exclusively for pure content work and find the citations a great deal easier to work with than in wikitext. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Unusual new account activity
Hi there. I've stumbled across a quite bizarre page creation by a new account. I'm seeking advice, and you seem to have a certain skill for the more unusual cases. I've tagged it as a CSD G6 with a rationale that can more or less be summarised as "WTF?". Is that the best way to handle it? The page is (just the talk page, the associated user page is legit). I'm pretty sure the page creator must be some kind of sock, but lacking evidence for AIV, or another account for SPI. Thanks. Murph 9000 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha! You said the right words. As it happens I was cooking dinner and dessert, while Bbb23 and RHaworth did all the work for me. Thanks--your instincts were right. I'll share one tidbit: yes, when users create stuff in someone else's user space there's always something fishy going on; in the cases I run into, it's most frequently socks making those fake reality show competitions. In this case, you just ran into straight madness. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (talk page gnome) But any character that is not simple is not a standard character! (WP:SERIOUS). — Paleo  Neonate  — 00:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, SERIOUS does not seem to be where I wanted to lead <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg . I thought it was a silly humor essay, which I don't remember the name of.  Oh well. —  Paleo  Neonate  — 02:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks (to all involved).    Murph 9000  (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fetzer
You have reverted a fully sourced edit without explanation. kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.90.157 (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit is restored. You want to know what was wrong with it, why and I both thought it was perhaps vandalism? The article was missing, and there was a hard line break in there that threw everything off, right in the middle of this awkward long proper noun phrase. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Graham Nash
I was only saying valid information and do not see this as sexist of ageist.Rusty1111 : Talk 05:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Rusty1111, maybe you don't, but plenty of others do, and I'm sure the subjects of that BLP don't want to have that kind of editorializing on the part of Wikipedia editors. For the life of me, I do not see why you would choose to include that information. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll take your information on board from now on, then.Rusty1111 : Talk 15:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I appreciate that. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans
Could you please look at this user's recent edits. He seems to be using Wikipedia for political activism. Highly partisan and highly focused on political articles. Primary purpose is adding negative information to Republican BLPs. He's been warned before. I think it's time he be removed from the topic area with discretionary sanctions.--v/r - TP 13:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm looking at the most recent one--they did this on the suggestion of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, which I don't think was a good suggestion (sorry, Rms125a)--and Snooganssnoogans follow-up was no better. This is much better, more neutral. So I don't have a problem with that (I'm assuming, of course, that his rejection is verified in the source). This is overdone, I think; if I were to go to that RfC mentioned in Rms125a/s edit summary, I know which way I'd come down: while the info may well be factual, its inclusion is overkill and tendentious. Same with this and this--Rms125a cited SYNTH in the edit summary of a revert and I agree; I don't think we need an RfC to make that very reasonable revert., I don't know you, I think, but I'm wondering if you're trying to make a point--this hot area, covered by ArbCom and offering the opportunity for all kinds of sanctions, is not a good place to be pointy. I think TParis asked me because I'm, like, the most reasonable person in the world and impeccably mannered, and also because he thinks that I'm the most "liberal" person around--in other words that you might not think that I'm saying what I'm saying because of politics. TParis, does that hit the mark? If so, you owe me a beer, but not from some company owned by a multinational, of course. No pasaran! Drmies (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, what's up? Just replying because I was pinged. I am just doing what my edit summaries indicate, trying to remove, synthetic or weasel-worded text, etc. I am genuinely not accusing @Snooganssnoogans of intentionally doing so. I believe he is adding what he feels is genuinely salient information and I respect and thank him for his good faith edits. However, undoubtedly there are those who wish to circumvent Wikipedia's integrity and neutrality for partisan purposes. Quis separabit?  15:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are! Thank you Rms125a. I like good faith all around. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) How do you determine if something is tendentious and overkill? Don't we use RS coverage to determine that, and if multiple RS cover something and mention the same thing, we ought also here on Wikipedia? In the case of Tom MacArthur, he is literally the architect of the amendment that allowed AHCA to pass the House, yet his page has been scrubbed of any mention of it, despite him and his amendment ("MacArthur amendment" - at least 75.000 Google hits) being covered by every national news organization. The page now even falsely says that "he voted not to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on May 4 (I'm so skittish about sanctions that I don't even feel up to reverting that massive error). For most GOP congressmen, their votes on AHCA and rationales for voting against/for has been national news coverage for most of 2017, with several in-depth pieces on each and every candidate. In all of my edits, I've never intentionally added content not explicitly mentioned in the reliable sources that have been cited (e.g. CBO scores, preexisting conditions) - isn't it inaccurate to call that synthesis then? With some of these reverts, the Wikipedia articles quote the congresspeople about what they *believe* the bill will do (per RS, which is fine) but exclude RS saying that the statements are erroneous, so we're left in a situation where a congressperson says that protections for preexisting conditions remains in place (cited to "news report X") but exclude text when "news report X" reports that protections for preexisting conditions are not in fact in place, which seems like a bad place to be in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh, if you bring in reports that discuss the efficacy or consequences of this or that policy, you're very quickly running into tendentious overkill. You are basically saying "facts provided by other sources that don't necessarily or explicitly mention Mr/s X prove that Mr/s X is just totally wrong"--and that, in a BLP, is undue. The edits I pointed at, and the reasons I gave for criticizing them, have nothing to do with the other points you raise. If something is wrong in an article, fix it--but in the three (similar) edits I pointed out you didn't fix anything, you just added problems., tell me if I'm going off the deep end here. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're on point. I'm watching because you're much more eloquent than I am.--v/r - TP 15:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "You are basically saying "facts provided by other sources that don't necessarily or explicitly mention Mr/s X prove that Mr/s X is just totally wrong"--and that, in a BLP, is undue." No, I think that's where the misunderstanding is here. I *only* add text that contradicts what the congressperson is saying if the source explicitly mentions (1) the congressperson (2) brings the contradiction up in response to what the congressperson is saying. If you check the Tom MacArthur text (or the other individuals that you cited in your response to TP), it's only text (I can't vouch for all the text, because other editors probably wrote some of it I think) that happens to be extracted from a source that explicitly mentions MacArthur and MacArthur's own statements. That's why the text is different for each congressperson. In fact, I even deleted anti-AHCA text that others added on MacArthur's page that could not be explicitly sourced to RS explicitly talking about MacArthur. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the MacArthur source and I will grant you that yes, this is about him, and yes, the article mentions these facts on the AHCA--rather than accuse you of SYNTH, we could accuse the article of a kind of synthesis; what they're doing of course is supplying facts the reader of the Burlington County Times may not know. I would still urge great caution, and that merely copying that information is not good editing for an encyclopedia: we do not need to adopt all that the sources say. I believe content needs to be seriously trimmed and that paragraph focus on his amendment; I do not believe that "with the savings going to tax cuts for corporations and wealthy Americans", for instance, should be in there: that's editorial choice, and one might as well replace it with "young healthy white people with good jobs will see their premiums go down", or whatever that truth is. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My other concern is the drive-by mass adding to a bunch of Republican articles like these: . These edits happened in rapid succession as if there was more interest in getting the "information out" rather than editing the article with respect to our content guidelines such as WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP.--v/r - TP 16:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that's serious business. Snoogans, that's just not productive--besides us not being the news, that particular comment ("At the time...") is really tendentious, and I can see why an uninvolved administrator (like me!) would consider that grounds for a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's encyclopaedic value in recording where politicians stand on consequential issues (consequential as measured by RS coverage). Given that news organizations such as NY Times, the Hill and ProPublica deem this issue to be of such importance that they are listing the statements of all congresspeople (not something they regularly do) seems to fulfil due weight and notability. Whether and how to mention Russia in the context of Comey's firing is debatable, but I felt confident in mentioning it given that every news report on the issue (incl. front pages) mention it in their reporting of Comey's firing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll self-revert the mentions of Russia though, given the concerns expressed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not the content I'm concerned with. It's the behavior.  The drive-by posting, the speed at which it's done to multiple articles, the disregard for NPOV, UNDUE, and BLP.  The behavior is the problem.  It's like you're out to make sure everyone knows all the nitty gritty negative details about Republicans - and only Republicans.  You've been scrapping the bottom of the barrel for any media mentions that shed Republicans in a negative light and then running to Wikipedia to post them.  That's cherry picking sources.  Your behavior, not the content, is the chief issue.--v/r - TP 18:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I am actually concerned with that content also, besides that behavior. TParis, have those reverts (I hope they were made--I haven't checked yet) alleviated the situation? Drmies (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Doc, but I'm dealing with a head cold. One of the reasons I shoved the problem off on you.  I haven't had a lot of computer time today to keep tabs on this.--v/r - TP 20:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A fool's guide to Arbcom discretionary sanctions
Can I get a bit of advice? I'm trying to manage a prickly content dispute on Illegal immigration to the United States documented here. It sounds like the ideal candidate for WP:ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions; however I've never actually served these to anyone before, so I don't know exactly who to notify and I'm sure putting a DS notice on Volunteer Marek's talk page isn't going to tell him anything he doesn't already know. I could just walk away from the whole thing and let everyone tear each other to bits, but that's not really the ideal answer. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked over the report. I'm sure Marek has been notified of the sanctions before. I think you ran into something for which there are no easy solutions. But that "partisan organizations" edit warrants a notification and a slap on the wrist. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Young
How dare you threaten me with sanctions for adding defamatory content, when all I did was remove untrustworthy claims. You are a disgrace. Kevin McE (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Kevin McE, I think I played nice with you long enough. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Quote one defamatory comment I have put in that article, or retract and apologise.
 * Please confirm whether you have researched every previous version of articles about this individual, created over the course of several years by many different sockpuppets, or whether you are in fact acting from a position of ignorance in this case. Kevin McE (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not delete the article? Its continued existence will only serve to humiliate the subject, in light of the Pielke and Tucker report (here, down the bottom of the page. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, I deleted it once already. A few years ago I wrote up a politician who was notable only for being a cheat. I don't know, Xanthy--it's not like that run across America was the only thing he's ever done. Drmies (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What's funny is that if your pace is 16 feet long and you pace 20 times a minute, you'll move at just under 4 mph. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Can I just point out that people named Robert Young are always trouble?
 * Robert Clark Young
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher)
 * And now this
 * I urge a prophylactic ban on all editors and articles in any way related to anyone named Robert Young. In fact, to be safe we should ban everyone named Robert or Young.  E Eng  15:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that... Drmies (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This Robert Young seems to have done alright, apart from that DYK hook being rather dull. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All right so far. The Law of Youngs tells us that sooner or later this will end up at AfD if not Arbcom. As sure as day follows night.  E Eng  16:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I note that you have posted several times since I asked you to either justify or retract your accusation that I have published anything defamatory in that article, and since I asked you to confirm whether you had research ed the previous articles on this subject. Is there anything preventing your reply other than a wish to not acknowledge your error and ignorance of the matter? Kevin McE (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , you have used and abused edit summaries to commit BLP violations, and you have excluded material on spurious, incorrect grounds. There's your answer--and every time I extend the hand of collegiality to you (such as here and then here and then here, you come back with something that seems to prove you still don't know why your edits were problematic. If you think that my making this one edit means, magically, that somehow you were right all along, you are sorely mistaken. If three different admins revert you, there was something to be reverted. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you would enjoy Wikipedia a lot more if you just, you know, lightened up a bit. Have a read ofEEng's museums, that'll make you chuckle. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So you didn't bother using your admin privileges to find out what you are talking about, I guess I'm not surprised. Kevin McE (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Kevin, save your ammunition for elsewhere: you are wrong here, and wrong elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

