User talk:Drmies/Archive 110

Michael Capponi
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)
 * Drmies would be too polite to mention it, but you are a single purpose account with a mission to set the record straight at a WP:BLP article. How do you think Wikipedia would look if every advocate with an ax to grind could perform whatever edits they wanted? Not going to happen. I know that your question is rhetorical, but in brief, if a person were only known for having a bad habit when young, they would not satisfy the notability policy and there would be no article. If a person is notable for some other reason, placing undue weight on bad habits is not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it is worth remembering that a very great proportion of WP:SPAs editing WP:BLPs -- or complaining about them -- are doing so because other WP:SPAs have put questionable material in the BLP in question. Not always, of course, but often. Unfortunately, us regular editors who are not SPAs, do not do a very good job of making sure that questionable material is kept out of BLPs. MPS1992 (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk:Bob Masse, added yesterday. Just mentioning it in case the subject complains. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Got added to the article as well. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Short history: on July 14 I started to undo a mass of COI edits, involving the addition of promotional content and the removal of negative and well-sourced content. The article has been carefully maintained for several years by accounts who've admitted to their association with the subject, and for much of that time it's been a puff piece. The negative content can not, of course, violate WP:UNDUE, but there's a clear rationale for a proportional inclusion of content related to Mr. Capponi's drug addiction and youthful friendship with Chris Paciello: Mr. Capponi has spoken openly and been quoted frequently regarding these issues. They are part of the public record, in large part because of his--admirable, I think--transparency. This isn't something a public relations team can retroactively erase, and it's the reason I've asked Drmies and others for oversight. There need to be eyes on the article. Always. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Settherecord, remember when you said that I was a paid operative, that someone was paying me to edit Wikipedia in this way or that? Do you seriously expect me to discuss something in a reasonable fashion with someone who said that? But I didn't restore much, as far as I know--what I've been doing in the Capponi article is take out fluff that someone with an obvious COI had been sticking in there, someone who didn't know much about Wikipedia and didn't care much. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And spelt your name wrong, Drimes. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  14:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the analogy with Busta Rhymes is obvious, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Drimes, What's interesting is when you "removed the COI edits from Capponi's article" you added bits about his past drug use, a mob association, a DUI, him being homeless. You did extensive research, and purchased books. When you were accused of being a Beiderman shill you edited Dan Biederman's arcticle and removed some PR fluff. You didn't add any negative information about him to his article. I just find that curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settherecord (talk • contribs) 04:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are such a fool. Tell me where I added or reinserted negative information about your friend in this edit. Indeed, find where I added anything to the article in this series. That stuff was already there--and it was properly verified. "I find that curious"--you should really look more carefully, in the article and in the mirror. And "when you were accused..."--that was you doing the accusing. You still haven't taken it back, though you still have no evidence. Drmies (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

When I said you, I meant you along with the other the editors- Torando Chase, Dianna, etc. To find an exact list of names, check the Michael Capponi article revision history. On June 14th the same editor who trashed his page, made edits to Dan Biederman's page. Of course these editors could be Dan Biederman himself and all of his wikipedia friends. The date of Biederman's article creation matches the time most of these editors have been on wiki.
 * Right. So we're all in it together. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

PolyGram
Hi Dr, can you protect this again, perhaps for a longer stretch? Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we know who this jackass is? Drmies (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a clue. Just noticed that protection had ended and the fun resumed. Sorry to interrupt while you're in the middle of other editing, so your assistance is even more appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I was kind of done with that article anyway--poor article, poor situation. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah. Then you'll love this edit history. . 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How'd you do that ? That's just creepy. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I look at Recent changes with eyes similar to yours. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So I figured. Gimlet eyed. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

54.163.161.191


The IP that you blocked, is back again at 54.163.161.191. Thanks. 73.96.113.19 (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ...And done. They're will probably be more to come, though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.113.19 (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Really. Go ahead and post on AN, if you don't mind. Don't bother with AIV. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * . Edit: Okay good, you seem to be keeping track of them fairly well... 73.96.113.19 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Dolly Rudeman
Alex ShihTalk 00:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That is very kind of you, Chris. Is there a fee? Drmies (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Inspired after her cat jumps up on her drafting table, Zaha Hadid designs a logo." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)



Indef block of Rich Coburn
Hi. A few hours ago you (properly, I think) reverted an edit to Jimbo's talk page that had been made by. Subsequently you indef blocked Rich Coburn on the grounds of sockpuppetry, specifically of being a sockpuppet of the LT sockmaster. (See also Janagewen's SPI archive, if you haven't already.)

I believe that block is ill-founded. I have what I think is a fairly well justified belief that "Rich Coburn" is not Janagewen.

There was a similar case a few months ago in which an then-new user was accused of being a sockmaster for an IP, an IP that in turn I thought was a sock of Janagewen; conversely I saw little reason to think the IP was a sock of PF. I outlined my reasons here. The IP had all the earmarks of a Janagewen sock.

I have the same objections to the notion that RC is a sock of Janagewen.

They do have a couple of points in common, mainly: a) They are both focusing on moderately technical aspects of x86/x64 computer architecture, particularly memory management; b) they're both wrong re those subjects very often; c) they are completely immune to education; and d) they both want me kicked off of Wikipedia.

However, I am pretty darn familiar with Janagewen's style and habits. (I've certainly made a plurality, if not a majority, of the reports at his SPI archive, which is why he wishes I'd disappear.) And I just don't see a match with Rich Coburn's.

Now given the vehemence of Rich Coburn's accusations against me one might think I'd be happy to see him blocked. Well, I'm not happy to see him blocked for something he didn't do.

Thank you in advance for considering my input here. If you would like additional clarifications on what I see as the behavioral or language evidence, let me know. Jeh (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your note. I have full confidence in your comments, and looking at the whole thing again I am happy to drop the socking allegation--but that leaves us with disruption, of course, and the abuse of Wikipedia for...well, a whole bunch of things, not all of them literate (and an IP was involved as well). In fact, I'm inclined to call this meating. I will go and adjust the block reason. Perhaps has an interest in this as well, and maybe  or . Drmies (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with Janagewen, so I'll defer to Jeh's analysis of their behavior, but having seen the CU results, I agree that this account probably isn't him. I agree that the block is necessary, especially considering the attempted outing and other BLP violations from the account and the IPs he has used. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Predatory publishers
Are you systematically removing predatory publishers? If so, you might be interested in adding "Lambert Academic Publishing" to your clean-up list. I'd remove all of its mentions on Wikipedia myself, except I'd fall afoul of a ban that admins custom-made for me (ban on mass-editing). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, maybe not, but I got spam for this joint this morning and I thought I'd clean it up. So I don't have a list, but maybe does? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * and are the ones who have access to the list and have the expertise in this space, I don't. I'm just a janitor in this area. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've only really had an interest in stopping OMICS from editing their article. Naturally, we have a link to the list . I seem to recall User:JzG being involved in systematic removal of some source before. SmartSE (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Predatory publishers should not be removed indiscriminately. Most are indeed absolutely forgettable, with generally the only independent source being that they are included on Beall's list (not online any more, but the archived copy that Smartse links to can be used as source). However, some of the "publishers" have such outrageous practices that people have written about them and so they meet GNG. In general, such articles turn out to be rather negative, with the publisher usually doggedly trying to make those articles more "balanced" (but if the only independent RS are negative, then a negative article is NPOV...) A notorious example is OMICS Publishing Group. As for Lambert, we don't have an article on that outfit directly, but we do have a (very critical) article on their parent, OmniScriptum (Lambert Academic Publishing redirects there).
 * And now I just checked Drmies' contributions to see what publisher this was about and see I misunderstood the question... So... Yes, nothing published by an outfit on Beall's list can be trusted and should not be used as a reliable source and be rigorously weeded out of our articles. Many of these publishers have been very active seeding our articles with links to their "journals"... Cleaning all this by hand will take years. But I have no clue how to do this differently (and prevent them from re-adding those "sources" as soon as we have turned our backs... Or to prevent good-faith editors who find such a reference with Google from adding them to articles). I don't even know how to find most of these fake references, as there are hundreds of such publishers and some of them have dozens or more journal titles... --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not something that I'm remotely an expert at, but wouldn't it be possible to create some kind of thing that alerts users of a "project" when a "flagged" source gets added to a Wikipedia page? You can, for instance, find every mention of Lambert AP on wikipedia by googling "site:wikipedia.com" and "lambert academic publishing", and get google alerts when Google finds something new. Just a thought. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess that would work, but you'd need to set up hundreds of such alerts: one for each publisher and then separate ones for all of their crappy journals. Just setting this up would be a major undertaking... --Randykitty (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I hate to bug you...
...but QubixQdotta is outing me on Template talk:Nazism sidebar by publishing my personal name, which I have taken pains to keep private since the time I used it as my account name and was harassed both on-wiki and off-. Since then I've done my best to keep it as low profile as possible, even though it cannot be removed from certain places. The editor has been informed that he's outing me, and that I would bring it to admins for relief if he continued, but he re-added the private information. Perhaps a short block might get the message through, or a stern final warning? I've asked Oversight to redact, but haven't heard from them yet. Help, please! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you want diffs? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, BMK, I need to finish homework with my kids, but hold on. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Go for it, the kids come first, always. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not your call, BMK. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - and thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It didn't get removed, what with one thing and another, so I self-reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That makes things better. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else actually emit an audible groan when they read "Explain how Nazism is a 'far-right' ideology when its literally called National Socialism?" Or is it just me? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you're not citing a real Wikipedia editor. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh shit, I knew I shouldn't have clicked on that. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I obviously don't know if these have anything to do with this situation, but...


 * (1) I just got notifications that there were two failed attempts to log into my account from devices that weren't recognized as having been used on the account before;
 * {2) In the last two days, 4 IP accounts have used open proxies to vandalize random articles, but in the middle of those random articles were edits to pages connected to me. Two of the open proxy IPs edited Template talk:Nazism sidebar, one reverted an edit I made to a film article, and the fourth reverted the edit I made reporting them at AIV. Two of the IPs have been blocked as open proxies, one has been blocked for long-term abuse, and the other is currently unblocked, but I've reported it as a open proxy.

There's no way that I know of to connect these actions to any particular user, and I am in the middle of disputes so it could be either of these editors or neither of them, but clearly (at least on the strength of #1 above) someone is trying to get at me.

I'm not asking for any action here -- mostly because I don't think there's any action that can be taken -- just reporting this so that someone knows, just in case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't speak about everything you mentioned, but the two proxy IPs who reverted you on the sidebar talk page are definitely not interested in you. They are doing some random vandalism based on recent changes. I suspect this is true of the other reverts you mention. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, that makes sense. I thought they were using the "random article" feature to mask their edit to "my" article.  I guess I shouldn't be so paranoid -- but there are those two failed log-in attempts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what says. BTW, I had three login attempts from some other device tonight. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Really! Has that happened to you before? This was a first for me -- unless they've just started that notification system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you had a visit from a friend tonight. Multiple visits, actually. Quite repetitive, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've had this before--if I remember correctly I used to get emails. Tonight--well, one is someone who's had nothing to do for a few evenings now; the other is just a run of the mill racist. They're a dime a dozen. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You too. Thanks again for the assist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Attack or insult
I feel offended by a comment of Keith-264. Instead of properly discuss a disagreement he came with an accusal of denying the holocaust. By now I have asked him three times to remove that insult/personal attack, but he won't budge and even denies it is a personal attack. Can you advice me on the next step to be taken? The Banner talk 09:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I deliberately did not remove the offending text. I have seen Keith before and I know that removal will trigger an edit war. The Banner talk 09:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's hope they don't do that again--that's pretty bad. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A real nice guy, don't you think? The Banner talk 15:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh. I just read the article on de:Edmund Ernst Stengel, a scholar whose work on Boniface I admire. Turns out he was a fucking Nazi from day one. Still, we need his article. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a colleague who admires the work of everybody he likes and trashes everything done by people he hates. My personal experience has been that there is (unfortunately perhaps) no correlation between being a good (or even just a nice) person and the quality of their work... --Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * True. But I am reading his works differently now. Turns out also that this booklet I have here, published 1948, is a reprint of a lecture he held in 1944 on the occasion of Fulda's 1200th anniversary. And rereading this more carefully I see now what he is trying to argue, or suggest (I can't tell whether this document was deNazified before publication) about Fulda and its possessions: since Fulda owned properties all over Western Europe, "in den Gebieten aller deutschen Stämme, der Franken und Lothringer, der Schwaben und Sachsen, der Thüringer und Hessen, der Friesen und Sachsen"--well, in the Middle Ages this means nothing at all, but in 1944 he is pointing at Hitler's Grossdeutschland, including the Netherlands, Alsace-Lorraine, and to some extent even France; who knows what is meant by "Schwaben", whose reach (Danube Swabians]) is immense. All this just spells "Volksdeutsche". Drmies (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yuck! Yeah, liking or not liking a person in general is not really the same as knowing that somebody followed a reprehensible philosophy (although that last word is perhaps a bit too flattering for the ragtag theories behind Nazism). And especially if that then leads to what you describe above, that a persons work were actually influenced by this crap... --Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so much day one as others, if de. has it right that he only joined the party in 1937. (But his 1942 obituary for Hans Weirich, which I just stumbled on, of course contains the appropriate phrasing about the Fatherland.) Most of what the de. article says can be sourced here, here and here what look like useful reviews; I see others for the same works. I am unfortunately honor-bound to continue with a massive rewrite before I do any more new articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He signed de:Bekenntnis der deutschen Professoren zu Adolf Hitler in 1933... Drmies (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everyone else with a chair did too, although I see from the de.wikipedia article that it was patchy, with some universities largely refusing. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think he did not get the message: The Banner  talk 08:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Unite the Right rally
Collision is pushing a neutral point of view as WP:BLPCRIME instructs us to. "Attack" is a violation of policy. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons about a new template where I linked to this. I've invited NYB to the discussion. Doug Weller  talk 10:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

