Geolocation

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

Advice requested

I might have been here a while but I can't think where to raise this. I am aware of a case concerning suspected child abuse where the family court in the UK has issued an order of protection. This bans reporting on this case in the UK. It has however been reported on overseas. I've seen a UK editor, who I genuinely believe is unaware of the case, repeating some of the reporting. Strictly speaking as I understand it, that breaks the order of protection and exposes them to legal action in the UK. I'm really not sure what to do next, as I am sure if I try and explain this to the guy, well they simply won't listen as they have a bit of a bee in their bonnet. Do you have any suggestions? WCMemail 14:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

WCMemail 15:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail too!!! Drmies (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. WCMemail 18:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You missed one, but I changed it myself. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A request for an urgent draft review.

Hello. So, the section title we've talked about has been changed to a more neutral one (at least, everyone seems to be okay with it), however, there's another problem now: I've created a draft for a separate page entirely dedicated to the core of the section's content (there have been talks about it, since the section is just too long and new material is arising every day), so, is it possible to urgently review/publish it as something related to an ongoing event? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get what you mean by "news things". If the recency of events is what frustrates you, then it's pretty strange, because new events is what makes the Wikipedia article base grow, and this process is natural. If what you're talking about is agenda pushing, then it's understandable, but this is something that is certainly manageable and what is to be expected on an online encyclopedia. If it's about "turning an encyclopedia into a news aggregator", well, I'd say, reading about recent events is already one of the most common Wikipedia use cases, which is only going to increase in popularity simply because Wikipedia has established itself as the biggest center of information flow in the internet. If the reasoning is something else, I am curious as to what it is. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you would say that "new events" make an encyclopedia grow, particularly when the newness of events, and therefore the paucity and immediacy of sources run directly counter to WP:V. That is my reasoning: we are not the news. Reliable sources, gathered over the long run, help select what is noteworthy. Rushing include every shot, every arrest, every move means that editors are doing all of that, and many editors, blinded by their enthusiasm or their POV, are not capable of excising non-noteworthy material unless it doesn't fit their POV. That is the problem here, and that's why we have massive articles and walled gardens of things that are simply not as noteworthy as many other things that languish in stub status. Drmies (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it was mainly about the reliability of the sources. I can certainly agree that the majority of the articles about ongoing events get spammed with questionable references, however, it would also be true to say that usually this gets managed by the editorial community, and these sources get filtered out. COVID-19 articles are a great example of that. Also, I may be wrong about this, but it seems like you're comparing the stuff I've written in that section to something like, for example, a reference to a source about "Russian planes bombing a civilian hospital in Syria" in an article about the Syrian War, or something like that. If that's the case, this is very, very wrong. The stuff I've written there is supported by, firstly, the victims' accounts, who's names and photos are given in the articles, secondly, the photographic and, in some cases, video evidence, and, thirdly, the fact that the media cited there are not flagged by Wikipedia as unreliable sources of information and de facto are widely used in covering the internal Belarusian events. So, as I understand it, there can be no issues from the standpoint of Wikipedia guidelines. As to the "blinded by enthusiasm" and "including "non-noteworthy material" part, I can agree that it's a problem, and, frankly, a couple of times I had to restrain myself from putting even more details into those translations. However, "condensing" them even further while simultaneously preserving the original message is impossible, in my opinion. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not "mainly" about the reliability of the sources. That's one problem, sure, but the bigger problem is that the things that get written up may not even be noteworthy in the long run. Or need not be told in such detail. Or in any detail at all. Or they are simply wrong, or partly wrong. I'm also not talking specifically about what you are writing; it happens in all those articles. You are writing up NEWS, no matter how often you say you're not, and the argument for "this is not news but encyclopedic information" is "it's important". Well, that works for everything--for a K-pop comeback as well as a demonstration here or there. Encyclopedias should take the long view, longer than the news cycle. Have you seen the size of this? Drmies (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but there are a few problems. Let's say, we completely restrain from covering events until some time has passed since their ending (around 1 month, for example). Can you imagine the amount of material to be studied to even start writing about them? It would be very hard to do. It's much more rational to cover them right from the beginning, and only then, in the future, make sure no excessive or factually wrong material is left in an article. Also, I agree that encyclopedias should take the long view, but I don't think this approach and the type of articles we're talking about are mutually exclusive, because Wikipedia, by its nature, is in a state of a constant change and, in the end, everything there is decided by the editorial will to "do it right", i.e. to carefully choose your sources, to re-read what you've written, to avoid single POV etc. So, I think, you're a little too dramatic about this. By the way, the Hong Kong article is not that bad, considering around 50% of the page is taken by the "References" section. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "too dramatic"? Ima let this slide since I think you're L2, but next time phrase things more carefully. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
English is, indeed, my second language, and it's the first time I see the word "dramatic" being interpreted as something derogatory. "A little too emotional", if you will, since your dislike towards this type of articles seems to be so strong. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