FZS600 Wikipedia page
Hello

I am not screwing around, nor am i vandalizing the page. All i have done is correctly enter the power as 69.9kW, as stated in official Yamaha sales brochure, which I have added and referenced as a source.

Their is some confusion over the horsepower measurement. There are different types of horsepower, metric and mechanical. 1 Metric horsepower(PS) is equal to 0.986 mechanical. Metric HP gives a higher number therefore sales and marketing people like to use it in their brochures.

Wikipedia uses mechanical horsepower, which is a different measurement to metric horsepower. If 95hp is entered, as it is currently, it is converted to 71kW which is incorrect, as the official Yamaha sales brochure states 69.9kW.

If 69.9kW is entered into a converter in google, it gives us the 95PS (metric horsepower) stated in the brochure. 95PS, and 69.9kW, both give 93.7HP (mechanical horsepower).

The 95HP figure in the brochure refers to the PS output, and I suspect it was used as higher HP to impress potential customers.

A user on bikechatforums contacted Yamaha and asked them for the specifications on the bike. They replied with 69.9kW, 93.7HP and 95PS.

https://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=289785

Currently the 95PS (metric horsepower) is being entered as the HP (mechanical horsepower). This is incorrect. I believe 69.9kW should be entered.

Regards,

Jim

Jimjenko (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What the article had is what was in the sources--one of which you kept removing. Drmies (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You should have been notified, but I don't see that you were.
Articles for deletion/James Perkins Jr.. The challenge is notability. I haven't looked yet, but I feel confident this man must be notable. Lady of  Shalott  16:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Skanba
Although Skanba has a 31 hour block, I'm pretty sure it would be need to be changed to indefinite, if Skanba and SKANN both belong to Born A, since you have confirmed that they are the same person. Cosmic Clone (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, I thought they had been blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Help
Hi Drmies. Could you take a look at the thread on the bottom of my talk page and let me know if you think I acted improperly anywhere. This was clearly a calculated attempt to provoke me and I am afraid it succeeded. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Admin baiting? That's a fun game. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on the point of view I guess. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I see it. Well, I think a block for those events is warranted though I probably wouldn't have placed it myself--but then again, all too frequently admins don't always look out for other admins: I speak from experience. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ceoil's point was that there was some offline coordination of some sort as to how Mlpearc chimes in after Another Believer. For some reason you don't see it and Ceoil becomes exasperated, voices his annoyance. And you block him. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Casliber, I saw that note earlier, but I don't see anything in it either. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I definitely missed that point which was cleverly buried in the tirade of insults. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Drmies, I wish you wouldn't support this kind of block. This was a dispute in which both parties were irritated with each other, then one of them threatened to use the tools, which caused escalation, then did use them (misused them). All Ad Orientem had to do was stop responding. SarahSV (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, it was a civility block. It's not like Ad Orientem threatened to use the tools over some content conflict. But really, I've gotten so much shit from just about every direction the last couple of days that I'm really tired of it, and now I got a bunch more people criticizing me right here, and on ANI, and on Ceoil's talk page. I get asked for an opinion, God knows why, and I give it. That's all. You'll note that I'm not blocking Ceoil for NPA, though "motherfucker you lost" is obviously blockable. Now, I wish all of y'all a wonderful evening. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarah if you think that what Ceoil was doing on my talk page was some specie of dispute resolution, we clearly do not inhabit the same plane of reality. Being irritated does not give liscense for that kind of behavior. Period. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarah, seriously? After "motherfucker", now "Trumpian", and someone else claiming incomprehensibly that I read only alphabet soup--someone who didn't even notice that I agreed with Ceoil on the actual content question (the question she claims I don't understand), but nonetheless takes a free shot below the belt on ANI? And this eternal "oh you're a lightweight arb" shit, that I've heard a few times already this week from equally obnoxious and insulting editors? All that is OK? Drmies (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Ad Orientem, by the way, I'm sorry for speaking about you above in the third person as though you're not here. You and Ceoil were both annoyed in that thread, and you both escalated it. The job of an admin in that situation is to deescalate. You answer the legitimate complaints, then if posts continue, you end the exchange with something like "noted, thank you", and leave it. SarahSV (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarah you seem to be under the impression that CIVIL and NPA do not apply when interacting with an admin. That any editor who is "annoyed" can attack us viciously and we are expected to just take it. You are mistaken. My annoyance was relatively low until the personal attacks began and only escalated after I requested that they stop. You need to re-read that thread. I stand by my request that he be blocked for 48 hrs. His behavior was beyond the pale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Comey
I hope you'll get a chance to read my reply to your comment in which you said you felt denigrated. Cheers!&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

SBC
Hi. Regarding to your edits from the school of Saint Bernard's College, Lower Hutt, why did you say it is irrelevant? I just want to know because I am a real student from this school. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I presume you are referring to this content. The problem with it is that it is distinctly promotional in nature, and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. I don't know what your intent was, but the way to build an article in a neutral manner is to use reliable sources that are independent of the subject for everything. It is very easy to create a puff piece by adding large chunks of trivia from an organization's own website. Vanamonde (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Again
Please look at these edits: (this one removes solid sources),. This editor doesn't understand WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV at all and their only purpose on Wikipedia is to negatively portray Republicans on Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 21:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very disconcerting that you're following what seems like every edit of mine and then talking about me on other users' talk pages without pinging me. The complaints:


