This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Drmies

Thanks for your input on Arunvijay, I had just typed the lines and I was about to add the references to the article but I think you would have thought that the information was inaccurate as there were no references. Both of us were reviewing the article at the same time hence the confusion. Thanks Kavinsp 05:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I saw your subsequent edits--we're talking about this digital thing, right, and I think you added a hindutimes link? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, the digital thing. I added two links for that. I saw your list of contributions, great work. Wikipedia would be glad to have people like you.Kavinsp 07:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

These "two" editors (both with under 260 edits each) have showed up on three different pages only to agree with each other in edit wars against either EEng or Malik Shabazz: [1]. PrincetonNeuroscientist has already edited logged out to evade 3RR [2], and after I warned him about logged-out editing [3] he seems to be editing as his apparent sock to evade 3RR: [4]. Thoughts? Softlavender (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 In progress. I don't want us to duplicate the same work, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, again! I was just going through some diffs but that's not easy on the phone. Thanks BBB, and good morning to you. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• RabidMelon (talk · contribs · count) and PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk · contribs · count) are  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. RabidMelon has an interesting history.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I had the same thought about this pair. Even though you piss me off a lot, Bbb, thanks. EEng 15:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Out of evil good will come forth. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks very much, Bbb23. Softlavender (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks guys. I can't believe somebody thought they could edit like that, even using the first person in their edit summaries, and nobody would make the connection. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• By the way, Drmies, Bbb23, and/or any other admin floating around: The user is IP-hopping to continue the edit war on Columbia University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can someone please semi-protect it? (Saves me the trouble of filing at RFPP.) Softlavender (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"A fascination with the Eurovision Song Contest is always questionable"?? I beg your pardon? The ESC is the high point of the year in this country. But then I suppose we already knew it was a questionable country! Bishonen | talk 11:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC).

• I think you just answered your own question, yes. :) Pardon is granted. If that's your high point, I'll be glad to send you a catalog of naughty things or an REO Speedwagon CD. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• So I was outside setting up our new tent, taking a nap with Liam, making muffins, cooking flank steak in the slow cooker, etc. etc.--and you got all the action today? Good for you! Drmies (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• The more time your children spend in and around tents, the better human beings they will be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I just wanted to know if there is any way you could block edits to a particular page for a temporary period of time. Over the past few hours there have been several instances of vandalism by two users on Kuttram 23.The film is running in theatres right now and I guess some people who dont like the film are trying to vandalise the article. It would be great if you could give some suggestions on this issue.ThanksKavinsp (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Kavinsp, I don't see the vandalism--I removed a copyvio, and there's a bunch of IP edits without edit summary, but I don't see vandalism, certainly nothing that would warrant protection. If you see such vandalism, make sure that you revert it with a clear edit summary, so that us administrators can see what's going on. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for taking a look at it Drmies, the edits were actually made by two users: 78.100.85.177 and 2405:205:8107:d641:e7ef:bc81:7830:6c57 on March 5.I am not sure if it was done intentionally or accidentally. The edits were reverted back to its original by user:ClueBot NG. It has been almost a day since those edits, so I guess there would be no problem henceforth. I will keep a look on the article and let you know if any issue arises. Thanks a lot. Kavinsp (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. I'm usually not hesitant to semi-protect when something is happening, as seems to be the case here, but so many of the IP edits I saw seemed positive, or at least not disruptive. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Current events have led me to add some to Jackson Street Cemetery. Any ideas on where to go from here? LadyofShalott 04:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

By your edit here, are you suggesting that my edits in Ami Horowitz were POV-pushing? The Kingfisher (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• The "tweak" was to an edit by the editor who was reported in the thread, that Snoogans person. But while I have your ear, what made you think this edit was somehow OK? Does this edit summary explain why it's not? Drmies (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not understanding. Your "tweak" reverted my revert of Snooganssnoogans, who was POV-pushing and editing against policies that I outlined.

