User talk:Drmies/Archive 97

?
What's with the insulting response to a simple request? Really thought you were interested in article quality, and would be willing to explain why you want undefined jargon in article leads when it isn't even mentioned in the article body. 82.33.111.106 (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's your use of "you" that was insulting, not my response. Unwarranted assumptions and all that. You make good edits and have terrible manners; I try to find something that attempts to alleviate the situation you signal, if only a little bit, and you shit on me. "Really thought you were interested"...more of those assumptions. "you want undefined jargon"...yet more. I'm not blind, you know, but I'm really not interested in being enlisted in some crusade. Wait--gotta go. There's something wrong on the internet and I have to make someone fix it. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in enlisting anyone in any crusade, and it wasn't my intention to shit on you. And I do find it insulting when someone says "you have nothing to say to me".  I do.  If you don't want to listen, say you don't want to listen.  Don't tell me if I have nothing to say.  You insulted me once before, too, complaining about how boring it was for you to see me complaining about edits being reverted for no reason.  Did you imagine how boring it is to have your time wasted over and over and over again for no reason?  And how much less boring it would be if people actually didn't do that?  It's two years since I first made an uncontroversial edit to this particular article, and it's been undone 17 times by 10 different editors, not one of whom bothered to explain why they were undoing my obviously necessary work and wasting my time.  So what I want is for you or someone else to have the basic courtesy that should have been extended to me two years ago, and telling me why you consider it necessary to undo my edit.  Apparently, that's too much to ask.  82.33.111.106 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't undo your edit; I took your commentary on board and tried to improve the readability of that sentence even though I have no clue what Category C really means (maybe you should rewrite that article). You're using "you" in the plural, constantly, equating me with those who reverted you, and I resent that. And yeah, those same complaints, they get a bit tedious. That's not a personal attack by our definition: I'm complaining about the edits, not the editor. And if you hadn't called people cunts and whatnot all over the place, we might not be here today. That's the crusade: the equation of bias against IP editors on the side of Wikipedia editors with carte blance, on your side, to just edit war and insult, though I will say immediately that I haven't seen you do that in a while, but I kind of quit paying attention. You know, two, three years ago I was actually on the lookout for your edits and I've assisted you more than once without drawing attention to it. I don't do that anymore. It's tedious and it goes nowhere. I still don't agree with the blocks and the LTA case and all that, but I'm the only one. And if you come to my talk page, all bitter and yelling at me, then, yeah, you have nothing to say to me, nothing that interests me and nothing I can help you with. If you come here with a different message, it's different. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You did partake in the undoing of my edit. I removed meaningless text from the article, you kept it in there in your edit.  I never addressed you as "you" plural, and never equated you with those who revert my edits for no reason.  However, you seem to think there was a reason for this revert but you won't tell me what it is.  Calling people cunts never made any difference to anything, they vandalised my work and made false accusations regardless.  If anyone had actually told people not to revert for no reason, and taken action against them when they did, we'd all be happy.  Yes, I'm fucking bitter that people are free to destroy my work for no reason and make false accusations against me.  Yelling at you? No.  Here, right now, I'd like to know why you think the lead of the article must mention that the channel is "category C", when neither you nor I nor anyone else who pointlessly reverted my edit has any clue what that even means. 62.205.116.151 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ... I'm late to the party again. I waded in at Talk:Blitzkrieg and then at the article, but in the latter I got entangled in swathes of "sfn" and "har". It is possible that I too will get summarily reverted, but in case I don't - Doc or any kindly talk page stalker who understands these templates, can you please fix the refs? The article could actually do with further work: I see a few more places where content appears to me to overlap, what looks like a major reference is broken and commented out throughout, and a book both of whose versions appear to have been published in 1938 was presented in the article as having been published in both versions in 2014. But I think I should bow out because I'm being challenged on the talk page and because ... you're not the only one, Doc, but a ban was passed despite protests from you and me and one or two others. Hi IP, sorry I missed you, sorry I'm not supposed to talk to you any more, it all bites.


 * On C-Class Channels or whatever the jargon is, I got nothin' because I don't understand our article on the topic. But it is conventional and I think permissible to tuck into the lede odd pieces of info like that about which there is nothing further to be said, and not revisit them later in the article; like the precise birthdate in a biography. So I don't agree with its removal, but I liked your rewording of the sentence, Doc. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * How about also telling User:Keith-264 that false accusations of vandalism are a vile personal attack which will not be tolerated? Sadly, of course, they are completely tolerated and encouraged, but we can always hope for better.  My edit was met with disgusting slurs and pointless reverts; your edit was not.  This makes me exceedingly angry.  At least the article no longer contains incorrect and redundant information.  As you know, there are hundreds of other articles where highly embarrassing howlers have been forced into the article by the reverters.  They keep on attacking article quality because no-one seriously actually tells them not to.
 * It is absolutely not conventional to include jargon like "Category C" in the lead of an article without any explanation and without any further mention. If you think it absolutely needs to be mentioned in the lead, then what possible reason is there not to actually explain it?  It's utterly meaningless if not defined.  A date of birth is not like that.  62.205.116.151 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine crystal
Hey Drmies. Know anything more about this lovey-dovey folk song? I'd like to fill out the article a bit more, but having trouble finding decent sources and ones I can read. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, no, I've never even been that far north in that beautiful country. Ah, if only were around--they love folk songs. And techno. Maybe a hot shot like  can help out. Or a power player and certified singer/songwriter like ? Drmies (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Geopolymer controversy
Indeed, it apparently was a very contentious controversy, and so interesting in the sense of the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." It is probable that both parties have conflict of interest. The intensity of the controversy suggests that there are financial incentives involved. (The most common reason for legal threats is alleged libel. There is no reason to think that libel is involved here, so there is probably a commercial issue.)  If the other editor has a COI, the proper Wikipedia action would have been a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but there may be too much money involved to play by the rules or something. Anyway, they probably have COI. If there really is a basis for legal action, it wasn't stated, only made as a threat. United States courts do not resolve scientific disputes, and I (not a lawyer) think that the threat was too vague to be the basis of a legal action. I think that it was just intended to have a chilling effect with idle bluster rather than to do anything productive, but in Wikipedia a legal threat chills out the person making the threat. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:British Empire
Thanks Drmies for closing down the discussion. Btw, when you said that the matter to be left after a year, is this the moratorium? (N0n3up (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC))
 * It just means what it means. I'm not good with fancy words. I sensed agreement all around that this would be a good thing. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw Snowded threatened me with topic ban even after withdrawing the RfC. He basically was banned from editing "The Troubles" related topics in which he Still does. (N0n3up (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC))
 * I don't see how that's relevant. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, a 1RR to be precise, but regarding your post in my talk page, I thank you for taking notice, but at the same time, I don't like it when other users WP:HOUND (like Snowded keeps doing) at my edits or even talk in my discussions without any basis. If there is any advice you could give in regards to that, that'd be nice. (N0n3up (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC))
 * They asked you not to post on their talk page but you did. One might consider that to be hounding. Don't post there again. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't post there again. Now if only he would stop hounding on my discussions and edits like he did long before, that'd be great. Not to mention he keeps blasting threats like "i'm going to report you" and so on. (N0n3up (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Question re username decision
Hello; I was wondering if you could give a more specific reason for your decision regarding FunderThuck, which seems quite likely to be "ThunderFuck" deliberately misspelled. The username policy states that "usernames that are inappropriate in another language, or that represent an inappropriate name with misspellings and substitutions, or do so indirectly or by implication, are still considered inappropriate"(emphasis mine). Thank you 331dot (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose technically it's a violation of that rule, sure. But their edits weren't vandalistic, and the f-word in itself isn't always automatically offensive. It didn't say "fuck you", for instance. But YMMV. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reply and I understand. Thank you 331dot (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you that I had to think about this one for quite some time--and typically, if I think I have think, I think that I'm overthinking its offensiveness. Tell you what--let's ask, or , or , or ; they may be the ones with varying mileage. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have posted on the person's talk page and was going to wait for them to reply(as you indicated, their edits were OK) before doing anymore; but you wish to, you can and you can post my name too if needed. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Mileage in the United Kingdom. "We considered that younger children who were unlikely to comprehend that "Phuc" was a Vietnamese word were also unlikely to read or pronounce it as the expletive. While some older children might have pronounced it as the expletive, given the context of an ad for a Vietnamese restaurant and that the word was taken from this language we did not consider that this made it unsuitable for them to see. We therefore concluded that the posters were not irresponsibly placed where children could see them." UK Advertising Standards Authority as reported by BBC. Not quite the same but still interesting. MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It made me think "Founderthuck" (would that be OK as a username?). I tend to agree with 331dot, actually. Hey, I just saw somebody (i. e. a person, not the bot) reported User:RealsAreASubsetOfComplex as an offensive username. Is there some obscene meaning in complex numbers that escapes me as a non-native speaker? Note especially the new user's only contribution here. Won't somebody please think of the children! Bishonen &#124; talk 21:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Have you asked that person? I could see possibly objecting to the length of that username, but since it's an easy name to remember I wouldn't worry about it too much. Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While attending a conference a couple years ago I went out for a walk came across this place and thought about stopping in for dinner, just because. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks very popular! Note also the address on Schokkerweg. Schokk Brigade Boris strikes! Bishonen &#124; talk 08:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Schokkerweg...interesting... Not Dutch for "shock", I think--see also Schokland. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it comes from schokke, a sof of reed that was used as a cheap alternative to peat. 20:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I once remember somebody on a BBS several decades ago with a username "Chuck u Farlie" - they weren't banned. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you're really dating yourself (pun intended).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note; the user has replied to my post about their name. I'm inclined to leave it alone given their reply. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Student unions
Please desist. You are nominating organisations for speedy deletion of organisations so prominent that have major, significant coverage in books for god knows what reason exactly. I'm pretty sure you've had at least one that even has independent books about it specifically. Being expected to do detailed historical research with a gun to your head because someone's decided to start making very random deletion nominations is an incredibly obnoxious thing to do to other editors, and reflects very poorly on someone of your prominence.