 * The sources I removed on the topic of the brain drain included the Medical Journal of Zambia and a study in a non-notable journal done by MA students. I furthermore added a dozen or so sources, including high-quality sources describing the brain drain as a myth and substantiating its non-negative impact. The removal of the fringe sources was therefore entirely reasonable and necessary. I removed the data about Sweden and Germany because it was recently added and undue: there is no reason why we should get into the weeds on those countries when we already summarize a large number of sources and cover global trends.
 * How does me adding Handel's positions on issues that are common on politicians' pages negatively portray her? The positions are sourced to RS and are fairly common among GOP politicians (e.g. opposition to abortion, opposition to min wage). They only negatively portray her if you believe that there is something inherently bad about common GOP positions and the positions that Handel happens to hold and run her campaign on. Which positions of hers reflect well on her and which do not? I'm genuinely curious how I can go about pleasing you.
 * A law professor's opinion on the Comey dismissal and covered by the New York Times is notable and a great inclusion to the article. More editors should add scholarly views to Wikipedia articles. Having read that NYT article, I should not have added the law professor's take? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, your problem isn't whether or not you find reliable sources. It's that you edit exclusively to trash Republicans with UNDUE weight given to negative material and SYNTH additional material not related to them.  If you haven't learned that by now, there is another problem.  You exclusively edit political articles to portray a POV supporting Democrats and trashing Republicans.  It's been consistent.  Regardless of all of that, pinging you isn't required.--v/r - TP 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what's supposed to be wrong with the provided diffs. All three of these edits strictly follow Wikipedia policy. Indeed that first diff shows substantial article improvement. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason TParis. And (implicit) block shopping can be construed as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and WP:SYNTH are policy, Marek. As has been supported and explained to him by the community here and here.  If you want to tie yourself to Snooganssnoogans, be my guest.--v/r - TP 22:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They sure are but the diffs you provide don't show them being violated. I don't know about any "ties" or whatever, but those seem like fine edits, with the first one being particularly good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seasoned in Wiki practices but I believe it's common curtesy to ping. And I absolutely reject that "edit exclusively to trash Republicans", so there's no way for me to debate this with you except to rebut the specific examples you bring up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Can we not do this on a talk page of a user that not even involved with the main conversation at WP:AN? Timothy Joseph Wood  22:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've been asked to stick my nose in many affairs, and too many of those good deeds have not gone unpunished. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Watch your language!
Seriously, you don't have the right to warning me! Who do you think you are? I just removing the untrue information. There are no wrong! 100.38.114.244 (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And remove your warning language right now! I don't like and don't want to see it! 100.38.114.244 (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, such topics. Truly the intellectual summits of WP! Chortle. Irondome (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is between me and Drmies. It's not your business, Irondome. Please delete your comments and leave this talk page right now! 100.38.114.244 (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed you should read WP:TPO. Get a grip eh? Irondome (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK! I'm not going to remove your comments anymore. But again! This is between me and Drmies. It's not your business, Irondome. Please delete your comments by yourself and leave this talk page right now!100.38.114.244 (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * With the remarkably arrogant attitude you are displaying I suspect your 'tenure' on WP to be somewhat shorter than you may expect. Irondome (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wrong answer! You should say: "Ok, fine. I'll do it as you said." 100.38.114.244 (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I give you a week. I'm ever the optimist. Irondome (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * One week? Fine, thank you. You must delete your comments after a week. (End talking. Please don't reply.)100.38.114.244 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 'a week is a long time on Wikipedia, as they say ;)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to the beer and sandwiches. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * An orgy-basket of tripes fried in aurochs dripping for me (with honey).— Paleo Neonate  - 09:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In Auerochsfett gebratene Schweinskaldaunen, mit Honig. Even in German a heap of fabulous words. Asterix in Switzerland, afaik. Lectonar (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

A day is a long time in Wikipedia Aluminium composite panels. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

About my removed contribution about examples of controversial emojis in the "Polemic" page
Hello Drms,

I would like to understand why did you consider that my contribution was not right for this page. I think that the examples I gave are relevant recent and original examples that illustrate what is a polemic. Emojis are a sociological and serious subject today since they contribute to build the online (digital) identity.