• No, this edit is a tweak to their revert. It didn't revert anyone. If you want to try and pull a statement about the conflict out of that edit, you might could say that I was looking for a via media between the two of you--including some of the info, and leaving out the enormous number of references which were already used elsewhere in the article. If you want to talk sides, I think I was pretty clearly agreeing with your claim that they were POV pushing. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Summary. My mistake was that I didn't write that his short films first aired on FOX, and later generated more than 1 million views.
• Why was it BLP and why is it not "OK" to use a Daily Mail article as a RS? Thank you. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ami Horowitz is alive, so the WP:BLP applies. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, not to be used in BLPs, and that was already a consensus before the recent RfC (it was in the paper). In short, "waving an ISIS flag" makes little sense in the lead of this article, and "millions of views", meh, no, that's not really neutral writing; you shouldn't link a YouTube video since this is an encyclopedia and we cite secondary sources; the Daily Mail is unreliable; the piece from Fox News is an opinion piece, and OH WAIT I see now that it's by Horowitz, so that's a double no. You can state things about what makes him notable as a "film maker", but you can't really do it in this way. My suggestion is you look at other articles on similar topics, esp. WP:Good Articles, to see how we typically do it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant what BLP policies was it violating (that you subsequently articulated), not why is his article BLP. I was not aware of the Daily Mail not being a RS. Thanks for the good feedback! The Kingfisher (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing--I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough the first time--edit summaries are for shorthand. Thanks for following up, Drmies (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

[5]

The far-right blogosphere is loving this "Obama did it too!" false equivalence of we are all descended from folks who came from someplace else — whether they arrived on the Mayflower or on a slave ship with they [slaves] too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great grandsons, great granddaughters might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land. Is it worth removing the edit summary?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well, it's a half-truth at best, but I wouldn't call it a BLP violation worthy of revdeletion. SlackerDelphi, you owe it to the world and yourself to be less...profligate with the truth. Context matters--greatly--and so does tone. Besides, "he did it too", even if it were correct, is hardly a good reason. I'm no fan of "controversy" sections, but the conscientious editor and citizen will have noticed that Carson was criticized particularly by African-Americans. Obama was not. That means something--and no, it doesn't mean that they were being partial; it means that what Carson and Obama said was not the same thing. One generated controversy, the other not. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right on the money, except for the "controversy sections" bit. It's not a controversy section but a section about his tenure; he was confirmed a few days ago and literally the only thing he's done since then (that RSes appear to be talking about) is equate slavery to immigration. Maybe in a year or two he will have accomplished some more, the section will have grown, and mentioning this first "minor" controversy from the week he entered office will be a WEIGHT problem, but I'm not holding my breath.

The funny part is that the original text somewhat confusingly implied he was criticized for saying that slaves worked harder than others in America; that is there in the source, but it was just clumsy wording, and it's somewhat laughable that it could be read that way.

Oh, and also technically I wasn't talking about revdel. The user didn't add a BLP violation to the article; they removed text. I was talking about removing the edit summary. But I don't really mind if it stays: the question marks were meant to indicate that I was on the fence myself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand SlackerDelphi looks a lot like a sock of banned User:CFredkin - Texas related politics, same style, same ideology, created right after CFredkin was indef'ed, obvious knowledge of Wikipedia policies and mark up, etc. This may also be him, based on two very similar and consecutive (switching accounts) edits at the Kellyanne Conway article [6] [7], but I'm less sure of that one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You could well be right. If it were an established contributor acting in good faith I would have thought twice before reverting, but the edit-summary combined with a brief scan of their edit history made it pretty obvious their motives were not on the up-and-up, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were a sock of previously banned user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think TJetc is one, and I don't know CFredkin well enough. Perhaps Bbb23 can be convinced to run CU--Volunteer Marek, Bbb may want to see a diff or two with some comparisons. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The account is  Unrelated to CFredkin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

TJetc or SlackerDelphi? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

SlackerDelphi.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

[8] EEng 01:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies. While it is easy to laugh about the likes of Paltrow, we would truly be doing not only the readers of the article a disservice by pretending that's all there is to this topic, we would also be erasing the lives of the many women around the globe who have long engaged in such practices. Their histories should be told, not buried under some modern American actress's tale. LadyofShalott 19:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, I guess the photo request was a joke. However, there are lots of relevant photos: of the herbs, of the stools/bowls, and of the women (fully covered) sitting for the steaming. I haven't located any yet that have clearly appropriate licensing for our purposes. LadyofShalott 19:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Dr, Any help you or talk page stalkers can provide will be appreciated. This is a long term autobiography, which I've reported to the COI noticeboard. Beneficial copy edits followed, but Professor Smith neither engages discussion nor relents in WP:OWNERSHIP. I doubt a block is warranted yet, but the article still needs work, and the subject's involvement will need to be, um, discouraged. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for helping, LadyofShalott, but there needs to be a stronger measure. I'm thinking ANI or something. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I never claimed to be doing, or intended that to be, an end-all-and-be-all. :) LadyofShalott 01:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I know. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The ref section now... to quote George Takei, "Oh myyyy"! LadyofShalott 01:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I know. I don't want to shop this around to another noticeboard, but I do think that Professor Smith needs to be removed from editing his entry. Gentle persuasion isn't doing the trick. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm yummie. I've quite forgotten the taste of good whisk(e)y. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured enough with the ale already. Cheers! 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, I was wondering, as the mop who took the initiative to block Hijiri88 the last time he dragged one of his feuds on to my talk page (before anyone even need to ask--that's efficiency), can I ask you to monitor this new situation? I am going to busy with serious professional and homelife obligations the next few days, and I don't care to have it explode all over my page while I am gone. I know it's a big ask, and I'm not asking you to do anything you wouldn't do if you have just stumbled on the situation yourself (as you did last time), but I really don't want to get drawn in to this drama. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, SR, thank you for notifying me that you were essentially asking for me to be blocked.