64.125.177.220
Hi,

I don't understand why you only blocked this IP address for 31 hours. They've already had several prior blocks, and from what I can tell, there isn't a single constructive edit from this IP address at all... which was probably why their previous block was considerably longer than the last two blocks before then. If there were at least a good handful of constructive edits, than I don't think that this would be problem at all. Do what you will, but from what I can tell, escalating block duration on IPs with a significant amount of abuse overtime is a common administrative practice... Thank you. 2601:1C0:101:D197:257D:8C24:EBF:1165 (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC) Also, another question, how do you attract such lovely people to your talkpage? ;-) 2601:1C0:101:D197:257D:8C24:EBF:1165 (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because that was one of many blocks I placed in a short period of time and I didn't feel the need to go figure out how many bad edits they had made in what kind of time period and et cetera. Plus, one frequently wonders what the point is of blocking IPs for a long time. You're talking about sixteen edits in all. Drmies (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, just another racist. They came back a few more times--dogs and vomit, you know. Drmies (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Look, ma, no wings
Yep. Have a look at any of the military a/c or engine pages, you'll probably see it. As to why? That's above my pay grade, so I don't worry about it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, if I didn't know why something was done the way it was, and it pretty blatantly flaunts various policies and conventions, I wouldn't reinstate it... Drmies (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * * flouts You're a professor of what, again? Softlavender (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I learn something new every day. Thanks Softlavender. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

ygm
TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

RfA!
Hi Drmies (or any TPS). Sorry to bother you, but please can you take a look at this and close it (or better still, delete it)? I'd like to think it was done in good faith, but it's not something a) I want or b) could ever get even if I did want it! Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Page deleted under G6, as an RFA created without the consent of the candidate seems to fall under this category to me. If this is not appropriate, any admin should feel free to revert me without consulting me first. I will leave it to people more acquainted with the protagonists here to deal with any admonishment, should such be necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The nominating user meant very well, and there's no need at all to reproach them. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC).

And the beat (down) goes on
 Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And more WP:Casting aspersions and Not dropping the stick. . Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Question
Hello, you have to delete my user page because for a reason. I did not know sorry. But would it be possible to recover its contents? It's personal and I would not post it on the site. Thanks Kb25130 (talk)
 * Check your email. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Christin Baker
Thanks for trimming that. I was planning on coming back to it after the dust settled from my first weed-wacking of it. Meters (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That was created by a now-blocked paid editor Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Meters (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI report about User:Thetruth16
Hi. Would need your input about this user's editing behavior. I have created a new ANI report about User:Thetruth16 since he is reverting back his version of "pro-Marcos" edits to several Marcos related articles. Here is the discussion thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_of_User:Thetruth16. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

AN/I notification
I mentioned you at a section I started at AN/I. The section heading is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured article review for Tahirih Justice Center
I have nominated Tahirih Justice Center for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You are being notified because you participated in a discussion about the article at NPOVN. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

G3: Hoax
Hey, I'm new to wiki and have been trying to accomplish my first successful wiki posting. You marked my article a hoax, when I the figure I speak of is in XXL Magazine's fall issue 2016, and is has now made it into a digital magazine who's parent company is Capitol Records. I have the physical copy of the fall issue magazine, how can I prove that point? Because it should be included as it's not a hoax. Illuminatiposts (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like your article was deleted not because it was a considered to be hoax, but because there wasn't a credible claim for why the individual is notable. You might also want to review this guideline on why we generally do not include articles on individuals notable for a single event. I JethroBT drop me a line 23:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk stuff
Hope you are not fully occupied now. I gravely apologize for any words and/or behaviors that made you uncomfortable. It was just supposed to be a lame joke and that's it. Please don't block me. Back to the topic, I did appreciate the contribution you made on article IRC(WASH), and that's it. And again, I am sorry. Wish you have a nice evening ahead. --Dannyboi886 (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ooops
I didn't see that you replied before I deleted the page. I tend not to read those pages all the way through...-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's OK. Arturo doesn't really listen anyway. Have you looked at the ranges? I was dealing with some other joker the other day and found that a range was blocked (for a year) but account creation had been turned back on--I don't know if that's normal procedure or not. You know what, I might as well ask--, this is about your rangeblock of 2607:FB90:6086:C14A:E5EC:6E48:D922:D19B (hint: woof! woof! rap rap rap!). Thx, Drmies (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 *  oh oh oh I know the answer!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pssht, no cheating: you have inside knowledge. The master of the plan, rappin' shit like Saran / Wrap, with some of this and some of that / Hold up (what?) I tawt I tat I putty tat! Drmies (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Respect.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed the block to turn account creation back on because I got so many requests about people not being able to create accounts from there. Graham 87 03:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, no, maybe? Or am I just seeing him everywhere? ;-) SagaciousPhil  - Chat 14:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , User:Graham87, again from 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32: User:Master Warren Kwiecinski... Drmies (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That range shows up in plenty of my checks with a number of ne'er-do-wells mucking about with impunity. I wish we could just encase the entire range in cement and drop it into the Hudson River.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If anybody really wants to, they can feel free to disable account creation again from that range. Be prepared for quite a lot of backlash though. Graham 87 02:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Peacocking and POV issues on Ahmed Rushdi's article
Hello ! I got your reference from Ahmed Rushdi's article's talk page. That article was non-neutral, I have removed some POV, Peacocking and a self published blog cited as a source. From that article's talk page I came to know that you are one of the major contributor and discussed about that article resembling a fansite. I came here just to ask that do you have any objection with my edits ? If you like to reply than please ping me. Thank you and have a lovely day.

It's funny you should say that
but on their user page they claim to have previously been an IP which indeed has an extensive contributions history; yet they have also made a few 'silly' mistakes- like the one you noticed. And I wonder if perhaps they're not a trifle too basic- not to say- intentional? -for someone who has, on the other hand, edited for some time &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  14:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC) I don't really have anything to say, other than to stop harassing me like I'm a vandal or a sock puppet, and to stop undoing my good-faith edits. Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This little mouse's tail is growing longer by the minute; see my comment on Yamaguchi's talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , can you please comment on the 2600:387:5:800::/60 rangeblock you placed on 1 June 2017? I've checked a few in the range, and though I ran into a few administrators (haha!) I have not yet seen an account that I recognize as a sock. Thanks!, if there is something you'd like to say, sooner is better than later. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't usually do range blocks that would have that much collateral damage, but this one is because of an LTA hoaxer who has been a huge pain in the ass for over a year. We had it more-or-less under control for a long while, but he's become more resourceful (or lucky) lately.  New IP ranges seem to pop up every few weeks.  You can read a bit about the chronicles at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer.  The M.O. is fairly basic: the vandal adds a bunch of hoax names to children's animated films, then vandalizes the associated BLPs to add the hoax credits there, too.   is an example.  I'm doing what I can to plug the holes without collateral damage, but it's very hard.  As far as I can tell, a substantial amount of the vandalism that was coming from this range has shifted to 2600:387:1 (for example, ), so this may be safe to unblock.  However, if it starts up again, it could take hours to clean up.  This is someone's whose hobby is vandalizing cartoons on Wikipedia, and they are simply not going to stop. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks NinjaRobotPirate. Do me a favor, plz: send me an email, so I can email you and a CU in the same conversation and we can talk. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, sent. I have about a 90% success rate in having my Wikipedia emails reach their target, so let me know if you don't get anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you spent more time actually writing content in mainspace, and less time reverting other editors and generally being disruptive, you wouldn't find yourself in hot lather. Just a thought. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pillowfluffyhead, when you make mistakes that are so serious that multiple admins get involved, you should reconsider your response. Insulting the messenger and claiming you're being oppressed is not the way to go. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Columbia University sockmaster
Do you remember the name of the sockmaster that has haunted the Columbia University article for several years? He or she is back with a new clutch of IP addresses and sleeper accounts... (I genuinely don't remember his or her name or I'd file the SPI myself.) ElKevbo (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * , it could be any of these. They go back to Jan 2011. If want earlier, let me know.


 * user:Anjio1234
 * user:Bobby232332
 * user:Chan-ocha
 * user:Charlie Jeff
 * user:Columbia Political Review
 * user:ColumbiaAlumnus
 * user:ComtesseDeMingrelie
 * user:Csbisbee
 * user:Cynulliad3
 * user:Cynulliad4
 * user:Cynulliad5
 * user:Elizabeth I of England
 * user:First Lord of Downing Street
 * user:Haailo
 * user:Honor 777
 * user:InfoDataMonger
 * user:JoshGfu
 * user:Kumioko
 * user:Lament1234
 * user:Lolusasucks
 * user:LudicrousTripe
 * user:Mambo420
 * user:Molichant
 * user:NGCR6199
 * user:PrincetonNeuroscientist
 * user:Puq1234
 * user:RabidMelon
 * user:Racepacket
 * user:Rainbird9
 * user:Ritual Spirit
 * user:Scallywag787
 * user:Sheila Ki Jawani
 * user:Tako12
 * user:Taltipalti
 * user:UGAMD
 * user:Vote again to coincide with the general election.
 * user:Wentworth Washington
 * user:Yairr
 * user:Yorkshiremany

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait--Kudpung, I don't understand your list. I already scrapped Werieth (who was Betacommand) and Billy Hathorn (who is him, and he's still aroung, writing articles on his high school buddies and the fathers of the girls he loved), and I see Kumioko in here as well. Who are we looking for? Drmies (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's quite easy. They are all the blocked socks who have edited the Coumbia University article. You remember Kumioko/Reguyla - we met him in D.C. in 2012 down in the big room where the coffee was served. He's one of the prolific IPs that continues to edit to this day. Mostly on admin stuff and other maintenace areas. Hathorn was banned years ago and is still around and with probably a hundred accounts to his name. You found a few more only a week or two ago.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know that, but I didn't know the rationale for the list--that must have taken you some time. Anyway, considering recent developments and the posts on this very talk page, I'm not sure we're dealing with one of those cats. BTW I don't remember meeting Kumioko. I remember sitting at the table with you, and I think Beeblebrox was across from us. I'd love to go to Wikimania again--I had fun. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Kumioko just walked past the table and said 'Hi'. A perfectly normal, well dressed guy, mid-forties or so. I was surprised to see him there. I already knew for a long time about his socking before anyone else did. He didn't know I knew. I never did anything about it at that time because I thought I would keep it under my hat for further evidence when he finally arrived at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * , you still doing SPI? Werieth's user page connectes to Sockpuppet investigations/Werieth/Archive but that is incorrect--it should go to Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me: I have been chatting with but I don't know where they went. They weren't so interested in Columbia though. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, we have 2600:1010:B00E:6756:BD9D:32A3:349F:EBF0 and 73.158.170.153, out in California. Earlier there were a bunch of edits you were involved in, with 159.63.167.146 in Chicago. Then there's Talk:Columbia_University, which is tirritating. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ElKevbo, see the note a few sections down from a now-blocked edit warrior. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was thinking of either Betacommand or Mangoeater1000.  In any case, it's clear that there is sockpuppetry afoot at the article.  Do you think an SPI would be accepted or rejected as fishing? ElKevbo (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I think the recent stuff is minor, and it's certainly not connected to Mango--I believe this is an amateur. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Talking about  Kumioko, this just  arrived a few minutes ago. Classic Kumioko  and it comes roughly from the area where he works. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