I'm looking forward to hear about your arguments Thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles:
 * Please keep discussion about an article on its talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion about an article on its talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion about an article on its talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not every discussion is a polemic, and in this case, there seems to be nothing particularly famous or polemic about the discussion, nor do the participants seem to included noted polemicists. If sources don't call something "polemic", it's not a polemic, from our perspective, and even if they do, editors need to weigh whether something needs to be included. For now, you can't put a peach emoji up against Swift or Martin Luther: yoking them together is preposterous. Drmies (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all, in the sources I mentioned, they use the word "controversy" which is a synonym of "polemic" and I also found in other languages (french) newspaper articles using directly the word polemic to talk about controversial emojis. Moreover, if participants do not include polemicists, it doesn't mean that we don't have to. My intention was to add a significant and original example of polemic to enrich the article. Other examples like skin color emojis raised a polemic. You may be heard about it. AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect; please consult a good dictionary. But by all means, see if you can get agreement that the peach emoji no longer being shaped like a butt is so important in the long term that we should include this in an encyclopedia. Fo shizzle. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For your remark about the dictionary, you can consult my answer in the polemic talk page. Concerning the example of the peach, my point was to show that the social pression around the excessive usage of this emoji forced the emoji designers and providers in different social platforms to change it for a less suggestive one. It raised a polemic in the sense that there was a controversy around the usage and the suppression of this emoji by platforms: people who define themselves as peach emoji users and defend the emoji against the platforms. I agree with you that this example in particular (emoji peach) is less relevant in the "polemic" page but it can be added to the "emoji page". However, other examples like the polemic around the gun emoji is totally relevant in my opinion. People who think this is not important, like you seem to be, were against people who wanted to change it because they associated this emoji to incitement to violence. And the result was that Apple changed it design to stop this polemic.AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am no longer interested in your commentary. The idea that somehow, because I think your contribution is nonsense, I am somehow engaged in some pro- or anti-emoji position is an expression of utter stupidity. Please find a different hobby on a different website. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Drmies, please do not bite the emojis.  E Eng  03:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude, come on. I'm the biggest Duane A. fan you know. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but did you just "dude" me???  E Eng  03:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no excuse for you, and du moment someone brings up The God Formerly Known As Duane, we've left formality behind for a higher sphere--I assume you got the key. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that I was training to be an electrician in high school (until some lunatic suggested I take the PSAT), let me point out that you two have your wires crossed. Or maybe you don't, in which case please continue as if I never happened. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, as usual you are right. Thanks. Sorry EEng for getting all Southern on you. Drmies (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Never be sorry for mentioning the Allman Bros. Wail on, Skydog. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Du?? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude? Duane? Du? (I'm not clicking, Banner--it might be a copyvio anyway, and I do NOT want to get that song stuck in my head when I'm teaching the Aeneid for the next four hours.) Drmies (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OMG Banner look what else appeared in the YouTube playlist. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ju? ...almost as bad :). Lectonar (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you consider that controversial emojis are an expression of "utter stupidity", it's your own point of view and that is not the case for everyone. You can say that is not appropriate for this page "polemic", ok. But there is the page "emoji" where it fits. I'm trying to discuss in an objective way about the contribution and debate with arguments, not wasting my time.AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact your are wasting our time. Buy a good dictionary (a classic paper one) and properly read WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * AnasBARAKAT TPT, you don't even understand my comment. Read it again. "The idea that somehow, because I think your contribution is nonsense, I am somehow engaged in some pro- or anti-emoji position is an expression of utter stupidity." Drmies (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, too difficult for me to understand, I'll buy a dictionary, better than the Cambridge one as suggested by "The Banner"The Banner. Sorry for wasting your time because, obviously, your time spent in wikipedia is more precious than mine. Anyway, thank you for your reactions to my contribution. My point again was to discuss a new social phenomenon in the web. Wikipedia is also a space to exchange ideas. AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this claim Wikipedia is also a space to exchange ideas. is wildly off the mark. Wikipedia is for spreading knowledge, based on verifiable facts. Not for the spreading of novel ideas or frustrations. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the aim of Wikipedia is to "spread knowledge" and I also said it in the discussion, and you can verify what I said in the corresponding serious sources I gave. I wanted to say that adding contributions to the encyclopaedia can lead to discussions and that's why we have "Talk" pages in Wikipedia for discussions and to exchange ideas and debate about the contributions and other things ... to see if the content is relevant in this page, must be in another page, needs to be corrected, ...AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Icelanders named Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson
Hi, this is a plea for help/advice particularly from admins, and may be interrupted by yet another internet outage. Maybe the neighbor who's been drilling all day for weeks is drilling into a cable, I don't know. Anyway, I just realized that the DAB page I created at Thorsteinn Thorsteinsson now consists of 2 links to the same article. It originally named three people of that name. While I was scratching my head over what had happened to the footballer, posted to my talk page listing several others. (The runner she mentions is the third person I had listed at the DAB page.) What turns out to have happened to the footballer - who was at the undisambiguated title, presumably because his article was created first - is that his page was one of Sander v. Ginkel's and was not checked and rescued during the 90-day period. (See the log.) I dimly remember the article, but not whether all the references checked out. I do remember that he seemed notable enough to have an article, and the article had none of the defamatory stuff S v. G put in some of his articles on athletes. I don't have the resources to create any of the other Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson articles (not least because this is the third time the internet has gone down as I have been writing this!) So what's to be done about the DAB page? Can anyone vouch for the footballer's article and undelete it; in which case I suggest it be moved to Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson (footballer) and the economist/Esperantist left at the undisambiguated title ... ? Or would some kind soul write up one of the others, possibly by translating the Polish Wikipedia article on the runner? Otherwise I guess it has to become a simple redirect to the economist/Esperantist's article, which would be a shame since tehre are other notable people of that name. I will now attempt to save this. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Yngvadottir. I restored one version of the footballer's deleted article at User:EdJohnston/temp. You could check that and see if you think it qualifies for mainspace. He did play for the national team, which is one measure of notability. If it qualifies I should figure out how to restore the history, etc. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Between internet outages ... I'm a bit puzzled. He checks out at both the spreadsheet and the external link to KSİ, which should be decisive: here's his international playing record. (They add that his home team was Fram, but they substantiate only the year of birth, not the date the article gives.) However, I can't find him at all at the English-language source. I searched all the relevant years. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If all the information we have would fit in a spreadsheet entry it may not be worth having an article. See all the red links at List of Iceland international footballers. Somehow I doubt the wisdom of making all those links into articles. If the person has even a single mention in the press, it could make a difference. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, now what should happen to the DAB page? But anyway, in between internet outages, I did some searching. Summary: lots of mentions, no extended coverage, the mentions skew toward his club play and his being listed in the youth team ... and there are soooo many other people with the same name (one of whom may of course also be him) that searching is rather hard.
 * 2004 match report
 * "All I know is I got the ball and then suddenly I got bopped on the knee." - he was the one who may or may not have kneed the other guy
 * getting trampled by a Sparta Prague player in 1987
 * listed in the youth team 1981
 * ditto
 * Youth team listing, photo, match mention - defensive back
 * Playing for Fram 1986
 * Playing for Fram 1988 - caption
 * Playing for Fram 1989, mentioned in match report & depicted - story split across 2 pages
 * Played on Olympic team in a friendly against Bordeaux 1987 Yngvadottir (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * —And Pam has been extremely nice and created a stub on the runner. And my internet continues bouncing. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Can this be stopped before it goes too far?
I've done some editing on the Lesbian article. I left a comment on its talk page on 18:08, 16 July 2017. Who replied? Hijiri88. I checked the article's revision history as far back as 21:23, 3 February 2011‎ -- and he has not been involved in this article. Yet he responded to my comment on its talk page. Q. How did he know I had left a comment on that talk page? Easy A. He has me on his watchlist. I told Hijiri88 to stay away from my talk page after he posted a tirade. Now he's looking for a way to encounter me elsewhere. Considering what transpired in the recent ANI, and the speculations made about me ... he should be stopped from pursuing a means to create contention between us. Can you do something before his conduct goes too far. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can what be stopped? There is no interaction ban between the two of you, and there is no obvious interest in messing with you per se (there is nothing "personal" in their response to a question about citations), so I see no evidence of HOUNDING. I can't stop this from being a collaborative website, no. If you wish to weaponize a simple answer to a question about a citation, try ANI. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, you know. Maybe consider advising him that after indulging the "mental health" tango, it's not a good idea to have me on his watchlist?
 * Wikipedia is, indeed, a collaborative website, but becoming involved in it as an editor is not for the faint of heart. Many times what begins as 'innocent' advice turns into self-appointed authority; and the pontification and officiousness exercised by some editors has discouraged many people from participating in this webopedia. You don't need to read about it here, there, or anywhere.
 * But I digress. Hijiri will continue to monitor my activity on Wikipedia and find "good will" ways to inject himself into them. All I need to do is wait for the molehill to turn into a hounding. Pyxis Solitary  talk 18:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Pyxis Solitary, as someone has been stalked/hounded a number of times, and continues to be, and who saw that ANI thread involving you, Hijiri88 and others, I immediately felt that he was hounding when I saw that post at Talk:Lesbian. He belittled the Carol (film) article citation style to annoy you. Don't worry. If he continues to act in this way, you will eventually have a case against him. I did not state anything, as to not inflame the situation, and because I know how Hijiri88 can be and I do not want him coming after me next (even though I would be able to handle it, as I've handled every stalker/hounder I've had). Anyway, just know that, so far, I see what you see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, I do not see what you see. Feelings are one thing, but evidence is another. A case is made by careful interpretation of single edits--here, you'd have to explain a. how that citation thing is being belittled and b. that it is done to annoy the other editor. If you can do that, good for you, and it is very possible that you know a lot more about this than me. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stuff like this is based on behavior. And based on the aforementioned ANI case that was about edits to the Carol (film) article, and based on the behavior that Pyxis Solitary outlined above, I can only come to the conclusion that Hijiri88 went to the Lesbian talk page, an article/talk page he'd never edited before, and commented after Pyxis Solitary, highlighting the Carol (film) article in way that was certainly not favorable in the process, only to annoy Pyxis Solitary. But, as is clear, that is just my opinion. I'm sure, however, that if Hijiri88 continues this route in relation to Pyxis Solitary, a solid case of WP:Hounding will be made (not by me, unless it's continuously at articles I edit as well, which will lead me to want to get involved due to being annoyed). So, hopefully, he stops. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * To give Hijiri88 the benefit of the doubt, though, he may simply be concerned about Pyxis Solitary's edits. After all, he is correct about the citation style of the Lesbian article; it's acceptable and fine (even though it makes accessibility less readily accessible). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As I stated in the 5 July 2017 ANI that Hijiri88 overran (and the attacks against other editors cannot be ignored): "There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia to edit." There are also thousands of Talk pages to engage in. The fact that he replied to my comment in the talk page of an article he has never been involved in does not require a Sherlock Holmes to make a deduction.
 * Add that to his calling me a troll in an editor's talk page, his injecting himself in my message to Alex Shih with more false accusations, the inappropriate gossip about me that started on 9 July and was eventually blanked on 14 July, the message in my talk page — mind you, there are more examples — are indicators of confrontational behavior. Pyxis Solitary  talk 14:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pyxis, whatever the merits of your complaint may be, I don't think you want to point at this note by Hijiri since it points to this edit of yours--if I had seen that latter edit, I would have reverted and blocked you on the spot, since that's pure trolling. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * First: Pyxis is being somewhat hypocritical here, talking about me on an admin's talk page without pinging me, after criticizing me for "discussing an editor on ANI" without notifying them, when all I had done was link something that user had written as evidence that someone was going around badmouthing me off-wiki.
 * Second: Wow, Flyer ... I didn't think you were still holding a grudge against me for this interaction fourteen months ago, but I can't think of any good-faith explanation for how you came to the above conclusions without having some serious bone to pick with me. I don't know why you read through that very long ANI thread without deigning to comment on it, but it's utterly incredible that everyone, including at least one user who has no love for me given our history, could completely agree with me while you think my comments amount to "hounding".
 * Third: As ArbCom explicitly stated in their decision regarding the Hijiri88/Catflap08 case back in 2015, there are lots of legitimate reasons for checking an editors contribs, and calling this "hounding" is inappropriate and in some cases can be considered a violation of AGF. One valid reason to check contribs is surely that one is fairly certain the user is attempting to talk about one behind one's back -- Pyxis did this to me quite a bit over the last two weeks, and indeed did it right here. My happening to notice a questionable talk page comment and responding to it in a polite (and policy-accordant) fashion is not hounding.
 * Fourth: The questionable comment was completely out of sync our normal citation guidelines, and someone who has been here as long as Pyxis has should know this without someone having to tell her, let alone accusing the one who tells her of only doing so because of some bad-faith "hounding" imperative. If Pyxis is actually acting in good faith, and it can be demonstrated that others have come to the same conclusions she has, then I think it is a legitimate question whether the citation templates should be removed from the editing toolbar as they are apparently doing more harm than good. I have never found any use for automatically generated citations, and none of the experienced editors who have called me out for my sometimes-inconsistent citation style (not gonna ping him, but Curly Turkey comes to mind) have recommended that I change that.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Drmies: I have nothing to hide. If I did something wrong and got chastised for it — I own it. You already made the point on 13 July 2017. One time there, now a second time here. Whatever the official rule is, I got the gist of it: don't interject a tag (or anything else) into an editor's comment. I got it.
 * Now ... what are you going to do about Hijiri88's behavior? His obsessive accusations — repeated several times  — that I have conspired with other editors against him are toxic. He engages in inappropriate gossip about me; he posts disparaging comments; he makes false accusations; he follows me to an article he has never, ever been involved in to reply to my comment in its talk page.
 * Whatever his "good will" contributions to Wikipedia may be, his disruption and confrontation with many editors is documented (in the linked ANI he went off the rails about another editor, which compelled that editor to defend herself). The reluctance to deal with Hijiri88's behavior is creating the impression that there is a behind-the-scenes "hands off" when it comes to him, which boils down to favoritism for one editor over others, and is to the detriment of Wikipedia as a whole. Pyxis Solitary  talk 11:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Drmies, you didn't apparently do much with my request that you look into Pyxis's hounding of me beyond telling Alex Shih off for some stuff that went down on my talk page, and I'm cool with that, but when you and another user requested that I blank the section because Alex's comments were inappropriate, I complied. I really don't see why I should have to put up with comments like His obsessive accusations — repeated several times — that I have conspired with other editors against him are toxic. (I never made accusations about "conspiring" -- I stated as a matter of fact that Pyxis and one or two other users had admitted to receiving off-wiki contact about me, and was careful to include the exact diffs of them admitting so) he posts disparaging comments; (for example?) he makes false accusations; (for example?) he follows me to an article he has never, ever been involved in to reply to my comment in its talk page. (again -- if Pyxis doesn't understand the PAG rationale for my comment, that is her problem; monitoring her edits when she has devoted most of her edits over the last two weeks to harassing me and one or two other editors she doesn't like is not a violation in itself) ... etc., etc. anywhere on-wiki. If Pyxis can't understand why comments like the above are inappropriate, then honestly I don't know why she hasn't been blocked yet; if you want to be conservative with your blocks, that's your call, but could you close, blank or archive this "discussion"? I really don't want to put up with any more of this nonsense. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I did enough. Sure, I am an administrator, and one could argue that I should do something since an injustice anywhere etc., but I think you underestimate the degree to which I am completely uninterested in all this drama. This is not fun drama, Hijiri, and I do not think that this particular series of exchanges is so grave that I am morally obligated to act on something. Yes, I am not going to block this editor, I am not going to investigate this any further, you can consider this post a close, you would do well to pursue such investigations at the real ANI, not ANI 2.0. I will tell you this one thing: as exaggerated as I think some of your complaints are, Pyxis still outdoes you in insinuation and pure assholishness; some might think that ridiculous statements like "The reluctance to deal with Hijiri88's behavior is creating the impression that there is a behind-the-scenes "hands off" when it comes to him, which boils down to favoritism for one editor over others, and is to the detriment of Wikipedia as a whole" should be blockable. Pyxis, don't feel the need to respond, please. Drmies (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