I'd really appreciate if you'd have the decency to withdraw these: if it were coming from someone less senior I'd be advocating the nominator be blocked for disruption. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop yelling and improve these articles. Student unions? Have a nice day. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not yelling. Student unions are intimately tied up with political history; they're a reasonably common subject for independent historians to cover, especially and ironically the specific ones you targeted (which again, for the uninformed, have UC Berkeley-like histories) and there are a thousand politicians who cut their teeth there, went on to have a political career, and wrote about their student union days in their memoirs. It is, however, the sort of subject on which you need to actually do some serious research to flesh out a good article, unless you want to grab whatever happened recently out of Google, and when the person prompting the demand has the attitude towards the entire subject that you just stated, that...doesn't feel like a pleasant use of my time. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I'm here ... this sounds as if it may be a peculiarly Australian thing. I first got to know the doc when he AfD'd an article on an organization that I knew to be very much notable; but I've almost always been able to save such articles, and he's even withdrawn some of the nominations. I know it's a hassle, but you've got a week; please just reference them up to demonstrate their notability, not only to the doc but to the rest of us who only know places where student unions are almost never notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand and am sometimes sympathetic to that, but it's the ludicrous of unapologetically nominating some of these for speedy deletion and then his dismissive comment above that make me ill-inclined to drop what I'm doing, take a couple days off work, and run down to the library to hit up the books. There does need to be some demonstration of good faith for that to work where it's asking a lot of editors who are more knowledgeable about the subject. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sympathetic to your rude tone and the demonstration of bad faith here and in those AfDs--yeah, thanks for insulting me in four different places. Some of those articles have been tagged since last decade. There are tons of them and I looked at more than a dozen, nominating only a few. "Mass-nominating" you said on one of the AfDs--three is not a mass. "Drop everything"--in one of those AfDs you said you found all the necessary stuff in five minutes. Well, in all the time you spent yelling at me you could have copied those links and be done with it, so this "gun to your head" is not mine. Please don't come back here again unless it's with a more moderate tone. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Adını Feriha Koydum
Hi dear,

May I ask you to look at the new edits just recently added to the article, and if you find it appropriate would you protect the page? It's becoming like a circus! Thank you (Mona778 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC))