I found a very disturbing message written about me on reddit, and it looked like you were the one who wrote it. I asked you if it was you, and, while your response could have been "No. Sorry, but I have no idea who wrote that." or even "No, but that really does look twisted. I hope whoever posted it isn't still editing.", you decided to post a long string of personal attacks against me and, once again, bring up the name of a user I have been IBANned with for two years and who hasn't edited in months. It's impossible to discuss things with you when you constantly do this. I emailed two separate admins about this Yunshui, who said he agreed your behaviour was problematic but didn't want to touch the drahms for the next few months, and User:Boing! said Zebedee who said he'd look it into when he was less busy after that weekend, but I didn't push it beyond that because your most recent flareup had already died down by that weekend. But at this point now that you've dragged Drmies into this I'd be just as happy to have him do the honours.

Drmies: The only reason I didn't email you was because I was fairly certain you wouldn't want to touch this, and I still won't be disappointed if you just hat this sction and tell us both to go away. I'll forward you the email I sent Yunsh and Boing, anyway.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You come to my talk page, out of the blue, and twice make an insulting, serious accusation of misconduct against me without one shred of evidence or even any kind of mental process other than picking my name out of a hat of people who have critically examined your behaviour in ANI threads concerning your social conduct on this project months ago, and I am the one whose behaviour is troubling? Because I wasn't more amiable/sympathetic in answering your demand that I tell you if this random user on another site was me, in the most bewildering, out-of-nowhere moment I've ever had on this project?

I didn't ask Drmies to block you--I asked her to do me the favour of reinforcing (through whatever means she thought appropriate as an admin) my request that you stop posting these insane comments on my talk page, because I knew that you would not respect my request on its own without my seeking administrative assistance in the matter, (and I was absolutely correct), even though policy requires you to leave another user's talk space if they request it, and I shouldn't have to go to an admin to get you to comply. I don't have time to deal with this completely random, unsettling behaviour. I don't know how to tell you this more plainly: your behaviour is making me uncomfortable. I don't know what kind of level you think you have risen to in my mind because I criticized your conduct in some ANI threads, and we locked horns over your behaviour as a result. But I am telling you now, I have no interest in interacting with you further and certainly your entire existence has never meant enough to me for me to even contemplate opening a thread on some other site to bitch about you. If I had something pressing to say about you, you'd know it. Because I'd be saying it directly to you, on this site, in an appropriate forum. But I have no such things to say to you, and I won't.

If you had any kind of sense of how inappropriate and bizarre your conduct is here, you'd apologize for making such comments without any kind of justification. But we both know that is never going to happen, and I don't have any interest in trying to get such an apology from you. I do have an interest in seeing you respect my desire to not have you continue these comments on my talk page, where they cause in me a feeling somewhere between anger and uneasiness. Please do not return there. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies [...] as the mop who [blocked] Hijiri88 the last time he [posted on] my talk page (before anyone even need to ask--that's efficiency), can I ask you to monitor this new situation? [...] I know it's a big ask, and I'm not asking you to do anything you wouldn't do if you have just stumbled on the situation yourself (as you did last time) "Essentially asking for me to be blocked" is a pretty accurate description.

Anyway, if you could avoid questioning my sanity like the above (posting these insane comments, deal with this completely random, unsettling behaviour) I would appreciate it.

Your accusation that I asked you if you were the one who was badmouthing me off-wiki "without one shred of evidence" is completely false. It was obviously someone who was involved in that ANI thread in January (you were more involved than pretty much anyone else), "against" me in that thread (you were one of about three users who could be described this way), who believes I collect IBANs. This last part was especially incriminating since you are the only one who has ever said this about me on-wiki; no one else has drawn this conclusion, because it is laughably wrong -- Drmies knows all to well that I only request IBANs when I think they are necessary and usually request that they be dismantled once that is no longer the case.