sorry...
...I am being here really only intermittently, what with all these kids running around the house. Drmies (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy war
I blanked it at the bad location and pasted it where it belonged, before another editor moved the page to its current place. That's why. AGF--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, "belong" is a matter of discussion. Either way, you know you can't just copy and paste stuff like that--Copying within Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Second Arab Cold War" is categorically incorrect, not a "matter of discussion". Either way, you know Iranians aren't Arabs.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I obviously didn't advocate for one name or the other, and the one I move-protected wasn't "Second Arab Cold War", so where this condescension toward me comes from, I don't know. Don't copy-paste from within Wikipedia--that is not too difficult to understand and to follow, nor is the fact that we edit by way of consensus, and that includes the naming of articles. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Trollerei
(That is the German form, a la Schumann.) Can an admin, any admin, take care of the trolling on by either blocking the IP 62.252.145.218 or semi-protecting the article? He keeps adding uncredited and/or nonspeaking roles to the cast list. I already TP-warned him prior to his last edit:. Danke schoen. Softlavender (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Promotion of commercial interest on User page?
Are there any restrictions on what you can post (e.g. Ikea logo) on your User page?
 * Material must be in the public domain. See Non-free content. Plus, you can't post racist or other really offensive shit, of course. Drmies (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

About Jasmine Dawda page you deleted
Hello, Some weeks back you removed a page Jasmine Dawda.. Please can I have content of the page with markup and references as it is before it was deleted? as I want to carry out further work on the page to improve it and I don't want to start all over again..Hope you understand me. Please how do I get it. ThanksMode9 (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at User:Mode9/Jasmine Dawda, and please see my edit summary in its history. I hope the AfD discussion will be of some help to you. Drmies (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

New strain of geek fancruft
Keep an eye on the long-length plot area of A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, The Lightning Thief, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, A Storm of Swords, A Feast for Crows, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, The Sea of Monsters, A Dance with Dragons and so many others; plus the "Abilities" area on Superman's and Batman's table. We are not a fanbook for geeks.

This torture just never stops, doesn't it. Book has one movie, and a 20k article, plus a TV series, plus a million awards. New accounts are fully schooled in formatting and coding and pop up out of nowhere, then disappear.

Oh, and please delete the "Mnemonics" area in Zodiac since we are not a magazine. ~Solstice Prince 17:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus, sorry if I've offended you in any ways. I just want to see everyone treating each other with love and respect. ~Solstice Prince  17:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You can always add the template to any overlong plot section, which then alerts other readers that it needs to be trimmed. Softlavender (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't recall being offended--I am all for cutting cruft/plot, but there is not enough time in the day for me to take care of it all: it will take a community of editors to clean it up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup request
Sorry to trouble but can you help do a clean-up on this article: Huang Jingyu? Fans have been repeatedly re-adding trivia like "nation's husband" and one-time fashion invites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.132.147 (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He can do 106 pushups in a minute? The peasants in Long Bow would have used him to plant rice. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Doc, you're a literary type so can you explain the significance of "After Gu Hai is successful in asking for a shower..." in Episode 6? Or are there deep meaningful issues associated with bodily cleanliness that a science geek just wouldn't be able to understand? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Official Notice: No Running, Shouting Or Piddling In The Shallow End, Please. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  17:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In Episode 4 Wu Fang is described as "some jealous prat". Is this the only use of the word "prat" as a description of character in the whole of Wp article space? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Y'all are funny. I'm going to take a nap. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

My Greeting to the little ostrich
You claim that this user does not have the "credibility or skills" to "write up" a report ! Well, I got a gift for you, you little ostrich fake news reporter !
 * Oh boohoo. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Where's 99?
It's been a few months so I'm not sure if the IP has changed? They are very good with overhauls, so I'm hoping they or any other talk page stalkers can help with the article jeans - lots of promise here, but there's also lot's of unverifiable crap. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're usually on an IPv6. If you go through my contributions you'll find a few notes on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, here's one: User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. Tell the old guy I said hi. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

On closing understanding
Thank you for closing the ANI. I need to understand few things about closing. Can I participate on AfD with cautions? I will not be making any counter arguments to any of the contributors no matter how disagreeable it to me. I will work on my communications for building community works. Light2021 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You can participate, but you will need to be very careful. The things that editors have said about your comments, you should take them very seriously. Obviously reverting someone's close is going to be considered disruptive. A combative attitude was noted ("You must be joking about such sources")--that is the kind of thing that might get you blocked. I think what you should aim for is to attract no attention, and you can do that by presenting good arguments, decent sources, and not being aggressive. A counterargument is fine, but a counterinsult is not. Does that help? Please consider that I was being serious: there were comments in that ANI thread that could have gotten you blocked, and there were editors who wanted to see you blocked indefinitely. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing. I understand your point very clearly. I will do my best. Light2021 (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought India-related stuff was often poor but ...
How on earth did an article expand for so long with so much gibberish, fancruft, COI and lack of WP:V that I had to do this, all the way back to 2010. And the article I had just edited prior to that (I'm gnoming) resulted in this revert. I despair, often. - Sitush (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Then the next article in my gnoming had this. I think I might follow your example and take a nap. - Sitush (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See the history of Event-driven marketing to see how an advert has been around for over five years. The author (of the advert, not the article) switched to sending me weird emails after it was redirected. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK the links are over the top, but man, I deal with K-pop, wrestling, and all the COI stuff 99 throws my way, so I'm sorry Sitush, I'm not yet that impressed. :) Drmies (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --You may wish to see 10139309; if you have OTRS access.Cheers!:) Winged Blades Godric 07:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Rosie is out of pocket
I have pinged you to assist with an issue on the article Thilly Weissenborn and ask to pardon my presumption. Rosiestep is out of pocket and I would usually ask her for help. Not sure what to do about these edits and having reverted them once I did not wish to do so again. Thanks for your help. SusunW (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, well maybe never mind. ;) Another editor popped over and lent assistance. SusunW (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Susun. I hope Rosiestep won't be gone for long: no one can really fill her shoes. I saw Yngvadottir commented--that means it's in capable hands. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * She's at Wikimania, so it won't be long, but yes, she is always missed when she is busy with other things. SusunW (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Huntley, Illinois
Hi Dr., Wikipedia done be broken. I've had it with this shit. Can you help? Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:1D82:BD96:9C93:DA31 (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:1D82:BD96:9C93:DA31 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, let's see how long this lasts. I left a note for as well; they're alright. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. I have a reasonably good record on reverts, this one got by me. Jus  da  fax   02:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I think you have a very good record. Crazy how you're not an admin. There's something you could do about that. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The version you reverted had a 91.3% plagiarism score from huntleylibrary.org. Dr.   K.  03:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. One rationale for my persistence in removing all the bloat from the article for the last month has been the copyright violation of the history section. My thanks to Drmies for supporting my reversions, against well-meaning accounts and clue bot. 2601:188:180:11F0:1D82:BD96:9C93:DA31 (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, Dr.K.--that page isn't loading. You mean 91% of the huge chunk that I again removed? But some of that content may well be a couple of years old: is it found on Wikipedia mirrors, or are we talking real plagiarized material from published sources? 99, is that also what you suggested in one of your earlier summaries? Drmies (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, it loaded. That's not good. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, from the same source Dr.K. noted. It was part of the larger clean up I made last month. 2601:188:180:11F0:1D82:BD96:9C93:DA31 (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @ Doc. Yup. It was not from mirrors. It was from the archived library reference. Dr.   K.  03:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @anon: Good work. You deserve a barnstar. Next time, just mention the copyvio in your edit-summary. It works much faster than any other reason for text removal. Dr.   K.  03:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that the anon had mentioned copyvios several times but that didn't work. It's very unusual that it didn't have any effect. Probably because Cluebot did several reverts of the anon's edits. I struck my comment above. Dr.   K.  18:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK y'all--but still, it is possible that the version on that library website was updated along the way by borrowing from Wikipedia, since it's been a while (and I don't know how to tell how old the archived version is...)., can you enlighten us with the sourcing for this edit? We may have to remove it from the history. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The archived version is from 2006. Dr.   K.  03:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw that date, but I also saw more recent dates on it. I have half a mind of emailing that librarian, who mush have been there for at least a decade then. Can you "read" those data to me slowly and carefully? I have little experience with that archive site. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The copyvio detector refers to a link from 18 December 2006 (20061218). Check the code of the link url: https://web.archive.org/web/20061218184044/http://www.huntleylibrary.org/local/huntley.php . Dr.   K.  03:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dr.K. It is done. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome, and thank you also Doc. I had informed, since I didn't know you did copyright investigations. I just undid my comment on her talkpage. Dr.   K.  04:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, in principle all admins do that--or should do that. I've handled a fair number of minor cases and participated in some of the big ones--but those big ones, they require stamina. You can go through my log and search for RD1. Sometimes it's really hundreds of edits; Bluebird K7 was a big one, for instance... Drmies (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good points. I checked Bluebird K7. That was a big revdel job indeed. Dr.   K.  04:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent IPs
That image (Fellatio_2.jpg) they're repeatedly using appears to be virtually the same image as Fellatio_1.jpg, which they're using to circumvent the fact that Fellatio_1.jpg is on the MediaWiki:Bad image list preventing them from using it. I've seen that image far too many times by multiple IPs in recent times - would it be appropriate to add the image to the bad image list with the appropriate exceptions? –72 (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And done.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like that isn't stopping them... –72 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Easily fixed. It seems to me that an edit filter could be contrived by someone smarter than me that effectively semi-protects images on the main page.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Acroterion. To think that we invented the internet for this. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