 * "Emir, who isn't usually in love, falls in love" - hmm. MPS1992 (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes. I remember that line but don't remember what I did with it. We need more Turkish editors. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Stalker here. Doc I am not sure which policy applies to serials like this. Should the summary have sourcing, what kind of sourcing falls under WP:RS? I just did a bit of work on the summary as I have watched the series feel free to rv me as I did not cite any source. To be frank I am not even sure if any websites carry the summary, some which are giving the summary are just blogs etc, so not RS. So do point me in the right direction if you can ty. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, typically plot summaries don't need sourcing, though I prefer sourcing them in articles I write--but I haven't read How to write a plot summary in a while. Was it a good show? Didn't you find it odd that both seasons end with a woman being killed? Drmies (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The turkish shows are quite a lot like the ancient Greek theatre. The protagonist dies/suffers due to his own weakness. Although nowadays Hamartia can take many forms, usually it is hubris, and even as shows have taken new forms to cater to a modernized public the influence of ancient Greek is quite common. The show was "decent", depends on taste to be frank(and age I think). I think I watched the first two or three episodes at the gym as it was playing on the screen where I work out and I would watch a couple of minutes between sets, after that I wanted to see how the story ends. And of Course I wanted to wring the writers neck when the kid died :(. On a constructive note, I'll see what sourcing I can find and put it in. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi dears, you were looking for the website that carries the summary? Well, here you have it, it's from the distribution company itself (Calinos Entertainment). On the site there is a teaser of the show as well you can watch if you want to, and interestingly is in English! Regards, (Mona778 (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Cool! Thanks. Yeah, X-Files is almost over and I'll need something new to watch. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you missed it...
"Taharrush" is a used in Egypt to describe public groping and rape. It's distinctly Egyptian because they are more progressive. Activists chose to describe this behavior with that word. The activity, though, is Arabic and Islamic. Prior to Egyptian activists, it was ascribed to "flirtatious women." The activity happens throughout the Arab and Islamic region (except perhaps Iran). It is a conundrum because every country that has it doesn't call it "taharrush" even though it's identical to what happens in Egypt. By claiming "taharrush" is uniquely Egyptian misses the real problem that these activities happen most of the Arabic and Islamic world with a word that places blame on the victim. Your move undermines the Egyptian movement for human rights by making it see that it's egyptian rather than an attempt by egyptian activists to use a word that places blame on the rapists rather than the victim. The english equivalent would be one U.S. state declaring that sex between a 14 year old girl and 50 year old man is "rape." We wouldn't vilify the state for calling it "rape" if other states didn't. Your rename did exactly that. It vilified Egypt for calling it "tarrush" rather than following Sharia law and blaming the victim. The activity is an Egyptian problem, they just named it with a word that places blame on the men. --DHeyward (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, and if you had produced reliable sources to support that and similar statements that RfC might have gone differently. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did. It's in the discussion and the article.  It's a pre-German New Years source showing the term and it's use in the region particularly the use by activists in Egypt to bring the practice to light. "Taharrush" in Saudia Arabia is used to describe rape of boys and girls in the home.  It's a strong word that places blame on the men who do it.  The same thing happens in other countries but it's not called "taharrush" just as Egypt didn't call it that (and older Egyptians still call the gang-rapes "flirting"). By making it seem to be only Egyptian and not using their term in the title completely undermines and misses the call to stop gang rapes which is why its use is prevalent in Egypt.  .  The fil 678 used the term though it's a universal theme of harrassment, Egypt was the first to tie harassment with this word in Arabic and Islamic culture.  It certainly exists everywhere but some countries ignore it.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That article was cited, and your interpretation of it was refuted or at least questioned. Allow me to note that I think it's you who are missing something: you keep making reference to "it", the "strong word" which denotes a particular concept, which is now--you say--limited to only Egypt. But the result of the discussion is precisely to remove the word from the title, so you simply cannot say that the article suggests that "taharrush" occurs only in Egypt. It makes no such claim, because the article title and subject are sexual assaults in Egypt, not this term. That was the upshot of this discussion. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Egypt is the place where the discussion started and is one of the most progressive nations in the region, whence its language and tolerance for such behavior is lower. I am not at all saying that "taharrush" only occurs in Egypt, I am saying Egyptian Woman's rights group have given a name to this type of assault that is not even recognized as a crime in other Arabic speaking countries.  Germany had a name for it and it was German words for "rape" and "sexual assault" and "sexual harassment."  Until recently, that same behavior in Egypt was called "flirting" and pushed onto women.  The term as it stands now is debated in Egypt as being very broad (from harassment to rape).  "Taharrush" as an Arabic word being used to describe rape as in An article released on the incident in June 2005 by Al-Nabā News, referenced the Black Wednesday attack as both taḥarrush and htkʿirḍ, a term for rape that is often translated as “indecent assault” and deeply inhered with connotations of honor and shame (Al-Nabā News 2005). Both taḥarrush and htkʿirḍ were utilized interchangeably in the article, likening the indecent assault on women to an assault on the nation. However, sexual harassment, as it came to be understood in the post-Revolutionary period with both its political and everyday facets, as defined by Tadros (2013b), was not yet part of the larger discourse on gender-based violence in Egypt. - Egypt just happens to be at the forefront (as is India and Bangladesh with some of their documented gang rapes and arrests and law changes) in identifying and eradicating it.  The laws in Egypt that make it a crime are based on modesty, honor or dignity - (i.e. a lot of work needs to be done to make it a crime of violence, instead of a point of shame for women). To the extent the article is centered on "Mass sexual assaults in Egypt," without using the word that that Women's Rights activists in Egypt have connaturalized to describe it and criminalize it misses the steps they have made.  They use "taharrush" now to include a number of behaviors that used to be considered only a social problem and not an equality problem for women.  Describing the actions as "taharrush" is to support the notion of the human rights groups that seek gender equality as "taharrush" is the word used by activists and mainstreamed in the press.  It does a disservice to them not to use the broader term to describe what happens/happened.  Think about this: the authors describe in English a thing called "violent sexual harassment."  That is considered "taharrush."  We would call it sexual assault but it falls short of that in Egyptian culture.  The film I point out above (678 (film)) and the reaction (a male dominated Human Rights group in Egypt wanted it banned because they thought it would encourage women to take up weapons against male genitalia to stop "taharrush.").  To make it equivalent to "sexual assault", activists simply started to call all of these actions from cat calls to outright rape "taharrush" as a name for the phenomena.  Maybe the etymology of the word needs expanding in the article, but if "violent sexual harassment incidents" = "taharrush" and we decline to call "taharrush"="rape" and isn't in the article, we are missing significant steps in the push for equal rights for women in Egypt.  The expanded definition (interchangeability with words that mean "rape", "sexual violence", "sexual harassment" and other behaviors that are target gender) by Womens Rights rights groups and its use in Egypt is foundational.  It's simply not possible to describe accurately what happens to Egyptian women and the first step toward eradication is naming it.  That's "taharrush."  "Rape" is already illegal so the title change misses the cultural shift associated with naming all behaviors that gender equality rights groups are trying to eradicate such as those depicted in 678.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Fresh off block
"This was their first block for a personal attack, and there is no way that such a first-time offense will lead to some really lengthy block, unless it's racist or sexist commentary or something like that." Really sorry to keep grinding on this. Really. But... Is that sexist enough? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, yeah, that's pretty bad. But I'm going to let the thread ride its course; I have the feeling this user was headed there anyway. Thanks for kickstarting it. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Remarkable how quickly he took the measure of rope you gave him and hung himself. Cheers, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

'Banning Martin Hogbin for one year from abusing the talk page'
'I am hereby banning Martin Hogbin for one year from abusing the talk page Talk:Veganism, and will allow him only one single edit, big or small, in one single thread, written out in one single paragraph, every 48 hours. Violations and attempt to skirt around the limits of this ban are to be punished with a short block'.


 * You are acting completely beyond your powers here. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. I have more edits on the talk page because I believe in the principle if civil discussion rather than edit warring.  You will see from the RfC that the majority of editors support my proposed change to the article.  I think it is now time for Arbcom.  If that goes against me it will be something of a landmark case, 'Editor banned for trying to maintain a WP:NPOV in an article in a WP:civil manner'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, he's really not. He could have blocked you or topic banned you. Your route of appeal is WP:AN or WP:BASC. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Martin, it was abundantly clear that your edits were not considered to contribute to NPOV or so; they were considered disruptive, very disruptive. I acted on those comments made in the discussion, not synthesizing anything from whatever might have been said in some RfC. I'm sorry, but this cookie crumbled this way, at least for this admin. But there is, as Guy indicated, a way to an appeal. All the best, Drmies (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you have completely misunderstood what is happening on that page but I will follow the official process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies, this is simple a content dispute in which you have acted to silence one of the parties. This is not appropriate action for an admin, particularly one who is a member of arbcom.  There has been a witch hunt against me by a group of editors who have consitently disagreed with me.  It is their right to disagree, as it is mine, but content disputes are not resolved by bans, especially one in which only one side is silenced.


 * I have just reviewed the ANI and by my reckoning 7 editors supported my ban and 6 opposed it, hardly a consensus to ban someone for a tear. Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me what, exactly, you think I have done wrong. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your route of appeal is WP:AN or WP:BASC. I think the discussion spells out pretty clearly that your presence on that talk page is highly disruptive, in large part because of the quantities of material you contributed. It seemed to me, given the variety of means available to us administrators to guide editors' behavior, that a ban on your abusing the talk page--not using the talk page--might alleviate the situation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why exactly are my edits disruptive but the greater volume of edits by the page regulars (on the article and talk pages) not so? All I have done is to disagree with them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hogbin
Nice. Problem is he's doing much the same at talk:Paleolithic diet. Broad hint. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Guy, I followed the AN discussion. Since we don't have RfC anymore, we now have to go through more cumbersome routes to ... guide editors' behavior. While admins have broad discretion, of course, I am not necessarily looking for problems to solve by administrative fiat; if, however, those issues are brought up again in the appropriate forum, they can conceivably be handled in a similar manner. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment of Bonadea
Hello. You've seen the ANI-report, and the same vandal seems to be active on List of records of India, so could you please protect that article and block the socks there? And also whose only edit sofar has been a malformed and utterly frivolous AN3-report against Bonadea. Cheers, Tom. Thomas.W talk 22:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Damn, I wanted to do that! But Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte. Doug Weller  talk 11:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Undulatoolithus
Drmies, how does this stand now? Is it ready, or close to ready? Thanks for checking. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright is complicated.
Hello Drmies and watchers, here under "Licensing" the template states: "It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.". But what does that effectively mean? Can it be used on the English language wikipedia (servers in the USA), i.e. here at en.wp, but not necessarily on any other, say for example local European wikipedias? Thanks for explaining. Horseless Headman (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC).
 * "Fair use" is a United States legal doctrine permitting limited use of copyrighted works. See the non-free content article. So, the answer is "yes, it can be used on en.wp, which is, as you've noted, hosted in the US. But not on other wikipedias hosted where the "fair use" doctrine does not apply." (I see that the file, [[File:Gilles_Andruet.jpg]], is tagged with an orphan tag, but that the image is not currently orphaned, as it is used in the article after being restored following an IP user's removal of the image.) [I removed the orphan tag from the image after I confirmed it was still in use]. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 17:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I see, thanks for your answer - and removing that tag! Horseless Headman (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC).