But I am telling you now, I have no interest in interacting with you further and certainly your entire existence has never meant enough to me for me to even contemplate opening a thread on some other site to bitch about you. Then leave me the heck alone and stop bringing up random ancient history every time you see me say something you disagree with on a noticeboard. And especially stop trying to game my IBANs by treating them as though they were put in place because I was causing disruption; you know perfectly well that they were put in place to protect me from hounding

I'm not even going to address the rest of the above ridiculous string of attacks.

Drmies, I could not be more sorry this has happened on your talk page. If you want to blank it and tell both of us to shut the hell up and go doing something else ... well, I was going to say I would understand, but actually at this point I would appreciate it myself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88, we have a special department that looks into allegations of off-wiki harassment: ArbCom. Via email please. Drmies (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, we also have WP:AGF. I know I've developed something of a reputation for taking AGF to somewhat self-destructive levels, but I really thought that if I asked SR if it was him who posted it, I would get a simple "yes" or "no". Yes, in this case I had every reason to assume that what I would actually get would be "No, and you are a terrible person and I will continue attempting to trick you into getting yourself blocked until someone stops me" (regardless of what an honest answer might have been). Anyway, all the evidence I have been able to gather is on SR's talk page, most of it in my first message to him earlier today. If you think it was out of line for me to post it on-wiki, then you can rev-del it and I won't complain (as I've already said multiple times, I want this to be over, or at least to be quieter than it wound up being). I'll send an email with the same information in a bit.

Although for the record: I have a certain amount of experience with off-wiki harassment, and I don't think anyone ever told me ArbCom was the place to go back when that 2013-2014 JoshuSasori stuff was going down. I didn't want to discuss it on-wiki for other reasons, but I don't recall anyone saying I should email ArbCom specifically.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

For the millionth and last time, Hijiri, no one is trying to "trick you into talking about your IBAN to get you sitebanned". I mentioned your IBANs in a thread six months ago, and you haven't stopped with this paranoid fantasy that I am trying to "trick/game" you into getting yourself banned since. You've made this (extremely bad faith) accusation repeatedly and it makes no more sense now than the first time you said it. Why, why on earth would I try to do such a thing to some random editor with whom I had no previous conflicts!? What could I possibly get out of that? The actual reason I mentioned your IBANs in that discussion was in the context of you abusively berating another editor at ANI. I referenced your IBANS to try to emphasize that you have a long history of needlessly personalizing content disputes, and that this was maybe not a winning strategy, for you or the project. I also mentioned said IBANS only in the abstract; no one tried to "lead" you into talking about anyone you were banned from discussing. Not once, and I guarantee you can't provide a single diff that any reasonable editor would interpret in such a way.

At the time you first made this accusation, I thought it was just a cynical ploy to shift attention away from your own behaviour, but I've come to think you really do believe this tinfoil-hat conspiracy nonsense that I am out to get you for...reasons? Now you show up on my talk page, dragging the drama that you've created with others and accusing me of being behind it, and you think the problem here is that you are handicapped by being too AGF? Wow. Just, wow. I am fed up with these accusations of yours, made on no more basis than your own paranoid delusions/fantasies of persecution. Stop making baseless accusations you cannot back up. This is clearly into WP:HARASSMENT territory at this juncture and my patience is done with it. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I suggest you ignore these accusations. Tell Hijiri88 not to post on your talk page again. Hijiri, ArbCom can deal with private information, and we'll see if any of them are interested in picking this up. In the meantime, I must urge you to stop discussing this matter on-wiki and make no further comments. Y'all please stop talking about each other. Thank you both, Drmies (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's just the thing. I did try to be done with this by simply asking him in unambiguous terms to stop posting on my talk page. He not only ignored that request and persisted in badgering me with accusations, he also began pinging another editor to my talk page. The only reason I troubled you to seek administrative assistance here is because I knew he wouldn't stop until I did. I'm far from pleased to have had to do so, believe me... Snow ^{let's rap} 17:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

...Not that I don't appreciate your intercession, however it is phrased. Please have a good day, amica. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I'm trying to be fair and balanced here without the benefit of having looked at either of y'all's talk pages or comments. If you have asked this, and Hijiri has not complied, well, he knows what to do. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Err, so...a little birdy just informed me that you are actually a man, Drmies. I'm not sure when or how exactly I got the impression you were a woman, but I do know I've been labouring under that misconception for....oh, years now? File:Blush.png I hope I haven't ever caused offense with any mis-spoken pronouns or such over that time. This is why I should never stray from my standard "they".. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You have odd conversations, Snow Rise. I suppose I'm a man, yes, but I take no offense at any gender confusion whatsoever. I don't even know what "man" means anymore, and after last night's class on Twelfth Night that's even more in question. I am a father, I know that for sure--does that help? :) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Heh, good to have the Bard to remind us that gender-bending is nothing new, however complex the identities or nomenclature become. Anyway, I'm glad to know that I didn't cause any offense. But I'll have you know that the odd conversations go looking for me, not the other way around. ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 20:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