AIV
I'm going to reply here since the bot removed your comment before I could reply. Yes, I still believe that at some point when is unblocked, we can send the case over to SPI. Yes, the disruption is too obvious for a CheckUser, but Labasan, to me, is still evading. Perhaps the account was created while the original was still blocked? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks--I had to revert that stupid bot a few times to get my note in: wanted to be able to ping all of you. No, they weren't blocked in the first place. It can't really be evasion if it's this obvious--I wonder if they didn't just lose their password. We'll see. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Columbia University
Hello Drmies,

Is there a reason that the edits to Columbia University's page is constantly being reverted? All of the information has detailed citations and from my own experience, I work in admissions at the Columbia Fu Foundation School of Engineering & Applied Sciences, I am a researcher at the Columbia Business School, and I have received my degrees from Columbia College and Teachers College. I have spoken to the admissions divisions in five of the sixteen divisions of Columbia University to ensure the information I have edited is accurate. Please let me know specifics as to why you believe the information in incorrect and if you do, please refrain from deleting the entire paragraph and detail which lines that you have a conflict with.
 * Yes there is, and they are clearly spelled out in various edit summaries and on your talk page, including your other talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've only nade very simple edits on wikipedia and this is the first time I've used the talk page. Could you show me where I can see those comments and what that is? How do people resolve disputes and communicate with other users on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B01F:2CC1:219C:6218:7FE3:A022 (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that, really, but it's Talk:Columbia University. Surely a researcher at such a fancy school can find their way around a simple online encyclopedia... You're evading your block, however, if you do that now, and you'd get blocked even longer. While I have your ear, please don't threaten legal action again--it warrants an instant and indefinite block. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Full disclosure, I'm a business school researcher. I dont do CS or any of this fancy html stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B01F:2CC1:219C:6218:7FE3:A022 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. I'm posting a template on your talk page, User talk:2600:1010:B01F:2CC1:219C:6218:7FE3:A022. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Help
I am trying to disengage from a contentious discussion on my talk page, but a user keeps posting on my talk page (14 times so far!). I finally left warnings on his talk page, explaining that I am allowed to remove comments from my own talk page, but he persists in re-posting over and over. I'm having a bad day offline, and this harassment isn't helping. Could you help please? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Another editor has advised him to stop posting on my talk page, but he refuses, even threatening to report me for harassing him! - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Thankfully, the user has been blocked by . - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry BilCat--thanks . BilCat, I would have done the exact same thing; let's hope that the user got the point. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. They haven't got yje point yet, sadly. I know I could have handled it better myself, but I had no idea they'd keep reposting so many times. I didn't sleep well overnight because of chronic health issues, and disengaging my best option. - BilCat (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. I wish we had corruption--I could use the money. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Kim Labasan
I noticed your block of Kim Labasan. You should know that IP58.69.101.221 and user:Kimley Labasan's edits mirror Kim Labasan's edits. So most likely these are their sockpuppet(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , see this. Does that help? If you want to start an SPI you're welcome to. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

About Help_desk
Sorry about that misjudgement. My impression of the edits you revdel'ed at 2005–06 Niger food crisis was that while the first edit was an indefensible racial slur, the user self-corrected the next minute, and the end result was pretty much equivalent to this next edit. Which is kinda trolling since the hidden comments say explicitly not to do it (I happen to agree with the edit but I doubt the user even read the cited links to judge whether they apply); maybe vandalism in the intention but not in the effect. Considering the other edit (what I would call "low-key vandalism") plus the post complaining that none cares about them, I thought that the user was an attention-grabbing troll that would go away if ignored. (not posting on the HD since they could be monitoring the page) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 07:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing--thanks for the note. I just see so much of this, more this year than ever before I think, and I think we should be hawkish. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
&mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 13:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

For your Herculean efforts

 * Whoa Atsme--I don't know why I deserve this; so many others have done so much more. Still, I thank you! Drmies (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Question about non-english sources
Hi, I have a question about sources in foreign languages. Can the title simply be just in English (translated) or should the title be in the original language, followed by trans_title and language=ko? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Park_Bo-gum&type=revision&diff=799379413&oldid=799345951. A user removed most of the Korean titles and simply replaced it with the translated English title. Thanks.
 * The original title should always be there; the translated title is a courtesy to readers. If the original title is removed, the reader is likely to get a shock if they click on the link. (It's also nice to include any English-language news coverage that may be available as an extra reference, even if it's less than perfect English and includes fewer details.) I'll have a look at the edit, but I won't be able to judge the accuracy of the translation. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ... I see a different IP reverted to the previous version with this edit. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Yngvadottir. To the editor asking the question: Y is really always right. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Teachers College, Columbia University
Hi Drmies, I noticed that you also made edits to the Teachers College page. You stated that you believed a lot of it was promotional - which I am willing to compromise and agree with you for the most part - however, do you believe that the fact Teachers College and Barnard members have the ability to serve on the faculty senate (the governing body of the University, 2nd to the Board of Trustees) is not factual and serves no encyclopedic value? If you do, please elaborate. Wanted to hear your thoughts (I know the explanation space for edits is quite limited in characters). Thanks. Pebblefire (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * More on Talk:Columbia University. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hello, do you think that the talk page at User talk:Partyrocker7711 should be blanked? Per WP:UPNOT, his fictional group is obvioulsy not Wikipedia related, and he even vandalised some articles with adding his fictional group to the list. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah--User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has already dropped by, I see. Maybe they should think about becoming an admin, and then we can leave all the dirty stuff to them. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for National anthem of Cornwall
An editor has asked for a deletion review of National anthem of Cornwall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:RoySmith. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Flummoxed
My editing career at Wikipedia has pretty much come to a standstill. I'm treading water here. The reverting-ban on me is in place, okay - fine. I don't like it, but I am abiding by it. That I cannot even change a wrong word, alter current sentence structure, or correct a date, jot or period out of place because it could be seen as reverting existing content has put me in handcuffs and leg irons here. I read an article, see an error, and can do nothing about it because of the ban. When I've started an RfC on infobox images, I have to get another editor to put in the photo decided on. Was that really the intention of the ban -- to keep me from editing altogether? I'd seriously like to know what, if anything, can be done with the restriction. Because as it is, I daily and sometimes from moment to moment when looking at articles and their errors or problematic wording, do absolutely nothing about any of it due to living in fear of getting permabanned. How is that helping to improve or build an encyclopedia? I realize I'm only one person out of thousands in Wikipedia, but... Well, I think you get what I'm saying.  -- ψ λ  ●  ✉  20:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can always ask for the sanction/restriction to be lifted, or lessened. But picking a fight with Tenebrae over the word "problematic" as a personal attack (you started with a templated warning) is not likely to convince your detractors. I have no doubt that some of them (and you know they'll be looking for you) will say "see he's still doing X". I don't know about this infobox thing, but I looked at your last series of edits and didn't see where the restriction was bothersome, but you know you can always call on me if you run into something that you think ought to be reverted. As for the normal editing change, it is not your business to figure out if some change could possibly count as a revert. Maybe that's my reading of 0R, but the restrictive reading of "R" is ridiculous, and unless something is really clearly a revert, and not a "normal" edit that intends to improve the article, you know I will support you. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "I looked at your last series of edits and didn't see where the restriction was bothersome" I hate bothering other editors to do something that I can do but am too afraid to do for getting blocked over a change of a photograph following an RfC closure where that image has been deemed preferable.


 * "it is not your business to figure out if some change could possibly count as a revert." I have no idea what you mean by this.


 * "unless something is really clearly a revert, and not a "normal" edit that intends to improve the article, you know I will support you." Before, during, and after I'm blocked because some other admin (such as Ed Johnston who believes my restriction includes changing anything at all that's been existing for any length of time) doesn't see it the same as you do? Not trying to sound untrusting, but, well -- I guess I'm gunshy in the trust department.  Another tick in the block log (even if overturned) wouldn't be a good thing.


 * I'm not looking for a magic wand to be waved, but it sure would be nice to just edit, and I can't because I have no specific guideline to follow -- the last I was told (at my talk page several weeks ago), whether or not what I did was seen as a revert (even if not an actual revert) was going to be at the discretion of whatever admin was watching and decided for themselves if it was a revert or not a revert. As was noted at my talk page, different admins and editors see reverts differently.  I know what an actual revert is, but it's the "could be/might be a revert" ambiguity and vagueness that's keeping me from doing anything of real merit and worth.


 * So, what to do? Another AN/I or drama board public flogging fest would suck, too.  A few months ago, on the suggestion of an admin, I asked for my block to be lifted/lessened, and I was mocked, ridiculed, subjected to relentless AN/I abuse from admins as well as everyone who has ever had a beef with me (whether real or imagined or embellished).


 * I'm not ungrateful for your response here, but to be honest, I'm still flummoxed and almost more confused about the whole situation than before.    -- ψ  λ  ●  ✉  00:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * p.s. Don Williams is an article I just looked at to see what it had to say about the article subject who just died. Immediately, I noticed a number of things in this article that could be improved upon (you're a great wordsmith and writer, look at it, and I'm sure you'll see what I mean).  But, because of the ambiguity in my revert ban, I don't think I could touch it without someone, somewhere either blocking me or having me blocked because I would remove content or change a word and it would be interpreted to be a revert.  Still flummoxed, I am.   -- ψ  λ  ●  ✉  00:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the background, but Winkelvi sure writes well, and we can use good writers on WP. – Corinne (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "it is not your business to figure out if some change could possibly count as a revert." is unclear? I am supporting you. It can be impossible to figure out if you're "just editing" or "reverting" someone. You may recall that I argued that the restriction makes it well-nigh impossible to edit. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're being defensive but I don't know why. I simply don't understand what you're trying to tell me, so yes, it's unclear to me (sorry -- I'm a pretty intelligent person, but I'm not getting what you're trying to say, perhaps because it lacks context from where I'm sitting?).  -- ψ  λ  ●  ✉  03:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * le sigh* I'm not defensive, just flummoxed, and I can't explain it any better than I did, not right now. I thought you would recognize a defense if you saw it. OK. Your job is to edit. Figuring out who you are reverting or what part of whose edit(s) you are reverting is impossible and not your job. The restriction is unfair. More clear? Drmies (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely more clear, and thank you. I thought you were chastising me, I didn't get that you were saying with the vaguery of the restriction comes an added burden I shouldn't have to endure (and no one should).  Of course, I agree with you.   -- ψ  λ  ●  ✉  04:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Award winning?
I haven't seen a guideline which prevents saying an award winning author is award winning. VanderMeer has won a large number of high profile awards. How is it POV to state that in the lead? --SouthernNights (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of that guideline.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:INTRO. Also, it sounds terrible. I write that kind of stuff when I advertise the poets I bring to campus; it's not for encyclopedias. I won an award one time, but if you put that in my article I will be highly embarrassed. Actually, I won two--I was voted honorary something by the Alabama SGA. Woohoo! Drmies (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Your Comment at AN
At WP:AN, you wrote,
 * "Marek's feistiness is frequently mischaracterized. It has been years (OK, a very long time, certainly) since I have seen them be uncivil or unreasonable. Their comments and criticism are versed in policy, and the topic ban should be rescinded--not out of charity, but because it is the right thing to do."

I have a hard time understanding where you're coming from, given this sampling of statements by VM in that very same thread:
 * "And for fuck's sake, I don't even have that much of the problem with the term "illegal alien". I certainly don't regard anyone who uses it as a "vandal". GoldenRing pulled that out their ass."
 * "Stop changing your story. Stop making up new bullshit excuses for your own mistake. Provide diffs for your accusations. I don't know about you but personally, I really don't appreciate being called a liar and being accused of things I didn't do. Diffs. Diffs. Diffs."
 * "GoldenRing - how many admins and users have now told you that your sanction was inappropriate? Perhaps you should pay attention and not let the admin-ego get in the way."
 * "But stop fucking calling me a liar. I don't give a crap if you're an admin or not, you just don't do that."

By the way, GoldenRing never called VM a liar. The closest they got was saying that VM had written "outright falsehoods in edit summaries" (diff).