Solnsta90
User:Solntsa90. I am loosing my patience with this creep (see!?). Which, I know, is exactly what they're trying to achieve but it's working. After their block expired on Feb 13 they came right back to the Vladimir Putin page. For the first 24 hrs or so they only commented on talk so that's fine. But that didn't last and they resumed their edit warring. But ok, they're not topic banned from the article so whatever. But now he has resumed following me and randomly reverting my reverts in a clear cut case of revenge. Of course they popped into this ridiculous discussion on COI. Worse, in the past 24 hrs he's followed me to articles that he has never edited or shown interest in. Here he pops into the article on Lyndon LaRouche just to revert me (btw, that other account, User Not the original Jack Bruce, that's either a meat puppet or a sock puppet of User:Herschelkrustofsky, the page should be semi-protected). Then again here (note the threat in the edit summary). Then he jumped to another article where I've been active (probably noticed the discussion on my talk page).

It's obvious that they're here to start edit wars and annoy the shit out of me to make me loose my patience or goad me into breaking 3RR or some other rule. I'm sick of this. Can you at least warn him please? He's not going to listen to me, obviously, since the whole point of his edits is to provoke.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do you complain privately to a admin on his page, and not directly under the proper venue? It seems like you're trying to speak up to sympathetic ears in an attempt to remove me.

Anyway, it sounds like you just don't like my edits, we have a lot of cross-interests (namely, Eastern Europe and controversial politics) and the idea that I'm "stalking" you is absurd. You don't own wikipedia, and just because you edit a page, doesn't mean I'm no longer allowed to touch it.

Marek, Why didn't you bring this to the proper noticeboard page, and instead bring it to your admin friend directly? I would like to see the logic behind this. Is this an attempt to get me blocked without actually violating any rules? It certainly seems so. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Solntsa90 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S: What edit-warring? a quick glance will reveal that I'm actively participating on the talk pages of the respective articles, as User:SaintAviator or User_talk:EtienneDolet would point out. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, my 3RR weeklong block was for editing RT News, not Vladimir Putin, which I'm actively participating in the talk discussion on, and where my contributions have also been called valuable. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Finally, what's with the personal attacks? When have I ever called you a creep, or accused you of stalking or harassment, etc.? This is a major violation of WP:PERSONAL.Solntsa90 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are definitely stalking the edits of VM, and are disrupting the project. I can't see any reason not to have at the very least a one-way IBan placed on you, and a total Putin topic ban.(Sorry DrMies) Dave Dial (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

1) is a humour page, not Wiki policy;

2.) I'm not stalking anyone's talkpage. I'm just editing a lot of the same pages as Marek, because our interests coincide. What interest is it of yours and why are you intervening? You're not an admin. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

3.) Also, what does a Putin topic ban have to do with anything, and what justifies the ban? I haven't violated any rules since my week-long block for 3RR. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

From WP:HOUND:

''Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor.''

Solntsa90 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You have followed me to close to ten different articles which are in fact outside of your area of interest, and attempted to start an edit war on each. Since when did you become interested in Lyndon LaRouche? Since I made an edit there. Since when did you become interested in "Lithuanization"? Since I made an edit there. Since when did you become interested in Race & Intelligence, Racialism or American Renaissance magazine? Since I made an edit there. Since when did you become interested in David Irving? Since I made an edit there. Since when did you become interested in the Polish constitution? Since I made an edit there. And I'm leaving out all the articles that you followed me to which could conceivably be considered to be within your area of interests. The evidence of stalking with intent to harass is clear as day.
 * And do you care to point out exactly which and how of your revenge reverts involved " fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy"?
 * You are shamelessly lying your ass off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From WP:HOUND: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.". This is *exactly* what you're doing. Newsflash, WP:HOUND is not meant as an instruction manual.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not supposed to listen to you, when you're so rude and WP:PERSONAL, but I'll respond anyway.


 * You have followed me to close to ten different articles which are in fact outside of your area of interest

Have I really? I was editing David Irving, and you suddenly appeared on the talk page. On Putin, you took the opportunity to use the talk page as your personal soapbox against me., despite my edits having literally nothing to do with you (and all the editors agreeing that my input was a valuable edition to the page save you and one other);


 * Lithuanazation? Racialism, Lyndon LaRouche, etc.

If you can't see the connection between all of these topics and how they might relate to our mutual area of interest, then you may be taking this all too seriously. Afterall: you edited Vikings Season 2, did I edit that one? No. How about Economy of the United States? Nope. Bangladesh?

No, I haven't. Because I'm not stalking you or following all your edits. I could care less (However, if I see a bad edit from you, I will revert it within the rules of Wiki, just as I would for anyone else).

Even so, you edit some pretty major articles, such as Bangladesh, Vladimir Putin, and the Crimea. It would be silly to suggest I have to stay away from them nearly because you "marked" them as your territory, despite them being such important articles (and how do you know what does or what doesn't interest me? Did you ever take the moment to ask?). That is simply risible.


 * shamelessly lying your ass off

...What a serious violation of WP:PERSONAL. But what am I lying about, anyway? I just laid bare everything. I kept a cool head this entire time, even when I was blocked for a week for 3RR. Why can't you be civil and decent as well? Solntsa90 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Solntsa90, you continued edit warring on three pages ,, and blaming other contributors of bad faith after coming back from the block. In addition, what you did was indeed wikistalking. Denying this does not help your case. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Afterall: you edited Vikings Season 2, did I edit that one?... - nooooooooooo, you're not stalking, not at all. Not at all... Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

See Marek? User:My_very_best_wishes has been stalking me for some time, and I just ignore him. I'm not even stalking you, and I have to deal with this guy, and yet I do it with grace.

Learn from example, why don't you. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, there isn't a recent edit I've made on some non-Japan article that isn't graced by User:My_very_best_wishes presence.
 * Marek, I don't think this is going to be very helpful. A detailed and neutrally phrased account on ANI may be more helpful. In general, and this is just my opinion, any behavioral matter connected to the Putin article is doomed to fail, since there is always so much more that comes into play. Some of y'all don't like Putin an hell of a lot, some of y'all like him a lot more than you should like an old white guy, and the result is a never-ending edit/POV war where the predictable result is the inclusion of every single damn thing. I just noticed there's been edit warring over the fallout of the Kursk? So every single item of recent Russian history has to be brought into his biography? Is Chernobyl in there yet? Sorry, but I can't even read that talk page anymore (also, I don't like that Aviator's signature)--there's too much stuff, too much fighting. This is going to end up at ArbCom, and before it does I'm going to throw out a few more topic bans and some blocks to make sure that I can recuse myself, and then sit back and laugh as and  try to make sense of it. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Return of the kpop monster articles
Greetings. On October 25, 2015, an obvious throwaway account restored a monstrous amount of information (previously deleted by you) to the ever-troublesome List of South Korean idol groups (2010s) and its sister articles for the 2000s and 1990s. I ran across it whilst searching for something else and was shocked. I've tried to wear the editor hat in the past and it nearly drove me insane, and I can't step back into that madness. But if you want to dive back in again, the world would be a better place for it. Cheers!
 * Oh, I think that's a bit optimistic, but I did indeed revert and left a note on the talk page. Yes, one wonders about those one-off accounts in K-pop, doesn't one. Toodles! Drmies (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to have a lock on them? Alicia leo86 (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Dale Bozzio - eyes wanted
Hi, I see you were involved in the debate a few years ago about whether or not to include the cat hoarding stuff in the Dale Bozzio article. While I personally think this should be mentioned (keeping in mind due weight etc) I'll yield to the consensus.

Anyway could you please review the recent developments on the article? I made a number of changes (improvements I hope), but there's an IP editor who insists on acting as her press agent and re-inserting this passage:

"'Bozzio stormed onto the scene with her unique vocalization and performance style that set her apart from most artists. She pioneered many of the performance traits seen as standards today in popular music. She created and refined her unique sense of fashion and poetry along the way.'"