On Drmies' gender, as I remarked on a discussion some time back : "I care about what's in a Wikipedian's head, not what's in their pants". I am worried that Paul Nuttall appears to have started to look like him, but hopefully if the good Doctor can refrain from wearing tweed, we may be able to ride that one out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on--that guy is not doing a very good job looking like me. I think he's trying out for Jimbo Wales, especially with the tweed. At least I don't look like Geert Wilders... Drmies (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the style section needs to be completely erased, but we just need more sources to support it. Hearing his music, it was pretty accurate. Michaelmaxwell (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am sure it is, but that is original research. See WP:RS. There were no reliable sources. Without reliable sources, it should be erased completely if it's not neutral, for instance, and this wasn't. Also, this is the biography of a living person. See WP:BLP, which requires us to be extra careful. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• You welcome. So far, I have not found any material about his musical style. Just his imprisonment and the whole "Look At Me" controversy. Until further notice, we can do without that section Michaelmaxwell (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

By which I mean, the two you already have. The subject is high profile, and it looks like someone who knows them is removing content they don't like at Anthony Scaramucci. Thoughts and comments appreciated. Very best, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Scaramucci, Scaramucci, will you do the Fandango?!

Thank you, Dr. I do try to save some of the more interesting ones for you. And thank you, Fortuna--well played! 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Another WP:SPA has removed the passage sourced to a recent New York magazine interview, again. Methinks some COI accounts are trying to polish this up, and as an IP I can not restore the paragraph, because Mr. Scaramucci cursed a bit--the sensors (censors) think I'm trying to vandalize the article. If I register to do so it kind of looks like I'm using WP:MULTIPLE accounts to war, so I'm requesting some sort of help. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay- I've restored the material and left a TP comment (on their talk, I mean). — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting your comment from. I posted right away the violation. I only started to vent after you and the other admins were focusing on whether or not the article belonged in the Wiki article, not on the violation. It was clear as day that it was a violation. You can't reinsert something that was removed without a consensus. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• You are misreading: "editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit". You didn't explain that your edit was a revert. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I did, my first edit says, "I remove an entry...." the next was his reinserting, that's the DS violation which I was wondering why you were focusing on the content and not the action. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, "you removed part of the information Nishidani added" would have been the right way to phrase it. I just hope everyone else realizes it. What you are portraying here is 0R. Nishidani edits, you revert (partially, but that's beside the point), Nishidani reverts you: that is a violation. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• My AE complaint had nothing to do with 1RR or 0RR, it was DS that consensus is required. I removed something and he reinserted it, that was the violation. It had nothing to do with 0 or 1 RR. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Huh? "Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit". That only makes sense if there is a reverted edit. Consensus is, basically, always required. Note that Coffee closed it as a 1R violation. "I removed something and he reinserted it" is not a violation of anything; it is a revert. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• If I remove something and someone else puts it back without consensus, that is a DS violation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• No. Now stop saying that. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I hate to correct you. But, see here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• It says "editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." It doesn't say "no one can restore information that was ever, at some point, removed from the article for whatever reason". BTW, you closed it saying "1R violation", but in the case that Sir Joseph presented, there was only one R, so it could only have been a 0R violation. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• We're not talking about something that was years apart. I removed something that was just put in and then Nishidani reinserted it, right away. There's no "ever, at some point." I'm not sure why you're picking nits here, this is the DS sanction that ARBCOM put into these articles. (and for the record, I was once blocked for reinserting something that was taken out a while back, but there was still a discussion. ) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think I have copied the particular measure here two or three times already. Shall I do it again? "Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit". It doesn't say "...before restoring a disputed edit", and it certainly doesn't say what you said it says, or what you want it to say. But feel free to take it up with ArbCom and ask them to sharpen up their phrasing. Here, you are just repeating yourself, as am I. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, I closed it as a 1RR remedy/restriction violation (also note the block message). As in, what is spelled out at WP:ARBPIA#Motion: ARBPIA (December 2016) as the 1RR restriction for ARBPIA articles. WP:REVERT states: "Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact." (emphasis added) WP:3RR also states: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. (emphasis added) The violation was due to the user restoring a reverted edit, which is a violation according to the motion you all created (I didn't look to see if you voted on that one or not). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, "the violation was due to the user restoring a reverted edit". That is what I have been saying the entire time. Nishidani makes an edit. Sir Joseph reverts (partly). Nishidani restores the reverted edit by reinserting what Sir Joseph took out. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Several comments. Zerothly, the block is defensible, but not ideal. Firstly, the comment by Coffee that they have no choice in the matter is incorrect, both in theory and practice. Firstly, the sanctions are discretionary, nobody has to do anything. Secondly, it is very easy to break 1RR in this area even by accident. I have done it many times, and people always give others a chance to revert before trying to seek sanctions. Thirdly, this prohibition is actually a clause added during the last ArbCom case and is even easier to break - indeed I broke it myself right now by accident, though I self-reverted when I realized it. Fourthly, this kind of bureaucratic enforcement is ignoring the actual basis of the problem: Sir Joseph themselves said on Nishidani's page a month ago Firstly, I did mention on the talk page that Bolter violated DS. And I didn't report you [Nishidani] because I don't like reporting people for stupid stuff like that, and as you saw in my sandbox, the DS violaotion wasn't the main reason I was going to report you. Why did Sir Joseph change their mind on this matter and decide to report Nishidani for this "stupid stuff"? In this particular case, Sir Joseph didn't even give Nishidani a chance to self-revert, but reported them within a few minutes.