At the very least, the above comments are extremely uncivil. I fundamentally don't understand how such behavior is tolerated on this project. In my experience, these sorts of statements are not unusual for VM. What I really fear and suspect is that this sort of behavior is only tolerated because VM's political outlook largely overlaps with those of many admins.

Here, for example, where VM is fighting to keep the term "illegal alien" out of the article on DACA, I strongly suspect that most admins personally agree with the political sentiment behind not using the term (I agree with the sentiment too, personally). However, agreement with an editor's general goals should go out the window when they make statements like those above. I would be amazed if such tolerance were to be extended to someone arguing for using the term "illegal alien," while lacing their comments with the same string of expletives and aggressive language. I can't believe anyone really wants editors going around talking like that - it instantly turns any discussion toxic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think that making false accusations against other editors and disparaging them "turns any discussion toxic" much quicker than an occasional strong word. You know what else turns Wikipedia toxic? The editors who go running to every controversy to opportunistically malign those they perceive as their enemies, even when the dispute under discourse has nothing to do with them and when frankly it's none of their business. Just to get their kicks. Just in case they can turn their haranguing into a sanction of some sort. This is why WP:AE has had the long standing practice, if not quite formalized, actually employed of regularly boomerangin' the voluntary members of the "peanut gallary". You've been at WP:AE numerous times. And in my own personal opinion, your behavior at the Russian interference article has been one long disruptive exercise in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But have I shown up to, say your appeal to agitate against it? Or when others reported you there did I show up to offer testimonials against your editing? Even though I was repeatedly mentioned in both (and other) cases? No. I left it alone. Because it had nothing directly to do with me and I didn't want to be a shithead. I left it alone because THAT is the kind of behavior that makes Wikipedia toxic, not somebody using grown up language on a grown up website. <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  06:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Our views on what constitutes acceptable grown-up behavior clearly differ. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's feisty language, certainly, but in context, meh. "Pulled that out of your ass" and "for fuck's sake"? That's not blockable here--you should see the kind of antisemitic, anti-Arabic, racist, homophobic, sexist, misogynist stuff I block people for. Maybe we have different opinions on toxicity: I find the plethora of drive-by IPs and sock accounts that go around tagging articles and dragging out discussions to be just as toxic. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between "feisty" and "uncivil"? I think "GoldenRing pulled that out their ass" is "uncivil" under any reasonable definition of the term. Is it really your opinion that an editor who goes around talking to other editors like that is behaving in a civil manner?
 * "Maybe we have different opinions on toxicity: I find the plethora of drive-by IPs and sock accounts that go around tagging articles and dragging out discussions to be just as toxic."
 * That's a different subject. The fact that other accounts engage in a different set of toxic behaviors doesn't mean that telling another editor they "pulled that out of their ass" isn't also toxic behavior.
 * One of the things that WP:CIVIL points out is that is that editors should behave in a professional manner. Do you think a comment that "So and so pulled that out of their ass" would fly in a professional environment? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * At a private drinks party held for professional academics, on university property, I am sure it might. I do think that sometimes the standard of discourse on Wikipedia is indicative of a certain level of levity -- or immaturity, depending on your point of view -- that would not be mirrored in actual scholarly debate. Changing this might not be easy.


 * Why 411 and not 404, by the way? MPS1992 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * At a private drinks party, people can talk however they want. In any professional academic setting I'm aware of, however, one person telling another person they were making "bullshit excuses" or that they "pulled that out their ass" would cause a real backlash. It might be okay between good friends, but not between two random academics. The person speaking in that manner might be saved by tenure, but if they were less senior, they might damage their career. In any case, it wouldn't be dismissed as "feisty" behavior. Academia is less professional than industry, but it's not a free-for-all.
 * Thucydides' history ends in 411 B.C., by the way, seven years before the end of the war. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at academic conferences, though I'm sure it varies by discipline. The thing is - in academia and in most of your personal life there's a lot of self selection and assortative matching. You can, to a significant extent, avoid the kind of, um, personalities, that you have to deal with on the Wikipedia on regular basis. So the reason you don't hear someone say "you pulled that out of your ass" very often in academia is simply because people pull stuff out their ass less often (though again, I'm sure it varies by discipline). <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  02:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the things that concerns me, beyond its bare corrosive effect on this project, is that I'm fairly certain this sort of insulting language would not be tolerated, were VM to be editing in the opposite political sense. If VM were arguing for use of the word "illegal alien" in articles, do you think "[So and so] pulled that out of their ass" or "stop fucking calling me a liar" would be laughed off and called "feisty"? I have my doubts that this language would be interpreted with the same levity. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that it would make a significant difference, but I could be wrong. And yes, having tenure would probably give people greater license. We can be sure that Wikipedia is less professional than academia. (My experience is as a postdoc, for the time being anyway, and I have seen all manner of things.)


 * Sorry for mis-reading the dates -- I thought that Thucydides only got up to 412, but it seems that I counted it wrong. MPS1992 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That would have to be an extremely lenient academic environment for someone to get away with speaking to their colleagues in that manner. In a professional business environment, that sort of behavior would be a quick ticket to losing ones job. People don't generally tolerate that sort of behavior in professional environments, and given that Wikipedia's WP:CIVILITY policy calls for professionalism, I don't think Wikipedia should tolerate it either. Just look at VM proving my point above, indirectly calling me a "shithead." Do other editors get this sort of pass? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Some of them do, yes. How do we go about changing that? MPS1992 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thuc, have you noticed a pattern? After 1001 iterations, nobody really seems to take your complaints about the biases and unfairness of Wikipedia very seriously. And as to the standards of conduct in the inner sanctums of academia or business, I can only conclude that you've had no experience in either one. I can't tell you how many times some classicist has nearly come to fisticuffs with a microbiologist at the place I used to teach. The undergrads used to camp out in the hall outside faculty meetings just for the show. And business?? Please. It's worse than the Kremlin. Marek is a master of written English expression, but one thing you will never see him do is throw out ad hominems and personal disparagement when he has no substantive argument. In that respect, he's a model citizen and one you would do well to emulate. SPECIFICO talk  01:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Then it sounds like the place you used to teach had a very serious problem with professionalism. What you describe is definitely not normal for academia. As for business, I respectfully submit that you don't know what you're talking about. A place that tolerates the sort of behavior I quoted above would be a nightmare, and completely out of the ordinary. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

In discussions such as this, the first one to quit wins. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I quit. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Then I take it you're not going to explain your comment, "It has been years (OK, a very long time, certainly) since I have seen them be uncivil or unreasonable." Given the context, that statement was absurd. Anyone who reads the thread can see that VM was extremely uncivil.
 * From where I stand, it looks like you only wrote that VM is civil because you wanted to defend them, because there's no way to look through VM's comments in that thread and come out thinking VM was civil. It looks very much like you're playing favoritism with your admin powers.
 * It's easy to laugh this all off, but it's actually a big problem for the project. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not laughing any of this off, since I don't think any of it is funny. An IP troll of the right-wing variety successfully baits an administrator into issuing a hasty and unjustified topic ban to an editor who is doing pretty well in a contentious area, and you are surprised that the editor drops a couple of f-bombs? Do I really have to explain what the problem is here? I'm reminded of folks being called "racist" because they're pointing out racism: you're blaming the victim. How would you feel? Don't answer that--I'm really not that interested in your empathy; I think the objective spectator understands that Marek's comments, given the context, were not blockably uncivil or unreasonable. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I took a look into this kerfuffle because it's been popping up in multiple places on my watchlist. "Feisty" is a term I may use to describe his behavior in this case: "loud-mouthed" might be another. "Blockable"? Nope. FWIW, in the only interactions Marek and I have had, we have disagreed; and in those cases, he was on the "conservative" side of things. Vanamonde (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would "uncivil" be a word you'd use? I see a lot of rationalization here for pretty blatantly uncivil behavior. He was trolled, baited, unfairly blocked, etc. Does being given a hasty, unjustified topic ban (according to ones own opinion, of course - the topic ban may be justified, after all) justify swearing at an admin? Does it justify "stop fucking calling me a liar" or "[Joe] pulled that out of their ass"? What I'm getting from this is that if I'm ever sanctioned, the correct course of action is to go on an obscenity-laden tirade against the blocking admin, and hope that my admin buddies will show up to back me up. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a word I could use, though your continued harangue is just tirritating, not yet uncivil. Go edit some article. "Obscenity-laden tirade"--shit man, get real. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Listen boy ostrich
About the page just just erased like 90% of it's content, south korean music is not as popular are american music, due to that we don't have a wiki page for all the artist but we know them, we listen and follow them, they are notable, so if we put them on the general page it means they are notable to the public of K-pop, so you don't have the right to erase the content input here except if it's an error of date/information,... If you do that again, i'm sorry but i'll consider it as vandalism and we'll report you.
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia decides what gets put in its pages, not you. I have left you some advice on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Whoa, I was called "boy"? That's exciting... Thanks Kudpung et al. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I propose this page be moved to Ostrich. Merge isn't needed, since this page has superior content.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I only recently learned that some people would find it offensive in the extreme, to be called that. Not the ostrich thing, I mean. MPS1992 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Very expressive image when you enlarge it. The Drmies on the left (the male ostrich) is clearly the Boss Drmies. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Hmm I don't know how to enlarge anything anymore, but here at the house I'm not much in charge. Still, I think I threw a pretty decent taco party tonight. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Richard Steigmann-Gall‎ sock back
only one edit so far, so this is more a heads-up. Anmccaff (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But so obvious! Blocked and protected. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC).

Me
Hello there. Do you happen to remember who took this photo? I somehow doubt that it is PD. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, found it at The Mary Sue (2011). Commons image zapped as infringement. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey De728631 I'd love to see that. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Related, you should revdel this vandal edit to your userspace. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fucking Nazis can't play fair. Let's see how I show up in Breitbart next week. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There oughta be a userbox for the club. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Doctor, I can give you a link to that old image/news article. Would you like an email or can I post it here? De728631 (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given recent events, email please. De728631, thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

AllMusic
Regards. From what I've seen at WP:RSN, AllMusic is at least in part user-generated. Please advise. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked for that at RSN; I've always considered them to be reliable (didn't know about the user-generated thing) but when I cite them I always cite from the published versions. I just added two more sources (bare URLs, sorry) that confirm the information. Thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Pester re: ERRORS
Dear admin with knowledge of things medieval. Would you consider moseying over yonder (see, I can Southern) and looking at the current error re: Eucharistic adoration? Somewhat large mistake that I've fixed in the article, but the ERRORS crowd all seem to be offline. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, here's a thing--I don't really know how to fix those things, those templates within templates. I have not checked the sources but I have faith in you, although I should hasten to add that the term "worship" is not the right one--"venerate" or "adore" is better. Are there any admins around who know what to do? I see that is on call. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, adoration is better there. Since fixed. I switched it because it is used in the title and throughout the article, so sometimes it is easier for people to grasp the definition by using a less technical word first, but on second thought I switched back because of the complexities surrounding the term and practice.The actual sourcing issue were later in the article where it claimed that the practice of adoration (in the general sense) amongst the lay faithful originated today in 1226: actual source says that it was the first recorded instance of perpetual adoration was today in 1226. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/PXS1245
All accounts in this investigation appear to have already been confirmed and blocked, but for some reason the investigation isn't closed. What else is there to do? 58.234.101.22 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks as if this is on hold pending   completion  of CU. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But, how come needs to run a check when Drmies already checked and blocked? 175.135.172.27 (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In filing well over a hundred SP reports I have learned that the ways of SPI are sometimes mysterious. It may be that the CU results are thought to be possibly relevant to some other investigation. (But that's just a semi-educated guess of mine.) SP does not tell everything because some of what they might tell might make it easier for SPs to evade detection. (That's a semi-educated guess too.) Like an arrow shot into the air, I've learned that once I've made the filing there's nothing more I can do about it, so I might as well just go on to the next thing. Jeh (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know--I never close them or tag the socks, since I'm always having a hell of a time finding the right template, and I really don't know how to archive these things. I saw a bunch more accounts were dug up and blocked, so maybe that's why. Or we just need more people to help out as clerks and stuff...Anyway, IP, was there something that concerned you, something I need to look into? I'll be happy to, and if it's sensitive you can email me. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , you've been here for years, you edit geeky stuff, you've never been blocked, you seem to know a thing or two--why aren't you admin yet? :) Drmies (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. That is a high compliment; thank you sincerely.
 * Short answer: I just don't want to be. I don't have time for the technical editing I'd like to do (my edit rate is pretty low compared to most admins), let alone taking on any part of admin'ing. And it's a "people and rules" job, which isn't really what I want to do for fun.
 * I do like helping out; but I think I'm better off sticking to what I've been doing. Thanks again, though. Jeh (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But, hmmm... you know, it would so royally piss off certain people that it might be worth it! (big evil grin)
 * Naw, those are unworthy thoughts for an admin. See, there - I've disqualified myself. Jeh (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do it. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim
Obvious sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim continues with disruptive editing in three articles (see: ) by forcing POV in officially unsolved cases. His disruptive activism lasts over eight years, not just past few days, so I suggest locking of articles. --5.112.29.67 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I know. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , did I see you protected a few of these indefinitely? I am totally in favor of that--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