I don't want to revert again myself otherwise it just looks like it's me edit warring. The wikipedia policy regarding neutral point of view and avoiding peacock terms is well established so please make it clear that this is the wikipedia community, not just MaxBrowne, who thinks this passage doesn't belong in the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @MaxBrowne TP sTalker here. I'll just give it a once over. I see the page is semi'ed for the time being so the IP editor will have to make an account to edit I guess. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @MaxBrowne I have removed the peacocks I could find alongwith the peacock sign. Cheers. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I did in fact have something to do with that article, a long time ago. Yes, that content should go. Max, I encourage you to read the RfC on the talk page, the one about the cats. Happy days to all, including all the Zappa kin, Drmies (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Time flies, Gerda, doesn't it... I still value this very much. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Gibraltar Referendum 2002
It seems that the speech made when the result was announced was poorly reported in the UK media. For the avoidance of doubt I have uploaded a recording made at the event which is the full speech by Sir Peter Caruana, who is a good orator as one might expect from a QC. Take a minute - or rather 10 to listen to it and you will understand why the referendum was an important event. It was broadcast live by GBC but they only started archiving their material online some years later.

If you want to change or expand on the quote, he said a lot of other things, but I think the original one covers the important points.

I trust I can now go back to sleep. Gibnews (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * His words were reported in the BBC article which I added to the article. I'll stick that speech back in--but please keep in mind that secondary sources are always preferable over primary sources. Sweet dreams. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Re:
It was initially titled Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies. Jus' sayin'.  Tide  rolls  04:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you much; that's news to me. Tide, DYK that once upon a time I was an SGA Senator in some certain school you and I both love, and that's how I learned all about that wonderful book? Drmies (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It surprises me not that your peers considered your representation significant. Roll Tide.  Tide  rolls  04:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am happy to report that I did not disappoint the three students who voted for me. One of 'em has an article here. :) Drmies (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

List of South Korean idol groups
I must thank you for the courage on the undertaking of the monster that is List of South Korean idol groups (2010s), I only worry that they will be persistent in editing it back to table format and information overload. But I do have one question, if a sub-group/unit comes up and they have a page of their own can they also be included? Alicia leo86 (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't know if this was particularly courageous. Plenty of editors will be mad at me, though--or, plenty of accounts run by a very small group of editors, since that's what I think is going on. Now, standard practice on such lists is to list everything that's notable, i.e., that has its own article, so yeah, that would be OK. If the disruption continues, the best thing to do is to post at WP:RFPP and ask for longterm semi-protection. This should suffice since (with a few exceptions) it's usually IP editors and new/throwaway accounts that are responsible for turning Wikipedia into a fan site. And there are other editors who are interested in the topic: I remember seeing (hope it's not 68?) in the history of one of those lists.BTW, just to make this clear: what these editors are doing is bloating those articles from a mere list into what is really a kind of "Timeline of K-Pop in the 1990s", and that's not OK. Timeline articles are already problematic enough and should really be reserved for historically relevant topics as in Timeline of Treblinka. K-pop is not that historically important, and--as you saw--these articles simply become fan sites. One of the lists had entries for official fanclubs and favorite colors: entirely inappropriate. No doubt  remembers that some of those K-pop articles listed blood types. So, yeah, feel free to list these lists at RFPP; you and the admin will see they've been protected in the past, which is why they were stable for a while. Thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you also Doc for taking the initiative on this problem, in this problem-plagued area of the encyclopædia. And yes, I remember the lists which included height, weight, and blood type as if these were not articles but medical exams. Dr.   K.  17:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One day every pop artist over 40 will have a photo of their colon in their article. Which reminds me, I need to upload a photo of mine for my off-wiki fan site. There's an editor or two who are greatly interested in such details, though I think it's my blood they want, more than my blood type. Thanks Dr. K., Drmies (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, your prediction about K-pop artists is a classic. :) Unfortunately, it accurately captures the runaway trend for information consumption of the K-pop scene as if these artists were mere data-consumables. This trend sadly spills over to our troll-related fan base which, thankfully, is limited.  Dr.   K.  18:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And the initiative wasn't mine: it came all the from Kansas, oddly enough. I mean, I didn't know there was internet in Kansas. I drove through it one time; it went on for days, with not a Starbucks in sight. (Seriously, it was spectacular in a strange, mindbending kind of way--never seen anything that flat before.) Drmies (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I only know Kansas from the Wizard of Oz. You description is not far-off from the idea I had after I watched the movie. :)  Dr.   K.  18:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I never know if I am doing these talk threads right. But yeah, the K-pop community is insane, I saw what happened to the list of idol groups happen in Korean High school/universities alumni's before I made it a list. I like K-pop but would rather follow the rules here. There other other places for fandoms and information about the size of their idols toenails.  So back to my question about the sub-group/units, they are are okay as long as they have pages of their own? Alicia leo86 (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep! Drmies (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you for clarifying. 22:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Drmies, I haven't been as active here lately but I'm still interested in the topic. I took a break for a few months and then noticed some things were back to how they used to be, including the K-pop idol groups articles. Some of these fan editors just don't understand Wikipedia notability guidelines at all. Pages for Twice (band) members keep popping up even after the merge discussion on Talk:Myoui Mina. I don't get it. Random86 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of my students didn't "get" Ladybaby when I played it in class the other day, Random86. Go figure. BTW, is trying to get us tickets for Ladybaby's second (or third?) comeback, and maybe you'd like to come too--but Floq can't figure out their website. Can you help? Drmies (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Chicken Bone Beach
I haven't dropped one off on your page fin a while, but I think you will find this one interesting. I saw this name in a social media post with a great picture of Sammy Davis Jr., so of course I came here to learn more about it, and was shocked we didn't have an article on it. There are a lot of decent sources and I started a basic stub but I'm supposed to go move some furniture today. I was hoping a talk page stalker or yourself (when you aren't pounding the Arb gavel) would find it interesting enough to add to the rock soup. Personally, I think these are exactly the kinds of articles we need, culturally and historically significant, even if not large. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm going to look around a bit more. Thanks Dennis--good luck moving. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about requesting a close
Hi Drmies. You've helped me before, so I hope it's appropriate to ask this here. Is there a way to request a close for Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2? The discussion on the file's non-free usage was started at WP:NFCR (Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 70) in October 2015 and then was relisted at WP:FFD as part of the cleanup involving the merge of the former into the latter. Two administrators who often close such FFDs have casted !votes so I am not sure if either can close the discussion per WP:INVOLVED. It's possible that the result may involve the deleting of a file, so I think WP:NAC means that it should be closed by an admin. Anyway, you have not participated in that particular discussion, so of course you can take a crack at the close if you like; however, if you feel it's better to post this request somewhere else, then please advise. For reference, I looked at WP:AN and there are various requests for closures listed there, but they all seem to be for categories and RfCs. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh man, that's some discussion. I'm sorry, but I really can't close that--I do not have enough expertise to do so. I'm sure there's someone watching this page who knows what to do, maybe, maybe ... Drmies (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. Is it OK to ask for assistance with this kind of thing at AN or another general noticeboard? There are other admins I could possibly ask who do work with FFDs, but they might be inclined to close per the nomination and I don't want it to seem as if I am canvassing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure posting at AN is not a problem--people do it often enough. All you have to do is keep it neutral. probably knows how to get you top billing on their Coming Attractions list. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added Files for discussion/2015 December 2 and a lot of RfCs to WP:ANRFC. Get working, Drmies! The RfCs won't close themselves. ;) Cunard (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cunard. I'm just so busy being important, and I'm already half-assing an RfC. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well for helping out with this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