E-mail
Drmies, my sincere apologies for the delayed response. I am now replying most of emails I received yesterday. :) R adi X  ∞  03:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Quick question about sources
Hello. While I'm intending to help get the Monkey D. Luffy article up to B-Class status (using Goku as an example) and eventually GA status, given my extensive familiarity with working on anime and manga-related articles in the past 10 years or so, I have a question: would using the Shonen Jump issue for the first chapter of One Piece in the Media Arts Database be considered a reliable source, since it's been listed as one? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sjones, I'm sorry, but that's not my forte. Good luck... Drmies (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding edits to the Kawasaki ZX9r motorcycle page...
Dear Drmies,

This is in regards to 72bikers repeated deletions of my content from the ZX9r page. He/she repeatedly deleted well-sourced content from the page, which I posted, and substituted in substantially weaker sources, apparently to portray poorer performance for this motorcycle.

I attached the note I sent to 72bikers, which documents that Sport Rider is substantially more authoritative. I will add that I acceded to even leaving up 72bikers content, but that was not sufficient for him/her; he/she was not satisfied by this, and continued to delete the Sport Rider documentation.

Note to 72bikers:

You have repeatedly deleted performance specs for the 1998 ZX9r Kawasaki, and left you performance specs you posted. The specs I posted (from an IP address) were from a respected, authoritative motorcycle journal, Sport Rider. Sport Rider has a paid circulation of 33,000, and is from Bonnier Corp, who also publish leading magazines including Popular Science, Dirt Bike, Field & Stream, and Outdoor Life. Their reporting of performance specs puts the weight of their reputation on the line.

You, 72bikers, have repeatedly deleted my posts of the Sport Rider specs, and replaced them with specs from much less substantive journal, Motorcycle News. Motorcycle News is an online-only journal, which has no advertisers. You apparently searched for specs which claim the ZX9r is slower, and had to reach for the bottom of the barrel to find them.

I was OK with leaving up your specs, even though they were poorly-sourced, in an effort to seek consensus. But you would not even accept that; you've repeatedly deleted Sport Rider's horsepower and torque figures.

Suggest you knock it off. The logs of the changes will document what I wrote above, as will a search of the references.

2mmBTDC (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My dear, if this were a talk page for motorcycles, it wouldn't be for a Kawasaki; that I engaged is purely self-sacrificial. Please make your arguments on that talk page--and please try to be diplomatic; I expect the same from our counterpart. We're trying our best to not be like the rest of the internet here... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW that Honda VFR750F is really in poor condition... Drmies (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I was commenting the correct place. Will learn. RE: The VFR: Nice bike. In addition to ZX9 (slowly becoming drag bike), my street bike is a 98 CBR600 F3 (same front wheel as your VFR, anyway), plus an F2 that is slowing acquiring a 919 (900rr) motor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2mmBTDC (talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wish it were mine--a colleague of mine had one in the late 1980s, when I was still on a 1976 CB550... (It was called "SuperSport", optimistically.) That CBR 600, a descendant of my 550 I suppose, was beautiful as well. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Reforety
Hi, are you allowed to name the master account for, whom you CU-blocked last month? There have been a bunch of socks knocking around Kamma-related articles in recent times and I'm wondering whether that account connects to but cannot find a prior SPI under which to open a case report. - Sitush (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, crap, wrote too soon because I didn't check your note on Reforety's talk page, just the block note on the contributions page. It will be likely be under Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajesh_rao_kumar. I'll try to do a report later today. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason....
Take a moment and think about it. The sad fact is Wikipedia is full of editors who learn the lingo, learn the processes and learn the 'game. And some are sociopaths that get off by antagonizing anonymous people. They know a person may have spent a good amount of time crafting a text, and they get to disappear it and laugh. Or they have a pocket full of reasons and pull then out one at a time.

Regardless, I appreciated your analysis of the siituaion. But this sort of thing goes on all the time, and sadly it goes unchecked.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As an admin I have learned to act situationally, meaning I look at the sources and the proposed text. That may well mean I am not the best person to reach out and make things better--there is no doubt that I speak and act from the position I have here, which comes with a thesaurus of lingo, yes. I do not disagree with your analysis, of this situation or in general, but I'm not going to accuse your opponent of driving people off--I just don't have enough evidence for that: I have to refrain from generalizing. That's not to say I'm not feeling you; it certainly is true that acting in certain ways is likely to get one ahead, but that's the case in every profession, of course... Plus, IMO you were right, or at least mostly right. Perhaps K.E.coffman (did I get that right?) agrees with my edit--and if so, you may feel good about being the impetus for that little nugget of (important) information that is now in our article. Without you I wouldn't have noticed. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well there's that. And maybe someone learned a lesson.  But I doubt it.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I edited Wikipedia and all I got was this stupid limerick

 * There once was an ed from Nantucket
 * Whose writing got pitched in the bucket
 * [Something something]
 * [Drmies something]
 * But he threw in the towel and said, "Fuck it!"

 E Eng  05:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * HA! Well done. But no, sorry--he didn't thrown in the towel (or the "jerkwad", as you Americans might say)--he stopped short of 3RR, not being a fool. Well done EEng; I appreciate it. Now, please fix that Oman museum. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And my thanks for delving into the Oman morass is that now I have to wrangle with EEng? OMG! <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 'ave a shufti at Makran- I can't work out what Makan and Makkuran are. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What in tarnation are you two going on about?  E Eng  12:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Makran's an exclave of Oman, which was handed to Pakistan 'cos it's an enclave of the latter. The article on it also refers to Makan and Makkuran without explaining whether these are synonyms or something else. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Who says "throw in the jerkwad"? I've never heard that. Jerkwad is a way you could refer to the person. (Or did I completely misunderstand what you were saying we Americans might say?) Lady  of  Shalott  19:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The Maltese crusade for irreligion
Thank you for this revert. JimRenge (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Estadio Regional de Antofagasta
Greetings.

I can understand the reason of the massive deleted of the article, but i don't get it at all why the list of concert was deleted. It would be good to explain your arguments to me because they are irrelevant. Have a nice day.