There was no major disruption here, just a run-of-the-mill content dispute which happens countless times all over Wikipedia. If Sir Joseph actually reported Nishidani due to a deeper issue, as seems apparent, then you address the problem and evaluate whether it is worth addressing. Don't act like naive bureaucrats. You admins are given discretionary powers precisely for this reason. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Kingsindian, why are you telling me this? I mean, me? Drmies (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I was talking in general about the AE complaint, not directly addressing you. I just found that there was a discussion about this matter here, and gave my thoughts on the matter. It's not a formal appeal or anything. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, I think you have a point, but you're kind of preaching to the choir. Said Sir Joseph has their own talk page, as does the blocking admin. :) Drmies (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

if it's someone's first violation then I will usually give a warning first. This wasn't his first warning and he ignored all prior warnings and usually flaunts it in the edit summary.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping I could get you to reverse your decision concerning the protection of this article. I probably should have presented my evidence with the request, so let me present it here instead. For simplicity's sake, I will limit myself to only the 58 edits made to the article this month, although the problem goes back much further. First there's the 124.248.16X.XX range, which by itself accounts for a majority of the edits this month. At 2017 Cambodian League, Ponyo reverted a number of edits from this IP range as part of a "sock-fest" (see diff.) Additionally, after confirmed sock Phan sophen failed to bypass the semi-protection of that article by copying it to Cambodian League 2017, an IP in this range attempted to do the same by copying the article to the talk page (see diff.) Next 36.37.173.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (3 edits) is currently blocked for evasion, and the 175.100.59.XX (3 edits) was ranged blocked for the same this January (see block log.) These three together account for three quarters of all edits this month, which should be more than enough to protect the page. Additionally, I suspect that the 103.197.105.XX and 42.115.XX.XX ranges are also being used by the same person, but I have no concrete evidence of that beyond excursively editing the same articles. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• OK--let edit summaries show that, then--poor schmucks like me can't keep up without them. Ponyo will tell you that I picked up an Uber job to make ends meet, and so I can't always read the latest sock reports. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It's true, and your music choices put you a cut above the rest of the drivers. I also appreciate the Airbnb rental of your spare room; I'll leave this week's payment in the well-stocked beer fridge.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Today's favorite is Rose Royce II: In Full Bloom. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What can I do about an editor who keeps repeating an inaccurate historical "fact" -- that Hitler was "elected" or "voted in", as opposed to being appointed Chancellor by von Hindenburg because von Papen assured him that Hitler could be controlled by the non-Nazis in the cabinet -- and uses this as a basis for his commentary on talk pages about editing changes under discussion? As far as I know, he's never done so in an article, but I haven't really checked. It's also possible that he's repeating the error ad nauseum because he knows I find it annoying, but it's disconcerting to find an editor of an encyclopedia apparently believing in a misstatement of fact. I'm really at a loss as to what to do, and if you have a moment between your official duties, I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know. That's tough. You could figure out how "Hillary" says "WRONG" in that Hillary Shimmy song. It probably points at an agenda of some sort, and agendas have a tendency to come out in article space as well. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Might be an agenda, sure -- the editor commented that he was born "just down the road" from where Hitler was imprisoned, but that he never had any interest in the man -- but I suspect ignorance or a long-standing prejudice born of being exposed to misinformation. I guess I'll just play it by ear and try not to the take the bait, if that's what's going on. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• He obviously couldn't have been voted in or elected....to become Chancellor, you needed the formal appointment by the President. And living in Landsberg...well, that's Bavaria. Lectonar (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Very good point which I hadn't focused on, that the Chancellor was never elected in Weimer Germany, but was either agreed to by the Reichstag and then appointed by the President, or, if the Reichstag couldn't agree, was directly appointed by the President. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• If this was some alt-right dude, one shouldn't be surprised at the inaccuracy or the factual impossibility. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• The point people are usually trying to make about this, though mangling it, is that Hitler came to power through constitutional means, not by some kind of coup or revolution (though with a certain amount of stage-management). EEng 23:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that's true, and I've made that point to the editor in question, that Hitler became Chancellor legally and constitutionally, but be wasn't elected. (Incidentally, your piping "a certain amount of stage management" to the Reichstag fire isn't really that appropriate, as the fire took place after Hitler became Chancellor. It did, of course, provide the excuse for his receiving from the Rechistag and Hinderburg sweeping powers that led to his becoming the dictator of Germany, but had nothing to do with his becoming Chancellor. That was indeed "stage managed" by von Papen and company - I referred to it as "some pretty sleazy backroom dealing".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, sure, right, "full" power came in a series of stages with various stagemanagement along the way. EEng 23:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that modern historians (collectively) seem to feel that the fire wasn't set by the Nazis, but was solely the work of the Dutch communist. I find that really hard to believe, given its convenience to them, but that's what had apparently been concluded from the evidence. If so, I can only assume that the Nazis were waiting for anything which would provide the impetus for a "legal coup", and if something didn't happen soon enough to suit them, they would have created an appropriate incident. Then the fire happened, and Goring -- who was the first high-level Nazi on the scene -- knew exactly what to do to make use of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Just like Trump's waiting for the next mass shooting, which he will blame on Muslims instead of gun nuts. EEng 00:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Very much so. Historically, countries have often waited for the causus belli to start the war they want to start anyway, and if they don't get it, they often create it (as Hitler did with Poland, attacking a German radio station with SS men dressed in Polish uniforms, and leaving already dead men, also in Polish uniform, outside as further evidence that Poland had "invaded" Germany). That's bad enough, but when it happens internally, it's worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"Herr President Göring, the Reichstag is on fire!" Göring (checks watch): "Oh, already?" Drmies (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