How private are the call numbers issued on a ham operator's license?
Drmies - I would think they are as private as a person's telephone number, right? Atsme 📞📧 03:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * TP stalker here. I presume the same as I have seen some lists on sale in the silk road. Clearly they will not be selling stuff if it was easy(legal) to acquire. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Freeatlast, next time you're on that road, can I get you to pick me up a few ounces of that fine, soft Afghan hash, the stuff that simply rolls between your fingers when warmed up? is probably good for a few grams as well. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let me put it this way - should the call numbers of a (notable academic) person's ham license be published in their BLP? I can think of a couple of reasons for it not to be, but before I get myself in trouble trying to do the right thing, I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing. Atsme 📞📧 03:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Atsme--it's been a few decades since I saw one. Where I'm from those used to be printed on calling cards and were freely distributed. So individual, yes; private, not so much., what do you make of this? If were still around, they might have an idea. Atsme, I think I'd need a bit more detail/background information. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They're personally identifying numbers which can be used to identify the individual, and (depending on the issuing country) the address and contact information of the individual. I'd probably suppress one if it was sent to the oversight list, with the possible exception of a user page. Risker (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In the US, they are public record from the Federal Communications Commission. RecNet provides a pretty good up-to-date list on their FCCData website.  You can search by callsign, city/state or last name.  Not sure about any other country regarding Amateur/Ham Radio. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm always around. I never took Wikipedia alerts off my email. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And one more question - aren't BLPs automatically covered under DS? And if so, is it appropriate to place a DS tag on the TP of a BLP when there is disruption?  And is it also appropriate to add a notice of DS on a new user's TP (IP) if they are being disruptive at a BLP?  I saw somewhere over at DS a while back that all BLPs were subject to DS therefore AE.  Yes or No?  Atsme 📞📧 04:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the fact the person is a ham radio operator notable to the article? If what the person teaches has something to do with ham radio, then maybe.  If they teach science or english or birds or whatever and ham radio is their hobby, then probably not.


 * As for delete sorting, that's more a question for Drmies or Risker, then myself. From what I have been told, delete sorting was going away.  The sorting templates were removed from all of the radio station pages about a month or so ago.  Now that could just be radio and not BLPs, so I'm not sure. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion but I meant Discretionary Sanctions not delete sorting.  As far as the call letters, the BLP I'm working on is very much involved in wireless communications et al - Theodore Rappaport - but I was concerned over having his call letters listed in his BLP considering the worldwide exposure.  I'm ok with leaving it in If it's safe to do so.  I likened it to adding someone's phone number in an article which I knew would not be appropriate.  Atsme 📞📧 04:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries on the confusion, 'twas my goof. I did a Google search on Mr. Rappaport and his callsign and it is on numerous other websites, both ham radio and university websites, even a couple books.  Probably other pages, but I stopped at page 3 of the search.  With the callsign being on that many different sources, I don't think it being on Wikipedia will cause any problems. , , do you agree? -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 05:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , if it's widely reported in reliable sources and that's an OK thing to do, I don't see why we couldn't do it. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go with the university websites and books before I would go with the ham radio websites. Those tend to be run by one or two people, so they might not meet RS. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 08:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Drmies where I live(Pakistan) that stuff is kinda "readily available". The lists I saw were most probably of the illegal numbers, perhaps some private ones etc. Not sure though it was long time ago, Silk Road went to dogs so not able to recheck. (I visited Silk Road only for "browsing purposes". Most of what they sell, I can buy at my street corner). FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been my experience that ham operators are quite proud of their accomplishment in being issued a license and are not the least bit put out when their call signs are in the public eye. My 2 cents worth ($CDN). Regards,   Aloha27   talk  15:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Checks at SPI
When you run a CU and then report your findings at the SPI (a little unorthodoxly, but you're inimitable), you should change the status of the case, usually to "checked" or "close", depending on whether you think anything more needs to be done. Those signals help the rest of the team manage the case load.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And thank you! Drmies (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vera Songwe
Hello! Your submission of Vera Songwe at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Lemmy
Which I've done..Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And no I don't consider the matter so eaily delt with, thank you very much. I'm speaking with Oshwah about it and you have just interfered, like the other 'persons' in question, so I expect there to be no boomerangs flying either. Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You posted at ANI: you asked for administrative interference. I gave you some. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * right...well thank you then, i suppose...Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Content from Twice (band) page
Hi, Drmies. I understand some of the content removal from the Twice page, especially the Endorsements section. I disagree with the filmography removal, however. While some appearances can certainly be removed, many of the appearances are on notable television shows and involve the entire group. I would like to re-add the section but with a more tailored list that includes only important appearances. I'm coming here to discuss with you so we can work it out without it seeming like I'm trying to edit war. Katzenlibrary (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, and thanks--I think what I think in general: stuff is worth listing if reliable, secondary sources suggest it's worth listing. It is entirely possible that some of the things I cut are important enough to list. That's always a matter of opinion, of course, but importance can also be proven by access to sources, and by demonstrating in the article body that there's something to be said. For instance, if you were to list every single appearance Neil Young ever made on TV, you'd have a pretty long list (although not as long as the one that could be drawn up for Girls' Generation, I suppose), and a boring one. But every one knows, and it can be verified, that the show he did on Saturday Night Live in 1989 was important, basically relaunching his career--it should be in the article. (For all the youngsters out there, this is rock and roll.) And I know this because I know, but also because of this and this and this and absolutely this. Even the shirt he wore has some encyclopedic significance, see this and this. (Girls Generation had, as everyone know, a reasonably memorable performance on David Letterman in 2012.) The problem with listing everything, as is so frequently done in K-pop but also in many other popular culture articles, including wrestling and gaming, is that everything then means nothing anymore. Wheat and chaff all on the same heap. So a performance on a notable show isn't yet notable in its own right: it's notable if secondary sources make it notable. That's what I think, and I think it's a decent argument, since we simply cannot include everything. It makes for unreadable articles, besides the fact that it turns articles into fan sites and promotional vehicles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, especially about crossing the line into fansite. Most of the entries in the table did have a source, but I'll cut out less important appearances and only keep in the ones that are notable due to the importance of the show (such as Weekly Idol) or the importance of the appearance (such as those that launched the Tzuyu controversy). If there's anything left in that raises a flag with you, we can discuss. Thanks for the feedback! Katzenlibrary (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Peace fellow humans...
G'Day,
 * It's been a rocky start I'll admit, but I'm not a quieter so...I'm sending out a, very, neutral peace flag with everything that has gone down in the recent day/s-week. I'm not trying to excuse my self, I have a very strong reaction to perceived disrespectful behavior, but it can be said I have acted exactly the same myself, with me coming on here like a wrecking ball, to be reflectively honest about it all. I'm very willing to get to know the 'rules of the game' here, as I'm a permanently injured Security Specialist and an ex-Roadie (hence my Rock n Roll thing and why I get so 'uppity', as I've worked with who knows who back in the day) that is trying find something to do with my down time whilst in rehabilitation and recovery. I'll admit, at my age I'm also very used to being the 'boss' when I do anything, so clearly I'm not anymore, a reality check on consensus instead of dictation I suppose. I truly do not walk around life thinking I'm the be all and end all of existence either (though as my written example of re-action-ary aggression can show....), or the next best thing since sliced bread, or the wheel for that matter, and as an Australian have had a good dose of 'copping it on the chin' with all this. One thing that is pretty important is that I just lost my baby brother to suicide recently, and as the oldest of my siblings, has devastated me; I mention this not as an excuse by any means but a reality of my daily life now and in part my persona unfortunately; as I'm not the easiest person to be around anymore, just ask the missus (and may the universe give her strength), who is also an academic historian, that has sometimes proof read a paragraph, and as she has told me in the last few days 'source material, source material, source material' (re: peer review), but she's an academic, and I'm not.... I say all this as a genuine example of my honesty and an attempt to, at the least, move on from all this, if not mend any bridges, which I don't blame those involved for a lack of care about, so I've said my piece. I'm not looking for a 'your OK buddy, welcome aboard' either; just to go through my paces without anymore speed-bumps and to contribute something useful really, as I do have quite a bit of knowedge to pass on (if I can find the cite's....). User:Drmies, User:Karst, User:Sergecross73, User:JJMC89, User:Oshwah, User:Only, User:Shawn in Montreal, User:Mlpearc, User:Bretonbanquet
 * Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Undeserved DYK credit
I've already got one of those this year, I don't really need another. Unless it's about bacon, I'd like to be able to claim I've created content related to bacon. But I'd much prefer a Get Out Of ArbCom Free card, if you could arrange that instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. Maybe I can do both. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