109.69.167.235

Hi Drmies. Can you do me a favour? The user 109.69.167.235 had been tampering with Dc comics pages again. Is he been blocked before? No, is he the 109.69.160.98? --Manwë986 (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drmies. Are you there?--Manwë986 (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Master/slave

Hello. Recently, you brought a suggestion for Master/slave (BDSM) lead image on the talk page. There were counterpoints to your suggestion, did you read them? So I suggested three other alternatives to illustrate a master/slave relationship in a BDSM context (File:Bdsm slave.jpg, File:Bdsm old guard couple.jpg, File:Pet slave.jpg). I would like to hear your opinion (negative, positive or neutral) about these three images in the talk page. No one has yet responded to my comment with these three suggestions [1]. As you have already given an opinion on the current lead image, I think you would like to give an opinion on other suggestions. I came here because it seems that you have not yet read the counterpoints to your suggestion. Your opinion will be important to enrich the conversation, thank you very much for your attention. gabibb2 ✉ 12:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single Dutch

Hi, any chance of adding translations of the legends of this image to the Commons file? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - I'll go & try one of the smart-arsed Belgians. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm really sorry. I feel like I should know this. There's a few things here--the word choice may throw me off, and the spelling may lead me astray, and on top of that they are indeed legends, and their grammar is severely compressed, making even guessing difficult. Good luck with it, Johnbod. I'm sorry. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

erm...

Your best guess; what is a Wikimedia movement? Tiderolls 18:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...things are well, generally. Of course, like everyone, there are new frustrations these days. Find a way through...hope that football season makes some appearance. Concentrate on whatever positive one can find. Hope y'all are well. Tiderolls 18:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As random courtesy notification, this issue vaguely involving you is also at ANI. It's not going anywhere there - feel free to comment in that thread, or ignore it as you wish. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you two. A waste of time, both attempts by that user. Drmies (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:111.125.118.154

As the blocking admin, you may care to know that 111.125.118.154 is continuing to vandalise his own talk page while blocked. Perhaps his access should be removed as he is making no attempt to appeal the block? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I revoked talk page access for 111.125.118.154 (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to both of you, User:AussieLegend and User:Johnuniq. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bantu peoples in South Africa

I just noticed that you had blocked one or more IPs of the format 41.XXX.XX.XXX that had edited this article. Did anyone check these IPs against User:Untrammeled? Some of the, shall we say "odd" constructions used by these IPs reminded me of him. --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop cavoodling around

You beat me to a block by about ten seconds. I guess that's what I get for being nice and only attempting a p-block (which cost me about 15 seconds figuring out the Twinkle menus). Primefac (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in bitcoin floating around the ether. I'll tell you the secret if you send $49.95 (American currency only please) to:

Prince JfI P.o. box 13 Mombasa 36Z25

John from Idegon (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP:2.99.236.170

2.99.236.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Would you mind taking a look at this IP's edits, and most likely blocking them? They are inserting nonsense sequences of (always) 4 words into random articles. They were reported at AIV more than an hour ago, but it seems to be backlogged. Thanks. General Ization Talk 01:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies

I hope you are staying safe in these trying times --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 11:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LTA

this LTA just posted your personal info. Good thing got them on time and reported pronto! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synoman Barris, Deleted and blocked. Drmies you may want that suppressed? Glen (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, that's WhenDatHotlineBlings, who gets a kick out of this kind of childishness. Revert, block, suppress--and report to WMF... Drmies (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Draft talk:Women in the US Healthcare Workplace: A Focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion/Temp

I want to clarify that I requested to delete this page because I had made a rewrite of it on another page. It wasn't copied without attribution, since I wrote both of them and I mentioned on Draft talk:Women in the US Healthcare Workplace: A Focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion that it was a rewrite. Thanks for understanding. Eugenia Lee CEF (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from silence

I saw this comment. I'm not familiar with this dispute at all but the argument from silence caught my attention. In my wikipedia editing experience I'll sometimes find a scholar making a claim buried deep in a book and it will neither be repeated by other scholars nor rebutted by them (as it never gains prominence). That doesn't mean its false, but if something is WP:DUE shouldn't it be repeated by other sources? Thus, can argument from silence be a valid argument on wikipedia? VR talk 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond.VR talk 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Blake

I wasn't sure how to handle the incident on the Jacob Blake page, thank you for the clarification! --Buffaboy talk 17:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Reply

Sorry for the ping, you were the first admin I saw online. I am anxiously waiting to hear back if I got a position I am vying for so my focus is a little strayed. As you can see from my talk page, it's been a very busy night.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwick Boseman