New HailesG's sockpuppet
I'm suspecting this ip (92.104.0.220) to be HailesG's sockpuppet. As shown through the same behaviors, interests and location (Switzerland). Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK--but you can add that at Sockpuppet investigations/HailesG. I have another question, though: if HailesG was blocked for copyvios, are their socks committing copyvios? What are the problems with the sock edits? If they're no longer committing copyvios, then we should consider talking to them about this socking stuff. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about committing copyvios. The problem of his socks is more about (pov pushing, removing tags, changing reliable sources with unreliable sources, removing the content he don't like, vandalism, restoring controversial content and many other problems). -Aṭlas (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (talk page watcher) Atlas, I noticed this is the second user talk page you've posted this request on (at least that I'm watching) but you haven't updated the SPI with your evidence. Could you please do that? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice in the first that Bbb23 is on break. This is why I put it in here (and the two admins have an history with the sockpuppeteer) -Aṭlas (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Congressional baseball shooting‎ and Hallyyearwood
Hey, Doc, can you take a look at 's edits to 2017 Congressional baseball shooting‎? I feel like they're pretty unambiguously a negative to the article, and the edit summaries and use of the minor edit flag are suspiciously misleading. Yet I'm finding myself unable to suspend AGF and consider it vandalism, which leaves me at 3RR without an applicable exception, but without enough good faith to actually try and discuss on the talk page. What do you think, am I being too suspicious/not suspicious enough? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Our Quality Control department says no. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec):I also undid a few of their edits, but I considered them to be in good faith - just poor judgment and lack of understanding of WP policy. However their contributions are not helping the article and have mostly been reverted. Don't know what we can do about a case like that. Disclaimer: I am often not suspicious when I should be. Naive, I guess. --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If it weren't for the edit summaries (e.g. this edit has absolutely nothing to do with its edit summary of "Typo"), I'd be right there with you. But the apparent deception in the edit summaries is ringing some alarm bells in my mind (but not all). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Gillian Keegan
Hi Drmies. I hope you're doing well. I haven't posted here in a bit, but I'm hoping that either you or one of your many talk page watchers (who also happen to be admins, etc.) can provide feedback at Talk:Gillian Keegan. Bascially, we have a standing British MP (and her spouse) trying to change the infobox picture of the article written about her. This was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive257, but that got archived without not much being resolved. FWIW, I don't have a preference as to which photo looks better; my main concern has to do with the licensing of each photo. Of course, there is also the question as to whether this person is really who they claim to be and all the related COI stuff, but not sure we can force them to verify their account if they choose not to do so. I am also aware that if this person is really who they claim to be that anything posted about them or in their name on Wikipedia might possibly have an impact in the real world. Anyway, any suggestion you or others may have would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Marchjuly--thanks, I'm fine. Just had some chili and since it's Friday I put extra cheese on it. I hope you are well too. I'm afraid I can't help you here. I don't know as much about licensing as others do. As for the username, yeah, that's a concern--I blocked, and the template points to WP:REALNAME and a way to undo that block, if they want that name. I hope someone else will look at the picture for you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. FWIW, I did advise him/her of WP:REALNAME back in July, but he/she never responded. As for the image licensing, that's something which will eventually be sorted out. The files were uploaded to Commons, so the uploader can sort the licensing out there if he/she wishes to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The licensing appears to have been resolved per Talk:Gillian Keegan. Now the question is how much (if any) should Wikipedia give to the personal preference of the subject of the article (assuming of course is the subject of the article). Do you think a little WP:BLPKIND is warranted here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Because life is better with kitties, on Wikipedia as with the world. (Unless you're allergic to them, in which case... uh, whoops, sorry!)

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * Thanks. I like cats. Sorry you got caught up in this. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you please add this 58.87.87.142  to Sockpuppet investigations/Letscasks and do a range block. There's no doubt whatsoever it's the same one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can't do range blocks, sorry--and I'm sure this is another throwaway proxy or something., can you make hay of this? Drmies (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One wonders where my famous antisemitic slant is, though. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too. It would be amazing if I were antisemitic. Here's another from the same troll: 111.155.124.69. I think it's a proxy, but it needs range blocking as soon as, , or are available. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding these addresses:


 * 1) 58.87.87.142 may be a proxy, extended the block to a month - there are no other bad edits from that allocation in a month and it does not appear to be a dynamic ip provider.
 * 2) 111.155.124.69 may be a proxy, I see the block was already extended. There are no other bad edits from that allocation in a month and it does not appear to be a dynamic ip provider.
 * With only single IP's in use within the allocations from these asian-pacific allocated addresses, range blocking is not useful in this case at this time, should more edits with similar addresses appear feel free to ping me and it can be re-examined. — xaosflux  Talk 11:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr. x thank you so much for looking into this. If I were the WMF I'd put you on payroll. Ah if Jimbo would browse around, wearing his admin glasses, on our various talk pages, don't you think we'd get a bigger X-mas check? Drmies (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

'Welcome'
Thanks for the welcome, but you obviously have not realised that I am not a new user, having created and edited pages some years ago. Thanks, nonetheless. CoombeMonthlyEd (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The "welcome" notice automatically accompanies a deletion notification for users who don't have a talk page yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Goldenbender2, will you please keep your "real" user name in your signature? I was confused there. What is "CoombeMonthlyEd"? Drmies (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

As am I, have no idea what you're on about or why my username keeps coming up wrong when I enter four ~'s. And thanks for clarifying, although find that a very strange policy. goldenbender2 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks for that on the first - now changed. Don't recall doing that. I wasn't referring to a 'signature' as a strange policy - rather the 'welcome' message that all and sundry receive even when they aren't new. GoldenBender2 (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You set this somewhere in your preferences. Click on "preferences" (on the top somewhere) and then on the "user profile" tab you'll find a "signature" section. This isn't really a policy, more a guideline, and there is nothing strange about it: it would make sense, wouldn't it, that one signs one's own name, not some other name. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Thanks. That welcome thing is just automated, just like the notification was automated. The idea is that "welcome" is a better opening than "someone wants your article gone". Drmies (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking on Cardi B
Hi Drmies. You seem to have some experience in determining what is and is not overlinking. If you get time, would you be able to go through Cardi B? I've already tried, but not sure how obvious other terms would be. Thanks.  Ss 112  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Ss112--here's a little something for ya. So, countries, and by extension "peoples", are generally overlinked. "Borough" too--sure not everyone knows what a borough is, but "Bronx" was already linked and that tell you what it is--a borough. Such editorial decisions also involve readability: too many blue links distract the reader. Editors may differ on this, of course--I left "stripper", but someone may want to cut that; I removed "recording artist", but I'm sure some would want that back in. Does that help? Happy editing, and thanks for pruning--in my opinion, good pruning is good editing and does a service to the reader. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

99.104.66.69
user:99.104.66.69 is abusing her talkpage now. CLCStudent (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Tangl for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Tangl is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Michael Tangl until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.


 * The {{ill|Neues Archiv|de]] mentioned there, is it this de:Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, Gerda Arendt; I had seen the red link but hadn't followed it yet. I had to think for a second since I haven't seen it with this full name; "Deutsches Archiv" is the "new" name. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Song cycles
... is was what happened when I couldn't decide which work of Killmayer to make an article, when he died ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Our Lady of Arantzazu
Thanks for protecting the article. I hope you are not superstitious. :)   JimRenge (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Macro The Islander
For the record, I think the sudden appearance of Macro The Islander is strange, but want to clearly state for the record that I am not this person and a check of IP addresses will prove as much. My constructive engagement with you on the Microman page is exactly what it is… Glib and constructive engagement. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Bain & Company
Hi Drmies. I was wondering if you had time to review my COI request here on a large management consultancy. I've been asking around, but it's not really a subject many are interested in spending time on. CorporateM (Talk) 17:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Tough one, Corp--I'd love to help you out but it won't be today; much of my WP allotment this morning was wasted on a troll (see section above). It looks clean, but you knew that already... Drmies (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Profanity and Escalation of a Discussion for No Reason
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I am sorry, but in my opinion the dust settled on some of the edit silliness we have been dealing with. But then you—out of nowhere—drop the “F-bomb” on a talk page after things have calmed down? Why? Regardless, I have reported your behavior. I think the accusations of “vandalism” are silly, but I think your your use of violent language waaaay after the dust settled is just unwarranted and creates more problems. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Profanity_and_Conflict_Escalation| The incident report is here. I wish I did not have to do this.] --SpyMagician (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I wanted to address your tone to this edit here where you say in your comment “Rv sour grapes. thank you SpyMagician.” Look, I have no idea what that even means. That I am reacting with “sour grapes” towards your actions? I disagree with you and explained my rationale in talk discussions that you never responded to. Then you silently revert, leave that comment and… What is this? You complained to me about trolls, but honestly, when you have time to reflect a bit am I really in an “edit war” with you? Do you believe I am truly re-adding content in bad faith? Come on already. Be cool. --SpyMagician (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Dude, I wasn't talking to you. And that "thank you" was for an earlier edit you made, which was positive. But after all that you then go and reinstate all that fan trivia again, so yeah, that's not "settling" anything. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The other user is now blocked, for all the right reasons. I don't think you're adding content in bad faith, and I am not assigning that troll's motives to you: I think you don't know exactly what this encyclopedia is for. And I'd throw WP:RS and WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOT at you, but I'm kind of not so interested right now. I reverted you just now because your argument is lousy; that's all. You can have your display page with the pictures and the lists of toys; I'll find some other articles that need cleaning up. Oh, yeah--you didn't have to report any of this. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow! Nice tone and anger. If I expressed 1/2 of my opinion with the viscousness and passive aggression you are expressing, I would be banned. But honestly, you can’t complain to me about trolls harassing you when it seems to me a lot of your Wikipedia interactions are ultimately negative, combative and pretty much begging for conflict. I have no personal conflict with you. I disagree with you. Also, “You can have your display page with the pictures and the lists of toys…” look, are you saying a well structured and well cited page with images that illustrate content are against Wiki policy? These two articles are inherently about toys so why are you being condescending? Is that your real motivation in slashing edits apart? Are “toys” that are deeply connected to the history of “ action figures” not important or “encyclopedic?” Sorry, but I have no desire to add tension to your life or experience but it seems to me your actions fall in line squarely against assuming good faith and in many ways you are bringing these “trolls” out of the wood work like bees to honey with your tone and demeanor. If this all stresses you why do it? --SpyMagician (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I maybe don't like edit wars that you guys are engaged into, but here is my 2 cents: What Drmies is trying to tell you that the links used in Microman and Micronauts should be external links, not references. Wikipedia relies on such sources as BBC, CNN, New York Times to name a few. Unfortunately in our case non of those news outlets report on toys. :( However, Anime News Network and Kotaku (both are reliable), do, but not a lot. :)--Biografer (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * SpyMagician, this is the last time I want to talk to you, so listen up. They're not "trolls" in square quotes: they're trolls. I didn't bring them out--they were there. This asshole had nothing to do with your toy article (and yes, spending 60k on listing your toys is unencyclopedic, and I'll refrain from saying what I really think). This is likely the same guy who came by yesterday or the day before and nominated an article I was working on for deletion, and possibly the same person who used a dozen accounts to edit war on Armenian topics. So you can go ahead and blame me, but that only makes you look like an asshole. And if you think I shouldn't be using words like that, I don't give a crap. Note also that I have never, never, assumed bad faith about you, but I repeat that you do not seem to know what an encyclopedia is. I don't even think these patronizing comments were intended in any mean-spirited way: I just think that you are completely oblivious to the situation. Please don't respond; donate $5 to a good cause of your choosing. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Spirit of the Confederacy
Alex ShihTalk 00:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Selena Gomez
Hey Drimes,