LOL Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The cake is a lie". <videte sciurus!> This article->Renato Guttuso has plenty of "fine writing"- a description of one of his paintings is identical to text on an Italian government educational website. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• You might want to point this out to User:Moonriddengirl, our resident expert on copyright violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Which lines? Which source? I ran some online plagiarism tool but I think you all know what it found. US govt websites have free content--are the Italian ones different? Drmies (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "His most famous "palermitano" painting is the "Vucciria" (the name of Palermo's market), in which, with raw and bloody realism, he expressed one of the many spirits of the Sicilian city." from the site www.programmallp.it. The page itself is a doc. I'll have a go at rewriting the article later on. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

Thank you also for the help above! - Did you follow the discussion on classical music (Reger), which eventually may need someone to merge two articles, not so much the content as the complicated histories? - I heard the Dutch violinist mentioned further up in a concert conducted by Dirk Kaftan. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, my dear Gerda; it is much appreciated, though my contributions in article space are minuscule compared to yours, and so are my contributions to articles you worked on. So no, I have not followed the discussion, and if time permits I will look at it in the next day or two. Thank you again, and thank you also for you many improvements to our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, - one thing about precious is not to compare ;) - some get it for their first DYK, some for gnomish edits, - we all do what we can. - I noticed strange moves of user pages just now, by User:R-athrill, please take a look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The strange moves were repaired, no need to look ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I would create Category:Editors who wish they will one day be considered precious by Gerda, but after the LHvU category debacle I'm sure it would be deleted forthwith.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Such people could just nominate themselves on the talk page, also suggest others, also pass Precious themselves. It's an easy template now that everybody can fill. - I don't have my eyes everywhere, and typically stop looking when I found one a day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No self-noms or handouts for me, I'll earn it the hard way or die trying :) --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it's Ponyo; that means it's a party. Gerda, please grab the cheese and crackers (the good cheese, from the back of the cheese drawer), and I'll get us a beer. We are having a Van Honsebrouck Fond Tradition. If you don't like it sour, and yeasted au naturel, you're out of luck. Woohoo! Drmies (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer should emulate its drinker; I have a strong preference for cold and bitter. Cheers!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Haha, I think Bishonen would agree that sour and au naturel fits me like a glove. I may have an IPA for you--these gueuzes are pretty light anyway, and I wouldn't mind more beer. It's President's Day! Yay! Drmies (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

...what beer emulates the president I wonder :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The president doesn't drink. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