--Andre el gigante (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That kind of content is of interest only to fans, or maybe the owners. On Wikipedia, we typically do not include such information unless something really extraordinary happened, and that needs to be verified rigorously. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dolly Rudeman
Hello! Your submission of Dolly Rudeman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Vaginal steaming
Have you seen the argument there? There's a RfC, but it still seems to be the same handful of people arguing about whether or not to include a link to Rational Wiki in the ELs. Lady of  Shalott  16:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This has moved over to the external links noticeboard, perhaps you would like to drop a note there? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Wikia
Regarding reading your edit summery on Universal Parks & Resort, what is the huge difference between Wikipedia and Wikia? IMO, they works the same way. Especially the point that Wikia is named after Wikipedia. I don't get it. Commented by Wiki-Ikiw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Ikiw (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your understanding is incorrect. Both Wikipedia and Wikia took the "Wiki" part of their name from a software concept originally developed by Ward Cunningham. The content rules for Wikipedia are very different from those at Wikia.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  03:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. Wikia is really good for this kind of information, which lacks proper secondary sourcing and whose encyclopedic value is easily overestimated. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by
Hey I have been working on "List of songs recorded by Shinee" in my sandbox for a while now. I was trying to make it more reliable and make it fit other lists like the one of Taylor Swift but I have noticed a lot of this kind of lists have been redirected by you so I wanted to know if I should keep up my work or stop it?--Thebestwinter (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks, but I don't believe in such lists at all. Esp. for K-pop artists it seems to me that they are part of the machinery where every thing gets its own article--discography, list of awards, etc., whether that's necessary or not. Given Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Trisha Paytas, I wonder how User:Tenebrae feels about this--IMO "furthering the brand" is applicable here. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your fast answer. I was trying to improve the current article because it is really a mess but I guess I can use my time to improve more important articles then. It is taking way too much time anyway and honestly I also don't really see the use of such lists but it was already created so I thought I could improve it.--Thebestwinter (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it; every effort to improve is appreciated. I left a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists; perhaps you'll find that of interest. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Book of Daniel
Requesting full article protection for the Book of Daniel. Newly registered editor is ignoring warnings and seemed to ignore my response on my talk page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is no longer WP:ANI 2.0. Please ask at WP:RFPP? Drmies (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Response: There is nothing promotional about what I have written in regards to my article. Any form of promotion would have better use on an actual promotional site, and would be a waste of time to be trying to do it here. The information listed is backed up by sources, since my page is explaining information about the cannabis industry all of the information about the subject has been taken from various magazines and news articles, none of it is saying to hire this person, or join their company. It is just explaining the fundamentals that went into someone wanting to create a wiki page for them. To inform people.
 * Let me guess--are you the one who wrote up two advertisements for someone who sells kind bud? Drmies (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

K-pop SPI
Hi Doc. If you have any time please see Sockpuppet investigations/Netizentown. The guy was editing his sandbox enough times to be confirmed and then popped up at the article to edit-war through recent semiprotection supporting the sock IPs. I think it may be a sleeper account since he had not edited since 30 June. Thanks. Dr.  K.  03:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (South Perry Street, Montgomery, Alabama)
Just a head's up in case you hadn't seen the prod. Lady of  Shalott  03:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lady. Yeah, not the greatest student. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ricky Rodriguez
...some "heavy shit" inserted- pretty wild stuff. Could you take a look? I don't mind being wrong, but could do with a second opinion. Cheers, &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  04:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I've been there before. Hey, I need you (and everyone, really) to look at that and other associated articles--I think I've removed links to this wiki before; it would be good to get a second and third opinion and do something about this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Will do, I thought it was a conspiracy-kind of site. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  04:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni mainspace page
Since you blocked the user that created it, would you mind deleting and considering my personal request to salt it per IAR (I assume I'm a living person and haven't done anything notable enough to warrant a page here, so it would likely only be a troll target). Thanks Doc. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Goddam it! I missed it by 1 minute!  E Eng  01:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was rather boring "Hippos eat logs". Whomever tagged it as G10 was being, shall we say, overprotective. Still, I agree with Drmies that I'm a pretty obvious A7 candidate. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the article didn't make on obvious claim to importance... Drmies (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Every time I see your username this song goes through my head. Stop it. Now. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? 1957? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh. The user name comes from my not being able to spell Bologna ten years ago. And Drmies, I am apparently a case study in some dental textbook somewhere from times in my youth. A health sciences library might be better than JSTOR. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Ha, sorry! Yeah, it's done. When I get back to the office and I have easy access to JSTOR I'll write you up properly. BTW, kind of amazing that it took so long for this editor to get blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting it, we should take him to DYK. Perhaps a rhyming one, something to do with ravioli... ;) &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  04:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
Ok thank you and if you can please try to voice your Opiun on the matter RfC: Should we include career diplomats? Well what I herd from some of the Oppose people the CFO's have no Related Party and John R. Bass has no (D) or (R). So I won't take him off again and you do know some others will try to take him off. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really my field of interest. You need to take care of this on that talk page, and I suggest you do it in a new section, inviting all the previous participants, and keeping it clean and orderly in terms of layout and indentation. I found it hard to follow, but I did note that there was no final consensus. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Inform
I want to inform you that I have recently moved Muhammad Iqbal to Allama Iqbal because it appears to not have any references regarding Muhammad Iqbal and common names are used on Wikipedia? If you are opposing my move, you can remove but please tell the reason.  SahabAli wadia  09:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I want to question you as to why Drmies is the person that you decide to inform about this. No, seriously! MPS1992 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I frequently wonder about that myself. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but if you were a recognized expert on two-nation theory, or anything like that, then perhaps I would understand. But your expertise seems to lie elsewhere? It is very very strange. Perhaps I should teach you about the politics involved. You might find it very interesting. MPS1992 (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You and I possibly have the same number of edits in that article (which has a crazy number of edits!), but mine are fortunately unencumbered by knowledge. I know a thing or two about the two (or three) nations and the attendant problems, of course, but yeah, no expert. I really have no idea how these editors come to me--do the look at all the editors in the history and then pick the admin? I don't know. And I have no opinion on this move, but if you need admin involvement, MPS, let me know. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Spirit of the Confederacy
Thanks so much for your work on this brand new article! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all--I see you have been busy. Thanks. Hey, this is tailor-made for DYK. Let's get it up there. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
I guess we are part of the conspiracy now. I am an atheist potato, so I think that that is quite an achievement. On a more serious note, thanks for your help. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, I am on sabbatical so I don't do serious notes this semester. Also, potatoes have eyes but not fingers or voices, so you're not feeling anyone. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sad thing here is if we had users spending half as much effort into cleaning up the existing articles on papal conclaves, you would find much more interesting stories than this conspiracy theory. Domenico Toschi wasn't elected pope in the Papal conclave, May 1605 because he said cock too much, for instance. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And that led to a fight leaving a member of the conclave with broken bones. Thanks, Tony, for the interesting reference. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 21:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 23, June-July 2017

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta! Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Library card
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
 * Bytes in brief

A question
I wanted to ask a question relating to talk pages. Firstly, feel free the refer me to another place to ask but i thought an admin/arb is as good a place as any to ask. But anyway, while i realise that users own their user talk pages to a degree and can demand others not post there, does that hold true for discussions under unblock requests? Obviously i was asked to do so and i will heed the request either way but i just did not know if it was actually permissable to ban others from commenting in said unblock discussions. So i got curious about that specific case but had no idea where to look for an answer. In a sense i could understand if it were ok to do so as it still is their user talk, yet in another it would seem sort of odd to be able to basically tell anyone noting behavioural issues and their potential/probable continuation to go away. The user asking me to stay away was indeffed for a whole alphabet soup of things and i gave my impression of the encounter, not that it matters to my question. So, are unban discussion still regular talk page territory or are they an exception and allow posting by anyone no matter if "talk page banned" or not? (in a reasonable way obviously) 91.49.65.186 (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The funny thing is, last time I looked (but I may not have looked very well) there's no policy or guideline that says "Users are free to ban other users from their talk page"--but it's certainly common practice. From my point of view, I'd say yes, a blocked or banned user can ask another user to not post there, and I would block for it if a user kept pushing the point. I'd call it either harassment or disruption; probably the first. You're talking about the Joobo talk page--I looked and it reminded me of something, and then I realized I was the one who blocked them the first time around. Yeah, in such cases, as an admin I'd also urge you to stop; I see you said so, and that's a good thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, had not actually noticed that you did even haha. Probably should look at the block log better next time to not ask someone "involved" and be so obvious as to what/who i was refering to lol. Assumed my IP had changed a little again so it would not be in my contribs... alas it was. *note to self, be less obvious* Just thought of you as a helpful person and knowledgable of the rules. And yes, it is not about me wanting to keep on "bothering" him, just a general question that came to mind due to his request under the circumstance. As i said, i can see why it should be ok to demand it and reasons why it could be questionable to do so(only in specificaly the discussion under the unblock request of course). And as you noted there is no actual policy that i have seen in regards to talk page bans yet it still is a quite established process so i thought i would just ask because i was plain curious about it. But anyway, thank you for indulging my curiosity somewhat. Hope you did not mind me keeping names out of my question either, i prefer to keep questions mostly like that if i have some to not distract from the actual question and the like. Not about having my way in the end but genuine interest in the process. Might actually be a good idea to outline how exactly the talk page related things work so nosy people like me have somewhere to look but... not that important overall i guess or maybe it even exists and i just do not know about it. Have a good evening anyway and thank you again for the answer. 91.49.73.179 (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Mind you, I'm usually fine with others trying to help others out; in this case, it seemed that they weren't really receptive to what you were offering. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Why?
Hi Doc, why did you delete my request here ? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Clicked the wrong button and couldn't leave a summary: "not enough recent disruption etc." Note I threw some warnings around--the IP is, I am sure, the same person as the account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Damn buttons. You have, like, a whole console with hundreds of them, right? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No--not really. The admin buttons are in a pull-down menu, the same you could have if you signed into your damn account. I got confused between the two rollbacks--we have one rollback that just rolls back, and another that allows you to choose between "rollback vandalism", "rollback AGF", and "rollback", and with the last one you can leave an edit summary. But if you look at someone's edit history, for the second set you don't have "rollback AGF". It's silly confusing for old people like me; I picked the one where I couldn't leave a summary. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, this account, too . 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Ha, thanks--but it's folks like the IP editor above who do the real work. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's called Division of labour, huh?! We make the reports, you drink the coffee :p &mdash; fortuna  velut luna