You're one of my first wiki frienimies. What do you think of the Selena_Gomezhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Gomez page? I think it's one GIANT puff piece. I mean, she's a celeb I get it, but don't you think some pruning needs to be done? She hasn't influenced generations about great ideas. She's been on Barney, Disney, and sings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settherecord (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, at least she's a real person, not a toy collection. I completely agree with you, but I'm staying well away from that: today's Wikipedia editor loves to include every detail they can find verified on the Internets, which means that yeah, someone is on TV and next thing you know there's 122k. John Coltrane doesn't have half of that, but of course he wasn't as cute. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can whistle the first bar of Ascension. The rest, not so much. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good! I saw a video of a young woman singing...I can't remember, maybe A Love Supreme. All of it. Very impressive. Even more impressive, I have a CD of Coltrane playing it... Drmies (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't having a copy of A Love Supreme a minimum requirement for being allowed to edit Wikipedia? It should be (and I need to play it now!) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm caught in a Pretzel Logic loop... DYK that I spent a lot of time on Love Devotion Surrender in 2009, with some help of ? Drmies (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I haven't heard Love Devotion Surrender in years. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Taking it away for the Admin noticeboard
Thank for letting me know I was wrong on my edit, will learn from it and move on. IP user does have a problem with tone, but I'm ok with them reverting me and discussing it. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:NZ Footballs Conscience, I appreciate it--yeah, I wish they weren't so...well, whatever kind of word you want to use for it. You're right but there's not much I can do about it. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Um...
Doncha think two months is a little heavy for an article with no protection history, in what at least appears to be largely a fairly legitimate content dispute, where one editor seems to be at least attempting a good faith effort at discussion and the other... probably should have taken the time to at least cast a symbolic olive branch on the talk page? G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   12:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The disruption goes back a while-- might disagree with you. So no, I don't think it's too long, esp. since the only branch I saw was on AN, and it wasn't olive. But you are welcome to ask for it to be shortened at RFPP... Drmies (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh. Let's see if they take good advice and post requested edits on the talk page. Maybe if they do I can convince you otherwise.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   15:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Stephanie Miller
Why are cutting so much content from the Stephanie Miller page? I have put many, many hours into these pages as have others and you are cutting out major pieces of content. Could you please explain why? Dpurcyhoff (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Please look more closely at the article as it was originally written before you took it upon yourself to cut extensive amounts of content, some of which has existed for many years. The article was originally written by others many years ago. It was extremely out of date. Over the past several months I have worked hard to update and provide a very well documented history of the show, how it has evolved, and details about the current program. I have gone to great pains to provide sources for everything I've added. Many of these are articles from various news sources. In some cases I have linked directly to audio pieces directly from the show that back-up the information provided. There were only 3 or 4 links to Twitter accounts, to provide background information on the show staff. It comes directly from them. To me, what has been written is highly comprehensive and encyclopedic in nature, very factually based, and serves as excellent background for anyone interested in the Stephanie Miller Show. \ Dpurcyhoff (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC) That's your opinion - but it is your opinion. I would like you to point me to the Wikipedia guidelines that state that the type of content that was on the page was trivial.Dpurcyhoff (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Also, while I realize the importance of using secondary sources, if I'm trying to back up something that is in an article, I do not see the issue with pointing out that something in the article is proven by something that was stated on the show. Dpurcyhoff (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC) I still would like you point me to the guidelines in Wikipedia what is and is not trivial. Also, if you're going to make changes in an article, and remove citations that are also cited later, it would be good of you to fix that.Dpurcyhoff (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Well frankly, the content I wrote was editorial judgement. I don't quite see what gives you the right to make such massive content changes because of your "editorial judgement". As a courtesy, it would have been nice of you to get in touch with me first to express your concerns about the article, rather then just taking content that I spent many hours creating and deleting it. Dpurcyhoff (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC) All I was trying to do was update an out of date article and keep it current with a lot of citations, to make it a useful resource. If there were issues with primary sources, I would have appreciated you reaching out to discuss it. Instead you went ahead and deleted months of work. However, you'll be glad to know, I will not be making any more changes in the article because clearly anything I write can be completely changed at someone else's discretion and I'm sure it will be.Dpurcyhoff (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC) I am familiar with the guidelines, and I can assure you is not me, not anyone I know, and I'm sure it's not anyone who has anything to do with the show, just someone posing as such. You can take a look at my reply to the comment they made.Dpurcyhoff (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, not an enumeration of factoids and trivial bits mostly sourced to the show itself or the host's Twitter feed. Content needs to be written properly, in a properly encyclopedic style, with strong secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be so to you, but to me it reads like an overly detailed account of trivial facts, with the only thing missing being a sound file of some fart jokes. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My opinion is based on a few years here writing a few articles. You can verify something in an article by way of a primary source, but you cannot prove that it should be in there in the first place with a primary source. In other words, you might as well put in every single factoid ever from the show based on primary sources. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:V. WP:TRIVIA. Also, editorial judgment. Citations that are cited elsewhere will be restored by a bot. Sorry, I understand how you feel, but by the same token--the article now is more an article and less an enumeration. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not how the grammar of "editorial judgment" works. Your version of the article had 75k of non-neutral and improperly verified material that qualified as fan material. So... Drmies (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Since you are seem fairly new to Wikipedia, it's possible that you are not familiar with all of it's various policies and guidelines. So, I really hope that the just created account apparently just to comment on your user talk page in User talk:Dpurcyhoff is really not you for all the reasons explained in WP:SOCK. I also hope it's not someone you've been in contact with for all of the reasons explained in WP:MEAT. Just for reference, individuals using multiple accounts in inappropriate ways is something that the Wikipedia community does not take likely and is something which often leads to blocks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call WP:DUCK -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 03:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DUCK that Filghtime has linked to above. Newly created ccounts which show up out of the blue to make their first edit one about a content dispute being discussed on a relatively obscure user talk page are going to be viewed suspiciously by many experienced editors simply because it does give the impression that there is some connection between the accounts. Most new accounts such as this have no idea about WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:OWN or any other policies/guidelines relevant to this type of thing and simply go straight to editing articles of subject they are connected with. This new account for some reason picked your user talk page, out of all those editors who had recently edited the article, to make their Wikipedia debut and you're not even the editor or editors who removed the content in question. So, I hope you can understand how at least on the surface it seems a bit suspicious. If, however, there is no connection as you say, then there's nothing to worry about. As for the other account, no need to worry about it if it's not you. Also, unless you can provide proof that the account is not a producer of the show, Wikipedia will assume they are until as long as they continue to claim to be one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have put a comment on the Stephanie Miller bio talk page. I would ask that any extensive changes in that page be discussed there. Similarly I am moving this discussion to the Stephanie Miller Show talk page.Dpurcyhoff (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Drmies and Drmies' talk page watchers: Someone might also want to take a look a Stephanie Miller because it seems a bit promotional in some parts and includes citations such as Stephanie Miller and Stephanie Miller to verify she "often goes on bike trips while on vacations". Lots of similar trivia-type content which is basically WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I've done a bit of minor cleanup, but probably much more is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Cu blocked user appeal
I don't think you likely got this ping from one of the marketing firm users you CU blocked about a week ago. Just letting you know they posted it. Hope all is well with you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tony. Did you see what my pings unleashed? That editor is never going to come back in... Drmies (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say, one of the things that annoy me most in modern commercial life is people who won't stop marketing at me... "I have had the pleasure of working with other Wikipedians like X and Y" when speaking of co-workers engaged in the same paid promotional work... Grrrr! (Oh, and abusing religion for marketing purposes...!) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Coworkers? I think he's talking about his Alter egos. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, he is at least being honest about there being two people by those names employed at the same company. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Finding a stable revision
Hello Drmies. I'd like to thank you for helping me look over my reversions on some lists of adventure films, but I also came to ask for advice as this experience appears to show I am struggling with finding a stable revision to revert to. Do you have any tips for how I can improve on locating such revisions in the future, providing any diffs if necessary? I am aware that list articles can be very difficult to maintain once they get to a certain size, but I'm also hoping for advice that can apply to any article, not just list articles. Thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * jd22292, I checked because of the report; I did not check any of the others. I agree that it can be very hard to find a stable version if it is mostly IPs without edit summaries and I can't really tell you what to do. But in the case that I looked at, I could not find any difference in the version you reverted to, so I still can't help but wonder what the point was: the version you reverted to likewise had unverified entries, and in the diffs I looked at, they seemed to be legitimately adding action films. Now I think that such entries ought to be verified, but with lists that long it just becomes impossible to police, and I have given up trying to police those kinds of articles for those kinds of things. That's not the advice you were looking for, I'm sure, but it's all I got, and it's especially apt for list articles that really are done already by way of categories: they are, typically, unwieldy... Drmies (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment
Do what you want, but this seems to be a fundamental test of whether that guidance is relevant. If the community decides it ain't then it ain't. But shutting down discussion on the matter doesn't seem to help that any, because the point has been raised in more places today than AN. It doesn't seem like this guidance has been tested in real life in a while, and I don't see how any venue is more central than AN. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   02:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, it seemed to me that the closure reflected the discussion. But more to the point, this was a thread, an interminable thread, about an editor--not the best place to have the general discussion. You are welcome to start or restart the discussion on the merits of this or that, and AN is a good place (though VPP might work as well), but don't you think HT and everyone else deserves some closure? Drmies (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do. But the issue of whether or not this policy applies in this situation is a central issue to the closure, and one that should be decided by the community as precedent and not by precedent when this pretty clearly seems to be a precedent setting situation.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   02:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the closure is contrary to pretty much the entire discussion.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   02:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

your revert
Did you have any trouble checking out the source I had provided in my addition? --Webverbesserer (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there was no need for that: it was not a secondary source. Drmies (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Maram Susli
Many journalists, and media personalities site their note worthy works/ media aperences, and referencing the actual interview from the primary source, is a RS.

I notice you only left the opinion piece references attacking her, which leads me to believe you have a political bias against her. Wikipedian FW (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you're wrong on all counts. You're a new Wikipedian, and that's OK, but instead of edit warring you should be learning. The Vice source may be helpful--but not to verify "she was mentioned in Vice" since that's BS and unencyclopedic writing. Use the source to verify something about her. This is obviously not secondary (it's linkspamming disguised as a reference), and very few people accept RT as a reliable source, esp. when it comes to Syria. If it weren't for the plethora of these links it wouldn't be so problematic, but it's pretty obvious that what we have here is an attempt to include everything one can find in hopes of making someone notable. Finally, you can keep calling this an opinion piece, but you are wrong, and thus your whole "bias" accusation is a non sequitur and rather ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Unauthorized changes to block notices by User:73.204.4.99
Hi there Drmies. Because you warned them before, I'd like to draw your attention to an unauthorized change to a block notice I issued to User:92.0.155.185 here carried out by the above anonymous editor. They didn't even have the courtesy of informing me or discussing it with me. I've reverted it as it was further changed by a bot into something else. I was thinking of blocking the user for their behaviour, but instead I issued them with an "only warning" message. I'd be grateful for your comments and advice as to whether what they did was acceptable or not, or whether the changes they made should actually stand. Thank you. DDStretch   (talk)  11:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, interesting, isn't it. I'll get back to you later today, after coffee, though I'm not sure if I'll have anything more to say than "smh"... Drmies (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't know what to think. I am sure I've seen this user before; I have the feeling they have another IP, a very stable one they've been using for years: a few weeks ago I thanked an IP for making such reports, and then found I had done so the year before already. I am not sure if this is the same one, but they smell the same--mostly useful reports, but a complete lack of communication. Possibly a registered account as well. But I was irritated by the phony statements, and I'm sure you saw that I declined a few reports because of that. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ok! Thanks for the reply. I think I did the right thing as mucking around with block notices when you are not the one blocked nor an administrator, and compounding that with a lack of informative notices to the blocking admin seems to smack of bad practice - especially when it is an IP address the nature of which we don't know. Thanks again.  DDStretch    (talk)  12:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Linking bootleg YouTube videos on talk pages covered by "fair use" as long as it's not an article?
Hey, I've taken a pretty hard line on the whole "WP:ELNEVER applies to the whole project and not just the article space -- that's why it says NEVER" thing ever since you removed a link I posted to a five-second Dark Knight clip at the end of an ANI thread where you and a bunch of other folks were struggling to figure out what some NOTHERE troll's game had been (I think it was inserting mild profanity into thousands of low-vis articles over the course of several years, or something), and I thought it would be funny if I linked Michael Caine saying "Some men just want to watch the world burn". (Sorry, I don't remember when it was, and I don't think you'd care enough that it would make it worth my while figuring out.)