Appreciate your fast response over at Chadwick Boseman. If I got one more edit conflict message I was going to go insane. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosha protests

Hi, Drmies, and thanks for shutting down a couple of unproductive discussions at the talk page. Does it strike you as possibly more than a coincidence that we suddenly have a wave of editors, including at least one brand-new single purpose editor, all trying to change the article to be more supportive of Rittenhouse? Is some commentator out there telling their listeners, "go and fix the Wikipedia article about this!"? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kargbo vandal

Firstly, my barnstar yesterday was sincere, so if it did not come across that way, I apologize. Secondly, they are up to their usual loser tactics again so perhaps another block is in order if you are interested. If so, I promise to keep my appreciation on the low down this time. Thanks for your assistance with this idiot. Robvanvee 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, blocked by Materialscientist. Robvanvee 09:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it, but in hindsight I wasn't proud of myself. I see that Ms placed a nice, big, fat rangeblock. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated vandalism, insults.

Hello. There's a problem with this template: it gets repeatedly vandalized by some IP editors who are forcing a "new code style", which drops the manual input of the gain percentages, even though I told them I don't need that as a sole maintainer of the template, since I have a script performing that task for me and their changes disrupt my workflow. They also seem to be aggressive about it and attempted to vandalize my personal talk page. Here are some of their edits there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. To be clear, this coding style was not discussed on the default template's talk page and, as far as I know, is not enforced in any way by the template's developers. Even though the "new" style has been adopted by many of the COVID-19 cases templates' maintainers, it is purely optional, and the "old" style is still used, for example, in the UK template, or the Spanish one. So, is there anything that can be done about it? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August

August
Sunflowers in Walsdorf

Finally a reason to give you the bumblebee before the month is over: for the coffee you gave El C, while I still struggled to word something ironic about this Much ado about nothing. I think it's today that I finally understood what disruptive means. Waste the time of how many people about white space???--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LTA

Can you please block 14.192.208.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), or reinstate the block on 14.192.192.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? This is an LTA who has returned very recently (one of the IPs that edited on August 15 was Globally Blocked today, for example). This range has been continuously abused since November 2018, and in the multiple individual IP blocks I've viewed, I've seen admin comments hinting that there are plenty of Open Proxies in this range. Given the behavior, I believe that this is WhenDatHotlingBling or My Royal Young (a CU wouldn't hurt either). Since you have some experience dealing with these LTAs, I thought that you should be the one to handle this. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, someone can take care of our LTA pal, now that this ****storm has blown over. BTW, the latest edit on the range (14.192.192.0/18) from today shows that the LTA is still on there. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramblings

I can't account for the tone on that talk page, but I feel like I'm watching one of those board games where all the players have a secret goal that they're not allowed to reveal to the other players but drives their movements. Folks need to calm down. I can't think of anything more genial than interrogating the historiography of a topic and yet everyone's at each other's throats. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to lionize the founding generation. I'm trying to write an accurate and informative article about an influential pamphlet. I dislike when pages are used to make a point about something else entirely. Information about Dickinson's ownership of slaves is very relevant at John Dickinson, but it's been shoehorned into Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (even into the lede), where it's almost entirely irrelevant. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem, Thuc, is that you value your own opinion on a par with scholarly and journalistic sources that have been vetted by peer reviews and editorial oversight. Until you have your own trove of such published analysis, it really would boost everyone's productivity on this site if you'd repeat your opinions maybe twice at the most. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, since you've taken a further interest in the question, perhaps I could invite you to Talk:Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania#Crevecoeur? The question of whether Hutchins is part of the historical mainstream on Crevecoeur is an interesting one, and it's certainly a legitimate question for Wikipedia editors to engage in, regardless of their credentials. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: If you followed the WP:RSN discussion, you saw that in this case, the scholarship bore out my skepticism of Hutchins, in that his views do not appear to represent the general scholarship. Mackensen showed that Hutchins regards his own views as novel, and that what scholarly comment there is on Hutchins' work on Crevecoeur has been quite negative. Just to be clear: I've never put my views above those of the scholarship. I've pointed out that Hutchins' characterization of Crevecoeur is radically different from that of other scholars. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosha article

Hi. Pretty manipulative move of yours to choke off a legitimate debate. Now even the neutrality template has been removed from the article. Why not let neutral admins take over? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary! From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Drmies. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy First Edit Day, Drmies, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


1234qwer1234qwer4, he's already received two of these, just above yours, from CAPTAIN RAJU and Synoman Barris. Y'all really need to get a clue or stop posting these. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, One condition when placing entries into the Birthday committee calendar is More than one person from the committee may send messages to the same person. Please have a look at WP:BDC. Best regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Savage (song)