Message from metalreflectslime
Here is the source:

https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/education/students/highschool/olympiad/process/competitions/2016-usnco-program-summary.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalreflectslime (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , that is a primary source, and while it can be argued to verify that some of the information is true, maybe, it cannot help establish that it is of any encyclopedic value. This and other such articles contain way too much content that is of interest to the organization and its members but cannot be said to have encyclopedic value for a broader readership--and this is evidenced by the complete lack of secondary sourcing. I am going to revert, because at best the article is bloated with improperly or poorly verified information whose importance cannot be established; at worst, the article substitutes for the organization website. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Biology_Olympiad

The USA Biology Olympiad page has placings and medals of each member though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalreflectslime (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. That doesn't change anything, except that it means I'll be cleaning that up too, I guess. And please sign your messages on talk pages. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants
Assuming that you are Superman and knows everything of Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants... (In the unlikely case that I am wrong, I invite others to act as the all-knowing Superwomen or -men). But this template is going straight down to an edit war, as the other party claims "But in Zh-wiki also have a lot of details, why don't you cancel Zh-wiki? I just refer to Zh-wiki practise". I was flabbergasted when my reply "But this is the English language Wikipedia, with its own set of rules and regulations. What Zh-wiki does, has no influence on EN-wiki". I think I need help... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "The times of getting No.1 The percentages of getting No.1 (%)" ? Huh? Drmies (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the guy, you had damaged the template with you revert. I have added some explanation to his talkpage but the next time he reverts, I will request protection. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is better to add it, it is not details things, it can concentrate withdrawn competitors this row. If don't add it, it will misleading.特克斯特 (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That kind of details belongs to the articles of the actual competitions, not to a navigation template. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But the detailes have added into the articles, included the reason and influence of TV and competitors, but some competitors even not appeared on the TV, some said that he is competitors some said is not, so it is better to add it.特克斯特 (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. A navigation template is for navigation only. It is no article. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But don't add the few words, it will misleading, it will Navigation error.特克斯特 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What you added is not even proper English and completely irrelevant for a navigation-template. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * OMG Banner this is getting out of hand. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there are relationship with the template, can show which singer withdraw the competitions, can know that he /she is not completely finish the competitions.特克斯特 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're going to get blocked for edit warring. Once that happens, or once you stop reverting, we'll explain this to you again, the difference between templates and articles. And what MOS:FLAG says. And how military folk who died in 220 don't participate in Singer 2017. And that we don't fill articles with trivia, and that proper English in our articles is a prerequisite. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fictional military folk, even. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This guy was in both, no? I need to read that romance. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the trivia? Zhao Lei is a singer. The flags is help to distinguish the singer relationship. I am going to get blocked and I also going to release it.特克斯特 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 特克斯特, click on the fucking link: Zhao Lei. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Although the link is wrong, you also can see the article is it has this singer, your brain is fucking brain, totally stupid!特克斯特 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This guy really has no clue. Seems to think that we are his personal slaves now. NO WAY! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 07:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not often you run into this level of cluelessness; he's heading for an indef if he keeps this up. Hey, Banner, at least I have a fucking brain, dude. Or my brain is fucking a brain? Anyway, don't respond to him, please., one of the things I told you is that your English was problematic. I am in fact an English teacher, but I am not your English teacher. If you cannot figure out why this is a problem, you shouldn't be editing the English Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought is had to be written as SeaSon, as Son of the Sea? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes revert/drug use editing
Hi Drimes,

I noticed that you removed about 11,000 characters on Amanda Bynes bio about her past drug use/arrests. On Michael Capponi's bio, you restore all the edits related to drug & alcohol use. On what basis do you decide whether or not it's ok to discuss past drug use, at length in a BLP? I think you are giving Michael Capponi's past drug use undue weight. Also, the early life section is not neutral at all. Could you please restore some of my edits? Thanks! SetTheRecord  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settherecord (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry for reverting you on Amanda Bynes - I know you to be a great admin. The section about Amanda Bynes' arrests and mental problems that led to her retirement have been discussed thoroughly over the years. See the talk page archive and the extensive article history of people removing unsourced or gossipy content. It's about as brief and sanitized as possible. Deleting an 11k section that has been there for years without consensus is not a good move. Please see WP:BLPN for the sections Hillbillyholiday started to complain about not just about Amanda Bynes but also Britany Spears' mental issues (another article that has been discussed to death already). I don't want to get in a revert war at all but I believe removing this much of an article that has been carefully monitored for many years really needs consensus. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I went ahead and restored most of Drmies removal per what appears to be a rough consensus against the content being included at BLPN. Since the fundamental principle of BLP is that we do no harm to the subject, WP:ONUS should be applied here and consensus gained to restore specific instances. I've also posted more at BLPN, but wanted to give both you and Drmies a heads up. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - removing some content I don't have a problem with, especially if it's discussed. Deleting the entire section to make it seem like none of it ever occurred is not the way to go.   —Мандичка YO 😜 14:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Wikimandia, I'm fine with that--at least you provided an argument, unlike the others. Mind you I did not invoke the BLP, nor did I claim some sort of administrative privilege. My main problem was that a. those things should be taken seriously and thus b. unexplained reverts simply won't cut it. Your summary had an explanation, so I'm fine with it. I am going to leave the content discussion for what it is, at least for now--thanks, and take care. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. On the BLPN, Hillbillyholiday complained that he/she is "out of reverts" - I didn't look at the history of the people who were reverting, but probably some people who are more casual users felt Hillbillyholiday's removal of so much content was blatantly wrong and didn't know they need to explain why. (Maybe WP should make it a requirement that you cannot revert without leaving a summary.) —Мандичка YO 😜 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's obvious, but all too often it's not. If I had a dollar for every time an editor referred someone to AIV without explaining how certain edits were vandalism, I'd be waiting on my Lexus to get serviced, not my Toyota. And of course I myself am guilty of that too; only the other day an editor took issue with my edit summary, even though "wut" typically means "rm primary source (video link) reported on wholly unreliable website (a wiki) by way of an inline URL", no? Drmies (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Fin al punto
Remember the DYK when I met you? I didn't know the composer personally, but am still. (Today, I would split that hook in three.) "The calm already contains the catastrophe".--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Vaguely--I had to dig deep to find it. Old friends! I wonder what happened to User:Robert Clausen, whose Großgaststätte Ahornblatt was the reason I reviewed that article anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote a sing song for Killmayer, open for review, pictured Peter Härtling who also died recently, - I almost met Härtling but on the one occasion, he was excused for being sick. (Writing it was an act of defiance when I was told that his bio wasn't referenced well enough to appear under Recent deaths, but it's there now.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
regarding previous discussion from a couple weeks ago. 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 22:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is SO exciting! Oh, I think I know what this is about. I hope it's good news! Drmies (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael Capponi, redux
Hi Dr and talk page stalking admins, this just goes on forever, with COI accounts attempting to remove well sourced content that they don't like. I'd appreciate more eyes on this, and any objective input will be welcome. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've requested indefinite protection, since the manipulation by COI accounts has been going on a long time. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, got it . 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , notwithstanding the allegations that we're all shilling for Dan Biederman, that bio is a puff job, too. Just saying, and, if I don't get to it first. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I will defend your accusations. What I think is interesting is how zero editors were interested in Michael Capponi's bio until AFTER an off wiki dispute happened between him and Dan Biederman. I believe Biederman is directing people to trash Capponi's bio. All of a sudden random editors, who all back each other up and gang up on anyone who reverts their edits, spent $20 each to buy a book that discusses his past friendship with Chris Pacello. And only after the boating accident is Michael's past drug use important. Why didn't any editors care about him until recently? And it wasn't just removal of PR content, it was the addition of things about drug use taken out of context. LSD mentions, homeless in NYC, linking him to a mob person. It seems to me like purposefully painting the subject of a BLP in a negative light to satisfy one man interested in disparaging him. Settherecord (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fool. I made no accusations except that you have a COI. It is you who accused me; kindly show me evidence of the payments I received, either in US tender or in cocaine. Your off-wiki spat is of no interest to me at all, and neither are your beliefs. Eat your crow first. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)