An advice
It seems that depending of demographic targeting of a topic an article could be written or look too liberal or too conservative as User talk:ParkH.Davis shows for example. Have you notice that? In my specific case I'm part of the discussion about Talk:Peyton Manning and we are going to nowhere. I think a more varied brainstorm in talk pages from different kinds of editors would help. What are your thoughts about that? Leo Bonilla (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, but that's an interesting topic. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the ParkH.Davis talk page link carefully? And there are discussions in which only certain people are interested and can't be totally unbiased, if those are the correct words. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In the infobox photo Manning's neck is twice the length that it is in the other two, and it looks smooth and cylindrical. Did the neck surgery extend his neck? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL. I think it's because the head posture. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got maihahail (sung at baritone voice...)
Lectonar (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And again.....Lectonar (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I KNOW, you Faro-drinking jerk, and I am asking the right people. I'll get back to you if I learned something. For all you curious talk page stalkers, Lectonar and I are part of a secret cabal looking to import Cuban cigars to the US before the market opens completely; we're looking for a quick buck. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But I don't think Faro would go well with a Cuban cigar... Just sayin'  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you tried Sauce andalouse with a cuban cigar?...just dip in and enjoy. 19:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but I am not overly fond of combining food and tobacco. I only smoke when I'm not eating. Confuses the palate... And I might forget that the front tube is for breathing, and the back one is for swallowing, and where would I be then?  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Live and learn...I always thought cigars were for eating...and chewing..;)Lectonar (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lectonar, I have inquired and have nothing more to offer you, I'm afraid. I will tell you that this thread is making me want a smoke very badly. Please don't tell that I have these desires still. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I spent six weeks working on a construction project in Cuba in 1972. We got two cigars a day as part of our daily rations. I traded mine for food, usually scrambled eggs. My lungs are fine today, though my waistline is far more ample than it was in Cuba. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for your help, and apologies about the mix-up. Bill G. Evans (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary--I'm sure plenty of people would have agreed. Seriously, I have no quarrel with your subject, but that subject matter had to go. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lord Lovat
Hi Drmies,

Yes, I might have overegged the pudding! I put a lot of background information in to make sense of his life and the decisions he made, and I still think some is necessary for those with no knowledge of Scottish history. But I will rein it in a bit for the later sections!! You were right to edit the early life section, it does look a bit less daunting now... Lowering21 (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that section can do with one sentence, one single sentence that places it in historical context--but yeah, that was a bit much. Good article writing is also about economy; can tell you about the article on that lady who wrote hymns. Thanks for your note, and thanks for your work on that article! (And for learning me a new expression of course.) Drmies (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What's this?
What do you call this accusation? I would call it a disruptive and amateur comment. This is not the first of course. Mhhossein (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * TP stalker here. I will call it "statement of facts" exactly what "disruption" has it caused? And exactly what is "amateurish" about it? I seems to have been well researched. Oh wait.....I made that comment.....Why are you not discussing this at my TP? Or the AFD?.........Wait you did not even ping me............lol FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your "amateurish" comment, of course, has nothing to do with that AFD discussion, where we usually discuss based notability measures. Making such comments. as you did, is non sensible. If there are reasons to keep the article, a real admin will recognize that. The admin will also understand if reasons discussed are not policy based. So, one can't easily understand what that comment is meant for! Mhhossein (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Freeatlast, my talk page is a free-speech zone--at least for happy speech. Mhhossein is not under any obligation to ping you, as far as I'm concerned. I do think that your comment there is less than collegial; as before, your burden seems to be to practice diplomacy. That AfD is interesting, and I hope to find time to look at the article. Ah, the good old days of revolution, when people had passions and politics. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for vandalism at Bob Ezrin, as shown here. Look, it says here quite clearly on the card, "Invoice, one vandalism block to Dr. Mies, Department of Hard Knocks, University of Podunk, IA 55512". I don't make the rules, m'am, it's more than my job's worth If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please send them on a postcard to our usual address. PS: Have a nice day! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You forgot to implement the block...Lectonar (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The block has been left as an exercise for the reader. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Man, AGAIN!?!?!? Drmies (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Iowa?? Drmies (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You rang? (in my best Lurch voice) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What's up here Drmies? Mhhossein (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You blocked? I don't believe it, oh man, let's vandalize Wikipedia, Drmies is blocked.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the doctor hasn't been blocked, it's just a joke, probably related to sport and 'bama. Thomas.W talk 19:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom case
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASammy1339&type=revision&diff=706836257&oldid=706728595


 * No, it's not there, it's at case requests and at the moment is a real mess, I've asked Martin Hogbin to fix it but will probably revert it now. Doug Weller  talk 15:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In essence, people are getting worked up because of Veganism? Good luck with that one ArbCom members. Dave Dial (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll discuss it at the next braai. is cooking. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I was thinking at the annual ArbCom lobster boil/chili cook off. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom case
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Sock-puppetry scale
Hey buddy, i have a sock-puppet in sight but i am not opening the case since i am not sure that the way he used his two accounts would qualify him for blockage so i was waiting for the time when he makes a mistake and do so. I wanted to throw the scenario to the expert himself. The master was topic-banned several times and blocked for edit-warring several times. He violated his bans/blocks for which he was blocked for three months. After three months were over, he came back but with a different account so in a sense he did not use both of the accounts at the same time but used them on same pages and i believe he created this new account to run away from his ban/block history. For example you can get a severe penalty if you were warned before or were alerted about DSA but your new account will look new to the public and you are violating same rules/policies for which you were blocked before.

I am not sure how would it be to name the names here but if you want to look at there block history then i can give you the account names.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 17:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can do one of two things, Sheriff: email me the names and some of the evidence (you can email that to any administrator, I suppose), or start an WP:SPI. Your call. If you make accusations on-wiki, you need good evidence. I cannot promise you that I will be able to understand all the ins and outs, but we'll see. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can prove that the user accounts belong to the same person but i am not sure if they will get blocked in the scenario i explained above. The user did not use both accounts at the same time, one was blocked, the block expired, he created another one and now doing same things with this new user account on almost same pages. Do you think users will be blocked if proven that they are same person, just being same person? I mean the master has a block history and i am sure if he would have used his master account, he would have been blocked again just because he knew about all those warnings which we have to give him again on his new account.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Holey moley, what a can of worms...
Hey Drmies, jokes about self-recusal not withstanding, I thought I might bring to your attention that the rolling brawl between Volunteer Marek/Solntsa90/Dave Dial has spilled into another article (Lyndon LaRouche) and into ANI as a result. And boy is it ugly. Even if you haven't the time to comment, I wonder if you might review the above thread briefly? The pure and automatically caustic response from two of those editors to the examination of an edit war in which all three took part has really taken me aback. If this is how they respond to a single un-involved editor who mostly agreed with their content position, but just disagreed on the particulars of how the issue should be handled, I can't fathom how ugly this has been/will get. I'm wondering if this is ripe for ArbCom.  S n o w  let's rap 20:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already been there, hasn't it? Thanks for the note. The one who started it was blocked by MastCell, and one who continued it out of personal animosity towards another editor is now blocked. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to see. Personally, I'm not impressed with the conduct of any of them, but hopefully this will be enough to separate them and end the disruption.  S n o w  let's rap 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's more hotheads here than just me, Snow Rise. Tempers flare especially when it concerns old matters, such as in this case the return of an editor who was banned nine years ago. I know from experience that disagreement over how to treat such editors can make the nicest of people forget their manners. In this case it took three admins to handle the fallout... Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm used to raised tempers, especially at ANI, but when a party gets so worked up that they can't even recognize that another editor agrees with them on the root issue and is trying to help them and, rather than engaging in a mundane community process that is going to give them everything they want out of the dispute, instead defends their decision to engage in an edit war that escalates to 30 reverts (ultimately leading to the article being put under full protection, so no one can edit it), and gets hostile, indignant and incivil merely because they were pinged in an ANI discussion of the matter...well, at that point their behaviour has crossed the line from maybe understandable frustration to outright disruption. IMHO.  All of that said, I appreciate you taking action to resolve the provoking  behaviour and bring the matter to a conclusion.  Self-deprecation or no, you're no hothead; you're one of our more reliable administrative assets.  Cheers.  S n o w  let's rap 03:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All parties involved, including yours truly, should try to learn from the shortcomings of our individual roles in that kerfuffle. I count myself lucky that no one called me on the carpet for my misuse of WP:DENY. I encourage you too,, to take some time to ponder whether you could have handled things a tiny bit better. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect, Cullen, I don't see where (aside from to say that I will never again ping either Dave Dial or Volunteer Marek to a discussion again if it can be avoided). I was merely an uninvolved party responding to an ANI request opened by another editor which went unaddressed for days as an edit war unfolded on that article.  I agreed substantively with all three of you about what was best for the article, and I made that clear from the start with language that was both plain and civil.  But it was also clear that the best way to counter the disruptive editing of the other party was to address the issue through proper channels to effectuate a block, not by getting into an endless edit war with him, to the detriment of the article.  At the point that reverts in the edit war are one-fourth of the way to triple digits, you can no longer cite WP:DENY as justification of a decision to further that edit war.