I've removed several of such links and explained the policy to the users in question each time (most recently here), and never once been challenged. Until today -- can you make this out?

I'm not asking you to weigh in on the content dispute, which I've tired of and frankly would rather just be writing articles than arguing with that user. I'm just having a bit of an existential crisis over whether my interpretation of WP:EL was wrong. (It might be my interpretation of AGF that's wrong, given the context that I won't explain because I really don't think it's worth my time, let alone yours, but that's really beside the point.)

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I removed the link. I was chastised here by some admin colleague for a link on this very talk page; can't remember who it was but if you find them you can send them over to that article talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me (I actually got rightfully called out yesterday for having song lyrics on my user page by Yunshui), but see also WP:COPYLINK, a subset of the copyright policy, which states without qualification that if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Enterprise Cybersecurity
Hi DrMies - thanks for the feedback on the Enterprise Cybersecurity article. I was modeling it on the article for "The Mythical Man-Month" which included a section on "Ideas presented" but agree that the content was getting excessive. Definitely tricky to maintain the right balance between providing descriptive detail versus promoting. So, I went ahead and tightened things up based on your adjustments last night. If this looks okay with you, then I'm going to declare it "good enough" and stop messing with it. If not, please put some notes on the talk page so we can work out what would be a good balance. Thanks again! Chriskwil (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You included WorldCat listings--that's...well, that's not encyclopedic. Sorry, but I just went in and removed those syllabi. What you need is secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the article for notability and conflict of interest. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The WorldCat reference was removed in the previous edit and did not remain in this latest version. The syllabus references were intended to establish notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability (books) regarding "Academic and technical books." Specifically, I was considering reason #4 which reads "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country."  is there another type of source that you are looking for to provide this reference? Chriskwil (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Drmies, if you think use as a textbook in several universities satisfies notability, please remove the template I added. Chriskwil, if you're an author of the book, please take note of our guidelines at WP:COI, as I've recommended at your talk page. It would be best if you didn't continue editing the article. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I am having a hard time accepting a PDF of a college syllabus as evidence--this is not the kind of evidence we should accept here, since it's not published in the ordinary sense of the word. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Which leaves the interesting question: if use as a textbook can establish notability, where else would the information come from, other than these pdfs? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to JSTOR? http://www.jstor.org/stable/4351319, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264047 : these articles list a few of them. One can also look in the specialized education journals, including College English. That won't matter for this case, since our editor is caught up in the here and now of this particular book, but I prefer the long view... Drmies (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good answer; thanks. I think I did have access at one point, but not now. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * People sometimes forget the obvious. :) That includes me and my colleagues. I wrote an article on ... some 19th century book I reckon and found some really interesting book lists in those kinds of journals, and was thus able to argue for notability. Let me look for it, hold on. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone - been busy for the past couple of days but really appreciate the exchange. Yes, I am an author of the book, and agree that COI is an issue here, so I am going to leave the article as it is and not make any more changes, as per your guidance above.  Forgive me for being a newbie, but I read the COI guidelines and was unclear on exactly what citation I need to add or where.  If one of you wants to add an appropriate citation, you have my consent and concurrence, or I guess I can try to do it based on my understanding of the guidelines.  As for the question of references to establish notability, the only materials I am aware of so far are the course syllabi and the conversations we have had with professors teaching our book.  If Internet course syllabi are not adequate, we may want to look at the notability guidelines and consider adjusting them to be more clear on what is desired.  I looked at a couple of other book pages and noticed that the treatment here is a little inconsistent, but that's to be expected.  As for this book, it has also been cited as a reference in government standards, other books, published theses, and other publications - we included a couple of cross-references to them in early versions of the article, but those references can be easily found using Internet searches.  The book has only been out for two years now, and attention to it has picked up considerably in the past year, I guess for reasons that are kind of obvious.  With all that said, I'm going to stand down on this article, and get to work trying to add value elsewhere in Wikipedia.  Really appreciate the attention, time, help, and guidance! Chriskwil (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Chriskwil, the name of the game is book reviews. I doubt you'll find the title mentioned or discussed in your branch's equivalent of College English, but trade or academic journals may have reviewed it. Go look for those--they will build your case. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Eyes and help needed at Jane Austen in popular culture
Over the past three months, 80,000 bytes (not an exaggeration) of dense verbose text were added to this article by a single editor, so that it went from this to this. I don't know what to do about this nearly unreadable PhD thesis of an article now, and I also don't know where to bring the problem up except ... here. Please, kind Doctor (and talkpage watchers), help Wikipedia readers out somehow. Many thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried; when I got to "Another issue around the Austen films is their relation to the question of English/British national identity" I gave up. Not sure if the editor knows the difference between English and British, as the following paragraph seemed to confuse the two. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of issues around--it's worse than based off of. At least there's no going forward in that article. But we must! I skimmed it in 20 seconds (*takes a bow*) and I think there's some really interesting issues there which probably appeal to folks in my field more than you two, who are of course die-hard statisticians and engineers, more interested in the sex lives of Nazis and bridges than in the problem of how to properly translate a text mediated by a narrator to a medium where "narrator" frequently carries an all-too artificial set of connotations. (BTW I note that the editor is interested in the Voynich manuscript, which was also all over Facebook a while ago, but I follow only Shaun King these days--where do we stand?) Has this been discussed with ? I have noticed, browsing around, that A.S. Brown is fond of adding material, which is great, but it will have to be done in acceptable prose, acceptable for the lay reader that is. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but when I read Mary Favret's "film is literally just moving pictures" it reminds me of De Selby. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm I can live with that. What bothers me a bit more is that that Routledge book seems to be a compilation of criticism or so, and I really think the editor should cite the original essays. I wanted to read this one. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nick Pelling. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "frequent women in windows imaginary". I once saw Ivor Cutler in performance- his poem about a window trying to escape a room through a locked door literally boggled my mind. So… he's come back from the dead then? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * N.B. Many Flies Have Feathers. Wow, that Austen article is now the elephant in the room, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Final Warning
Why? I am the only one posting the correct information. Please read the links that I have sourced!
 * Irrelevant--you're edit warring. Make your case on the talk page please. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh my!
I tried it...and guess what? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 02:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah the good old days of ANI 2.0. I wish I could find my old stuff as good as you can! How are things, Atsme? I got the kids to clean up their rooms, so I'm feeling pretty good today! Drmies (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, you know what you're talking about. We got a little higher than 1%, and one room looks great. The other... Drmies (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

99 on vacation
Hi Dr; I recently requested a block on, to no avail. This is an account whose sole purpose for several years has been to promote his endeavors, and to make personal accusations against anyone reverting his edits. A block is long overdue, but at the least I'm hoping to just get more eyes on this. Thank you from Maine, 70.16.203.218 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we still are ANI 2.0 here... Take it easy, and Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Simmering Pot
Could you take a look at the situation at Maria Sharapova's talk page. I've done everything I can think of to smooth out the situation with the two editors, even going on to say I would bring it to an administrators attention if I saw one more troll-like taunting. I think Bo99's last "thus the general population is encouraged to contribute, because they had added the fact in the first place" line is just going to piss off 4TheWynne more and either force him to bite his lip or respond negatively. I know I wasn't happy with it after my last post. I'll let you read their entire conversation. While I saw errors on both sides, and fixed what I could, I'm very unhappy with continued jabs of Bo99 towards 4TheWynne and don't want the situation to get worse. I'm done trying to help on that issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Holy moly, that was nasty. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely hate bringing these things to others attention as it sometimes makes things worse... like AN/I's do. I thought you'd just put it on talk pages but I understand why it was done the way you did it. Thanks and crossing fingers we're all one big happy family again (just like the rest of the wikipedia community always is). Have a good one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh...Not sure it worked as I look at the talk page. I guess that's the reason you usually put the stuff on an editors talk page. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

MD11
Hello Drmies. I was looking at the logs for this sock that you just blocked and noticed that it is shown as "created automatically". I don't see any contributions to other wikis but it obviously was initially created somewhere else, so I'm thinking it may be wise to globally lock it - and on that note, perhaps any other socks of this one as well. Home Lander (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do that or what that means--you'll have to get someone smarter than me. These days I ping for difficult questions, and as it turns out they're a steward as well. But are these socks screwing around on other wikis? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey I've globally locked that account and a few other socks. Special:CentralAuth/MD11 shows that the account was made on azwiki, but has only edited on enwiki. However, there were other accounts using the same IP, and some of those accounts had vandalized dewiki as well. If any more of them pop up, you can report them to the stewards at SRG. Thanks! And glad to be of service, Drmies :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help Ajraddatz. Regarding the account creation, Drmies, when I've been watching the user creation log, I saw accounts showing up that were listed as being created automatically. I can't remember where - but somewhere - I found the technical description of what was going on. I can't find where it was - but I did find a partial description at Asturian Wikipedia where it describes most accounts there as being global, created automatically (in other words, from other wikis). For fun, I browsed over there just now so it would generate my account there, and it spawned the log entry "La cuenta Home Lander (Alderique | contribuciones) creóse automáticamente" - roughly translates to "The Home Lander account (Alderique | contributions) was automatically created", according to Google. Home Lander (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Better start writing some articles in Asturian, Home Lander! Drmies (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, now it's actually your duty to pay tribute to me. Home Lander (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wut. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Drmies and Ajraddatz, I think I found another one. See the second account at Sockpuppet investigations/Modern Fire. Looks like a sneakier sock to me. Home Lander (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * looks like a sock to me. Can you confirm that the numbers they are adding are incorrect? If the numbers are correct, and they're just evading the block here because of other reasons, then I'll leave their (new) accounts elsewhere as this one doesn't seem to be causing other disruption. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well Ajraddatz the source in this edit doesn't appear to have anything to do with what they were adding. Aircraft research isn't exactly a specialty of mine, but I can't find confirmation of anything they wrote there. Home Lander (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking into it myself, I can't find anything confirming the info they are adding. They also were removing well-referenced information on other wikis using that account. I've now locked that one as well, and some more socks I found on the IP. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Ajraddatz, but guess what. We now have yet another one! . Mass-reverting the edits and I'll report at AIV for immediate localized block. Home Lander (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And another - . Home Lander (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to RadiX for globally locking the above accounts. I've tagged them as locked and included them into the SPI case (yes, it's still open). I'm figuring by the time a CU can be run, there'll probably be other accounts. Home Lander (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

House of Slaves
Hi Drmies. Thanks for picking up on this. The editor has reintroduced the text again, with a very peculiar edit summary. I guess this is a reincarnation/ sock of a banned editor. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Same editor here and here. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Fayette county public schools
Hello, Regarding your recent edit on fayette county public schools: 1. WP:AGF 2. It was requested by an employee of fayette county public schools that there should be links so people can visit the OFFICIAL webistes easier. 3. Having links is generally helpful Ral 33 00:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of good faith, but that doesn't apply here. An employee of that school system may ask what they like, but we are not a directory, simple as that. You can put the URL for the school system in the External links section, and that school system would be foolish if they didn't have the links on their website. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . There appears to be something wrong with your signature. Did you customize it in some way? Many editors customize their signatures, but (as previously pointed out by  in User talk:John from Idegon) your signature needs to include a link to your userpage or user talk page per WP:SIGLINK. Check your preferences to see whether you mistakenly checked the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box. If not, then you may need to ask for help in fixing your signature so that it complies with relevant guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Understandable have a nice day.Ral 33 13:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral 33 (talk • contribs)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, and I know I deserve this, but I'm not in the mood for playing today. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Indef'ed by Bishonen. DMacks (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Albin Schmitt. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Albin Schmitt (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 😂😂😂😂😂 I guess I should be happy it's only level 1. 😂😂😂😂😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 12:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll stop making "disruptive edits" i guess...
That was actually really impressive, how did you notify me so quickly? well done claps Ojax364 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Ojax364
 * Thanks--and I did that left-handed, while doing dishes and helping with math homework. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

''Courier is kind of cool-looking in italic. Who knew?'' Softlavender (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Surendra Pal
Hi Drimes, before start writting, I just want to thank you and wiki team as well. actually yeah, yesterday i was trying to learn how to conrtibute in wikipedia. since so many things i did worng but when i saw your massage of not to make unconstructive changes over the wiki pages. I stoped myseld and learn in details in youtube about to.. By profession I am Librarian in India, since my duety is to presearve the knowledge for future generation as wiki is in the same track as worldwide. so I assure you that i will not repeat the same mistake again. Just now I was trying to donate some amount to wiki but i got failed massage in twice a time. I tried in some other ways also but i could not be. The massage is like this Your transaction could not be accepted.