Hi! Can I just ask why you made this edit to Savage (song)? I did not know it violates the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you! Bgkc4444 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444[reply]

Possible sock

Hi Drmies, I see you blocked Unusual Wikipedian and noticed EnlightenedWikipedian, which was created shortly before. Not sure if the name similarity is enough for a CU but probably worth keeping an eye out. S0091 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP persisting in removing categories from multiple software articles

Special:Contributions/2600:8807:200:BA9:182:E20E:C361:F2D7 seems to be on an ongoing campaign to remove certain software categories the editor sees as redundant. This has often been reverted by multiple editors, including myself, but many of these are still outstanding. The editor often simply (manually) repeats his edits, and has not engaged on talk. With a couple dozen articles involved, it's getting a bit tedious. In fairness, the editor (per edit summaries) does have a point, just not a complete one. It could be discussed, somewhere, but I'm not sure where though, and the IP isn't discussing anything anyway.

Does this merit an attention-getting block, or maybe something more? Whatever you decide is fine by me. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I was reading our page on this repulsive man and they had a link to a book he had authored near the end of his life defending segregation and white supremacy. Believing the link did not belong in the body of the article, I have moved it to the external links section. However on reviewing the link which takes you to a digitized copy of Bilbo's book, I got suspicious and checked out the webhost. And naturally it is a white supremacist website. This has left me deeply conflicted. On the one hand I think the work, repulsive as it is, is historically significant and lays out very clearly Bilbo's beliefs and ideology. As such I tend to think it meets the criteria in WP:EL. On the other hand, I do not want Wikipedia being used in any way as a possible source of traffic to this website which is unquestionably WP:FRINGE. I am conflicted on whether to give weight to WP:NOTCENSORED or WP:PROFRINGE. I note that NOT is policy while PROFRINGE is a guideline, but... This is really odious stuff. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This isn't a time sensitive issue. It's late here and I'm off to bed. I'm sure it's late where you are as well. I will check in tomorrow sometime. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ad Orientem--good call. That is a nice bit of fascist and racist swinery, holy moly. In this case, there is an easy solution, if you want to link that text--here. HathiTrust is fantastic (they have tons of serials), and it always makes me think of The ed17 because Michigan. I read a few pages, and now I'm even sicker to my stomach than I already was, because shit like this, "This book is not a condemnation or denunciation of any race, white, black or yellow because I entertain no hatred or prejudice against any human being on account of his race or color-God made them so", I still hear (or read that every day. BTW the best student in my Early American Lit class is this wonderful young woman whose father is Black from Puerto Rico, and her mother Spanish (Spanish Spanish, not Central-American Spanish) by way of Cuba. "Mongrelization"--brr. Yes, I'd certainly remove that link from the lead, and if it were me, I'd beef up that section on the text (under "Death") with some third-party sources, so I could make a summarizing statement in the lead rather than merely state its existence.

Sorry I took my sweet time getting to this. I'm a bit miffed over recent developments at AN, and I don't really care to do much administrative work right now. Thanks again, and take care, Drmies (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bitFlyer page proposed for deletion

Dear Drmies. I work for bitFlyer, the largest cryptocurrency company in Japan. I would like to contest the proposed deletion of the bitFlyer page, since multiple editors previously supported the page, approved/implemented my suggested edits, and said the references were good. However, I am not sure if I am allowed to contest the proposed deletion as an editor with a conflict of interest? Would greatly appreciated if you could take a look and advise. Thank you! Sebastien0693 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tag bombing?

Is it prudent to add a large[weasel words] number of tags to an article, without explanation? See Indo-Aryan migration: Revision history; I don't know what to think of this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwick Boseman

It appears that you protected the page Chadwick Boseman, for the following reason:

Persistent vandalism

Remember: The page is being heavily edited because the subject, Chadwick Boseman, has recently died.

Please unprotect the page so IPs can edit and add new evidence about Boseman's death. Sysages (talk | contribs) 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)What is your motivation here, Sysages? The use of the word "evidence" is extremely troublesome in this context. --Orange Mike | Talk

Arameans RFC

@Drmies: Hi, I'm sorry to be bothering you about this again, but I'm making zero progress. I had created that RFC in the vain hope of getting the attention of users beyond the usual crowd, and very quickly it has been drowned out by Optra2021 who simply copy and pasted his massive response from previously. The only user to respond to this RFC has immediately ducked out, and frankly I don't expect anyone else to participate. These issues usually drag on until these new users get blocked for being revealed as sockpuppets, and frankly I suspect that user and H0llande are both socks of MixedButHumann. It'd be brilliant if I could get your thoughts or help on this. Cheers. Mugsalot (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

second the motion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More