 * Look, there was a choice here between two options, one mandated by policy and the other forbidden by it; each had an obvious outcome, which I tried to stress, and each of those outcomes has now come to pass. One, y'all could have brought the matter to ANI or a number of other community spaces to have the behaviour of Bruce and Solnsta examined, in which case Bruce would have been blocked as a sock and Solnsta blocked for hounding (which is exactly what happened once uninvolved parties did that for you).  Alternatively, you could do what was done: you all engaged in an exhaustive edit war, in violation of basic policy (WP:DENY is an essay and does not trump WP:EDITWAR, the most central policy we have concerning how to resolve content disputes), the result of which was that, for a period of days, the content on that article that our readers were viewing was changing drastically ever few hours or minutes as the reverts piled up to 30. Until, finally (and inevitably), an admin had to fully protect the page--so now, for days more, no one can make any change to the article, harmful or beneficial.  So you tell me, which of those approaches was appropriate under policy and basic common sense, and which would have saved all of you (and the community at large) a great deal of trouble? That's the only point I was trying to make from word go, and I'm happy to stand by how I tried to make that distinction in terms of both clarity and civility.  And this in the face of truly hostile reactions from your compatriots who were enraged that someone would "dare" to ping them in an ANI discussion.  I said only what others in that space would have said eventually and, frankly, I think I was a lot more generous to your position than many other ANI veterans would have been if they were first on the scene to that conflict and saw how long that edit war had persisted.


 * If you find that my interpretations of policy were flawed or my discussion style somewhere uncivil, I'm always open to considering such opinions, but you'll have to be more specific as to exactly where, because, looking over the entire thread, I just don't see it in this case. If you do have any thoughts though, please share them on my talk page so we don't further clutter Drmies' space.  Best regards and hopes that our next meeting on the project is, as in the past, less stressful.  S n o w  let's rap 05:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. You are delusional. Dave Dial (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to have my consistency with policy and good graces in that thread compared against yours by this community, Dave. Any day of the week. But if you continue to make comments which have no substantive policy weight behind them but are rather just comments about me (that is, unambigous WP:Personal attacks), just one more time, I'm going to be making another request of an admin that you won't like.  You got exactly what you wanted out of the content dispute as a result of the fact that others followed proper procedure while you engaged in an edit war. I suggest you quit while you're ahead.  Unlike your adversaries in that edit war, I am not a sock and I am not hound, and I do not have to put up with your incvility and personal attacks.


 * If you want to speak your peace and hash out where you feel my interpretation of policy was wrong, I extend that courtesy even to you, on my talk page. But if all you've got is all that you've given ("you're clueless/inept/stupid/making a fool of yourself"-type comments which you continue to make over and over again), then I won't hesitate to request a block. I've been as patient with your caustic, hateful tone as I feel any editor can be expected to be. I've done nothing that should have offended you and you need to learn how to disagree with fellow editors with grace and composure. Anyway, anyhting further you have to "share" with me should be done so on my talk page.  Drmies has real business to attend to here.  S n o w  let's rap 05:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the one that can't let this go. I've watched you go on and on in some kind of obsessive ranting fit and have let it go, not commenting. You keep stating I was engaging in an edit war, bereft of all reason and objectivity, when I reverted one God Damn time. So you go right ahead and try to run to some admin and get me blocked. You will only wind up with more egg on your face. Now stop obsessing over this silliness and move on. Dave Dial (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From WP:EDITWAR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." What defines edit warring behaviour is not the number of times you revert another editor, but the context in which you do it. At the point you joined the fray, the content had already been reverted 23 times. It was unambiguously an edit war and you dove head first into it. Whether your motive was to respond to Solnstad's hounding of your friend or to try to protect the article (both reasonable impulses) you should have sought administrative action, rather than perpetuating an edit war that was clearly just going to go on and on and on--to the determent of the article and our readers.  What did you think would happen if you just continued to revert? Did you think Herschel would eventually just go away, after days of the same behaviour?  That doesn't seem like very clear thinking. How many pages of revision history were you willing to fill before you did what you should have done from the start and took the issue to an admin or proper channel so he could just be blocked? We have these policies for a reason and whether you can see it or not, I pinged you to the ANI to bring the socking issue to the community's attention, so a proper action could be taken that didn't involve dozens of highly disruptive reverts.  So how is that "delusional"?  S n o w  let's rap 06:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey there everyone. The POV-pushing has been stopped. The edit war has been stopped. The situation has been resolved. The ANI has been closed. Let's cease reviewing the legitimate good-faith actions of others compared to other legitimate good-faith actions they could have made. No point in going around in circles. I think everyone has had their say. One person's strategy in an obvious POV-pushing spree may be different from another's. In the end, it was resolved. Live and let live. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I hate to assume ...
.. and the curiosity is killing me, so ... "Accept/Decline/Recuse"? (hope all is well) — Ched : ?  22:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * forgot the NYB gambit - "Awaiting statements" — Ched : ?  22:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait--what? Drmies (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that you took the time to post a statement on the case request, but didn't "vote" to either accept, decline, recuse. or even the common "awaiting comments from parties." Just because you took an administrative action, doesn't necessarily mean you're "involved".  I am guessing, but I don't like to do that. — Ched :  ?  01:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not going to vote--after all, I'm indicted, so it should be obvious that I'm recusing. Fun stuff, though. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK - just checking. :) — Ched : ?  02:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Other. Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * details, details. :-) — Ched : ?  11:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am just a rookie here doc, but you should probably put "recuse" in the section at the bottom. As a formality. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hate formalities. Formalities are for administrators and INS officials. BTW, speaking of formalities, how did a question about an administrative decision a. jump to ArbCom and b. turn into an article discussion? Drmies (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * hence my question my good doctor.  Well, that: the "thank you" for opening the request and me being "dense as mud" :P — Ched :  ?  18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

2606:6000:FD07:E900:A546:EE99:2971:B65B
Drimes,

It may be a good idea to revoke talk page access from, who you recently just blocked. Thanks! AeroAuxiliary (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: It looks like you've already done that. :-) AeroAuxiliary (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
GABHello! 02:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * . GABHello! 02:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)