Please try again, try one of our other ways to give, or contact us at problemsdonating@wikimedia.org

Thank you for your support!

Error reference: 5966185581 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurendraPal (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Reactions to...
Should this just be nipped in the bud once and for all already? I'm tired of seeing these repeat AfDs and would really like to see a community consensus on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ...This must be the place for Reactions to Reactions to.... ;) &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  13:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes please? I'm tired of this stuff too, but maybe life imitates art: the back page of the national section in my paper, content supplied by USA Today, had a list of "reactions" by C&W artists... Drmies (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a suggestion at the AfD page on possible options as I know the community has tried to come up with a solution but none have been found. We need something concrete (rules, a guideline, anything...) to be put into place to stop this revolving cycle that is frustrating to a lot of editors. (Not to mention time wasting) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Production discographies
Hey I think I've asked you something similar once but I've found out that there are discographies for producers and even something called "Lists of songs by producer" and some K-pop fans also have discovered it so I wanted to know if it can be used for K-pop idols or is it only meant for record producer? I always delete these long lists of "production credits" on K-pop pages but if it is alright by Wikipedia guidelines I guess I'm the one who is wrong? I hope I'm not bothering you but I'm not sure who else to ask right now.--Thebestwinter (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you're not wrong--Wikipedia isn't a collection of resumes. It's true that this can be problematic: one of the best-known hardrock producers is Martin Birch, yet his article is little more than a list of credits, and more than once I came this close to pruning it--but what it needs is someone with access to the sources, because I know for a fact that Birch can be written up properly. Those sources for K-pop look quite different, of course. I do not think that separate articles are a good idea, neither "list of songs" nor "list of tracks produced by..." articles. I asked a similar question a while ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists but heard nothing useful... So when I run into these things I cut them, or if they're separate articles I redirect them. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So, I guess that means that I can continue to remove or cut these sections especially without reliable sources, which is usually the case for these articles. I hope someone will answer something useful at the WikiProject Lists page because it can turn into a serious problem with K-pop articles. Anyway thank you I appreciate your quick response.--Thebestwinter (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Remember, what I'm offering is my editorial opinion based on our policies; others have different opinions, but my insistence on verifiability and reliable sources, mixed with the resume-style inclusiveness of these articles (intentional or otherwise), leads me down this path. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirection of BEJ48, GNZ48 and SHY48 to SNH48
Please take note that the Wikipedia pages for BEJ48, GNZ48 and SHY48 are still under development, and that more third-party sources are on the way. By redirecting these pages to SNH48, this may mean that certain information unique to these groups are neglected. LMX97 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)LMX97

Update: I have just redirected GNZ48's page myself. Will tidy up all information at a later date, or possibly get the help of other users to do so. My edits may seem destructive, but by possibly putting them under separate pages such as List of SNH48 members and SNH48 discography, maybe it will work.

Update 2: I have now opened a new page that lists SNH48 members, it is still under construction and open for anyone to edit.


 * Whatever. Those articles have been there for quite a while, and 90% of their content is an endless list of members (including their transliterations and dates of birth--trivia). There is no information in there that's of any use, and all of that is linked from their website. Time to start enforcing rules such as WP:N and WP:V. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

One More Thing
You don't suppose you could change the visibility of this other edit by that touchy, yet obscene IP vandal you just blocked?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry--I saw this this morning and decided against it but hadn't gotten back to you again. It's foul but not revdeletable, IMO--please feel free to consult with another admin, I don't mind. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Defensive gun use
Drmies, the IP which you blocked a few days ago is back on the DGU article again, putting in very biased POV language and OR, as well as personal attacks in their edit summaries. Could you perhaps take a look again and take whatever action you see fit? When I saw these changes, I made a RPP, before I saw the history on that users page (clarifying multiple actions on my part to avoid forum shopping) ResultingConstant (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC) If you would prefer I deal with this at ANI or AE, feel free to push me there. fair enough ResultingConstant (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry--I blocked them for that awful comment, and they do not seem to have repeated that. I think this is now talk page material. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked again and I don't see personal attacks either. If you like, go ahead and put post-1932 American Politics notes on the various talk pages, including your own, of course! :) Drmies (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * for personal attacks.
 * "correct stupidity", "clarified your gross misunderstandings of the research",
 * For NPOV, OR etc we have some gems like the following
 * "The most reliable and authoritative American statistics are published by the FBI, and are derived from verified police counts of justifiable homicides, rather than in-principle unverifiable recall data and extrapolation. "
 * Very few studies are carried out outside the United States, as the phenomenon is generally not regarded as credible in the rest of the world.
 * Consequently, these data provide the most strongly verifiable data, and indeed, yield the only figures which there is any method for verifying, since they involve the use of police reports, rather than unverified recall of anonymous subjects. Needless to say, the latter form of methodology is inherently questionable, and has been subject to withering critique by mainstream researchers in the social sciences, as it is akin to deriving crime statistics from a survey asking people how many crimes they committed in the past year, and merely relying on them to be honest and recall such facts accurately, without further verification being matched to actual police reports. ResultingConstant (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those aren't (blockable) personal attacks, and you know it. Perhaps it is true that you misunderstand the research, perhaps grossly so--surely you don't want to impose political correctness on a conversation about data? As for the other points--well, you distrust the FBI? They are the authority on crime statistics, at least on the ones they keep track of--not shootings by police, apparently. "The phenomenon is generally not regarded..."--maybe that's OR, but it is not really unreasonable, is it? seriously, do you want me to block someone for saying that? Go ahead and take it to AN/ANI if you like; as you know this is no longer ANI 2.0, and I don't see what administrative action is necessary or even warranted. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Naval Mines
Looking for a fair 2nd opinion here. I've got an issue with an expansion and an anon IP reverting it. Claming POV. Hell if I am wrong let me know and I'll drop it. IP claims it is POV, seems relavent to me. We are on the edge of a 3RR violation and I won't cross that line. Any help would be appreciated.Tirronan (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the section now is better than it was--but "mine warfare continues to suffer from underfunding" is still in there and yes, that is a POV statement, just like "The LCS project as related to mine warfare continues to be a massive disappointment"... Drmies (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles don't shy away from costings and other controversies, just see F-35 Lightning as an example. It would seem better then to have these sections either in weapons systems articles or ones such as the U.S Navy. they may not be suitable for articles regarding types of warfare. Just my 2p. Irondome (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the input from both of you and have yanked the two sentences. RegardsTirronan (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you look at this IP?
I don't want to poison the well, but take a look at User talk:Beyond My Ken and then at their contributions. I find them to be a mixture of useful and very odd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the IP in question is User:2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What is there to look at, just because you seem to be offended? Or do you think you have discovered some conspiracy?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

For an action not intending to poison the well it certainly has been raised the question about the motive for asking the question.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

For someone claiming retaliatory editing then you go about doing exactly what you claim someone you perceive to have done you? That is an interesting action? I look forward to seeing what this develops into.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you start by including real edit summaries? Not everyone knows what "gram" means, Borat. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Frustrated by the metric system again, Drmies? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha. I was born metrically, and I don't think you know what Borat meant when he was talking about his gram. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Holly Neher issue
Can you please explain what you think it is that I've done wrong? Any policies that I may have violated or any other reason to warrant why you think I should be banned from discussion on the topic?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're bludgeoning the entire thing and I believe you are passive-aggressively trying to get another editor blocked. But that's just my opinion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to believe that. You are incorrect.  My active involvement has only been because other editors refuse to answer simple questions.  Please don't confuse enthusiasm with bludgeoning.  See Encourage full discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am watching with interest ;) - 2 comments max in any discussion for all participants would help, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed Gerda it would. It is unfortunate that an administrator of en.wp would need to be told that. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  22:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a 2-comment rule I am unaware of?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As others are often told: Just because one can, does not mean one should. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  22:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no rule, just common sense. They made it a restriction especially for me, but it turned out to give more freedom to walk away after the second comment. Try it, you may like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda. Drmies (talk)
 * Now I'm even more confused... it's not a rule, but "they" made it a restriction?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not (yet) looked at "Holly Neher issue" but it is clear just from the sample here what is going on. Wikipedia relies on collaboration. The fact that editors in good standing have suggested that excessive commenting is occurring is in itself sufficient reason to stop excessively commenting. People at Wikipedia are allowed to have human foibles and if (if, I haven't looked) "other editors refuse to answer simple questions" it is reasonable to ask those other editors perhaps twice, but it is most unreasonable to pursue the matter further. Apparently the issue is now at some article and at AfD and WP:AN and here—that is a good indication that things have spiraled out of control. There is plenty of evidence in real life that some people will never agree with other people. We cannot limit real life, but at Wikipedia, refusing to let go of an issue becomes disruptive regardless of who is "right" about the original topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also have not looked at the article. "they" are the ones whom we permit per election to restrict us here, - I thought that was known ;) - Little is it known that my restrictions were dropped in 2015, but - as explained above - it's in in way just common sense to let others speak as well, - freedom of opinion is needed when opinions differ. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion of page Monster Girl Quest
I'd like to see the page for Monster Girl Quest undeleted. In the deletion discussion, it was determined that it was non-notable, however that is definitely not true. For one, the first game has almost 2700 votes on vndb (compare Fate/Stay Night, easily the most popular VN in the western world, at about 8000 votes). It also made it to runner-up of Kotaku's Game of the Year 2013 (even though those were joke votes, that's definitely a sign of notability). I can go on, but I hope you get the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.62.223 (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is Wikipedia. I'll post some links on your talk page, and then I hope you'll understand that without reliable secondary sources we can't really start a discussion. Also, I don't know what vndb is, what Fate/Stay night is, or what a VN is. 8000 votes (were they certified? did the Russians buy them on Facebook?) doesn't sound like a lot for the entire "western world", but I could be wrong in what I think "western world" is. Do you see my point? Drmies (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ha you're welcome. Yes, this is the price of fame! Drmies (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is! I don't mind it that much though - just goes to show I'm doing the right things here :) Take care. Patient Zerotalk 08:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I cited the source
Do you want more sources to support what I said? Is there a better way to help editors understand why SLPC is not a reliable source for that list? Was your warning to me because I did not cite sources to accompany my explanation for why it was not a RS or is there another reason for doing so? I need to know. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 17:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I don't think you get it. You are citing sources that cited allegations. Are they proven? is the joint a ripoff? Seriously, who cares if a couple of racist white people claim that some organization is "inciting racial hatred" or whatever it was? Your warning was because a. you did not phrase your comments fairly, let alone neutrally; b. the citations weren't cited properly, let alone contextualized. Criticism of the SPLC's fundraising is old, I read about it in The Nation when I was in graduate school--but apparently none of that gained much traction, and for you to drop a couple of allegations, which is all they were, out of nowhere is highly improper. Seriously. They are inciting racial hatred? Have you seen the Nazis marching? Cite me some reliable sources that state that for a fact they are, and we'll talk. No, don't waste your time. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of the SPLC counts for exactly zero as far as policy. Warn Atsme or anyone else for reliably sourced comments on a talk page and you'll be out of here faster than your buddy Fernandez. 196.54.41.10 (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Coward. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just so you'll know...I reverted this edit for obvious reasons, hoping to spare you the inappropriate comment and me some embarrassment, but my revert was undone. Ironically, the edit summary states, let Drmies manage his own talk page please). Uhm...yes, which applies to that last revert. 😂 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I saw that: thank you. I appreciate it. BTW, that edit came from a proxy, which I blocked for a year: no doubt it's one of these trolls that have been haunting us recently. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Leion Gordon
Hello. I actually personally know Leion Gordon. I would like to update his page with more accurate information, as well as with pictures provided by him. How would I go about that? Thelunargypsy (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2017
 * Well, he's called Leon Gordon according to this website, which is widely regarded as a reliable source, so you'll have to come up with a better secondary source than that for the name. Any other information likewise needs reliable secondary sourcing. For the images, see Uploading images, which explains it better than I can. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Zooey Deschanel
Hi Drmies. I wonder if you would take a look at, who showed up new registered immediately after you blocked to continue the edit war. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. They just got blocked. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. There was more. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that whole episode was fun, wasn't it? Lordy. sixty nine   • speak up •  01:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know; I suppose. Please find an admin to advise on the BLP issue, whether it requires revdel... Drmies (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just meant reverting that clown over and over again and then watching him shoot himself in the foot. It was oddly entertaining, if nothing else. sixty nine   • speak up •  05:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)