At ALL?! Not even dihydrogen monoxide? Holy liquid abstinence, Bicyclerepairman! Must be a super-power of some sort 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• He's a breatharian. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The future's bright, the future's Orange". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks for Biber. Do you think the musician with whom she played might have been this one? You don't have to make proper refs, just your nice prose and a url with a title ;) - Any trace of the Beethoven she must have played at the Concertgebouw? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, there was more, and maybe I'll have another look. I'll look at that name, and for the Beethoven show. I want to check out the video in that article, BTW, but I gotta run--I'm busy today, and I just pinged you from an alternate reality; no need to jump on anything, just fair warning that I'm spreading your name around as a seasoned DYK contributor. :) Drmies (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I found this. What does the title mean? Anything else that can be taken from it? I used it to source the Beethoven concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

... and another --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

... and an interview --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

... someone (who) about her national prize --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Gerda, thanks for the reminder. Sorry. The "Theaterdeveste" thing is just the program for that theater, for a "Sunday morning concert": nothing but Beethoven. I usually don't take such pages to source stuff; they prove it happened, not that it was important. NRC is of course eminently reliable: "Impassioned duo crawls under Beethoven's skin"--but under the skin in a good way, meaning something like "emulate". She sees "Beethoven niet ... als een onbenaderbaar orakel, maar als een mens van vlees en bloed, een verwante geest waar ze affiniteit mee heeft", "She regards Beethoven not as an unapproachable oracle, but as a human of flesh and blood, a kindred spirit with which she has an affinity". "...volgden met seismografische precisie de grillige bewegingen van zijn heftige gemoed"--"with seismographic precision they followed the capricious movements of his powerwul mood". "Liza Ferschtman is zonder twijffel de meest muzikale en getalenteerde onder de jonge Nederlandse violisten" ["twijfel" is with one f], "LF is, without a doubt, the most musical and talented among young Dutch violin players". Opus Klassiek (don't know that outfit, but they have an editorial board and named contributors), "I want to be the honest musician". It's a long interview and Google Translate might help you navigate; I can translate a passage or two if you can identify which. :) Drmies (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps! I'll look, later, another singer first and a cellist, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ass Hunter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheDracologist (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• I had totally forgotten about that and had to look it up. LadyofShalott, and Yngvadottir, do you also look back at 2014 thinking things were going to get better? And here we are, three years later, in a world with even more mass killings of LGBT people, antisemitism, Islamophobia... Drmies (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. :( LadyofShalott 21:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Re this jibe on my talk page. You are not a doctor, and you have no right to judge the "conditions" editors self-disclose. I mentioned mine on the page in response to another editor's comment, purely to indicate how utterly irrelevant they are and should be. You have no right to seize upon that to make a cheap insult. Shame on you. Coretheapple (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Aren't you special. You insult someone and remove the warning for a personal attack I left you, and then you come and whine here. That's pretty low. I have no right to judge anyone's condition (and I had no idea what you said about your own, so I didn't "seize" on anything), but I have a right, as an admin, to judge what you say about others. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Aren't you abusive. Stay off my talk page. Full stop. Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes sir or ma'am. Until you make a personal attack like that again, but I promise I will use templated block notices only. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
      • And I promise you that if you are abusive again (as in His condition, it seems to me, is much more excusable than yours.) I will seek to have you desysopped. I may do it anyway, useless as such things tend to be. Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Go for it. See how much better it is to not have your comments summarily reverted? That is a courtesy I pay you, one which I owe you as a fellow contributor to our beautiful project. And I say again: unlike Winkelvi, who can't do all that much about his self-disclosed condition, you can indeed do something about that awful attitude you displayed--"he was constantly 'playing the Asperger's card,' citing that alleged condition as an excuse for his actions. Yes, it is a claim, no it is not verifiable, yes, it is irrelevant, and yes, it is one of the many ways he gamed the system". Drmies (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Yes, I know that you think you hold all the cards in such a situation, and maybe you do, but personal abuse is something I will not abide when it is a comment quite as low as you made. You were reverted because you were abusive. What you quote is absolutely not a personal attack. It was an observation on a technique that editor employs, and as a matter of fact you may note that another editor, who claims expertise in this matter, deployed the same phrase shortly thereafter. But let's say it was a personal attack. OK, I sometimes get too off the handle sometimes. You could have conveyed your comment without sinking so low as to comment on a "condition" that you perceive me to have, whether or not you saw my offhand comment which I had made. I think you know that perfectly well that you were abusive, that you sunk low, but since apparently you feel that you have some kind of "immunity" you don't even have the grace to admit it. That's pretty disgraceful
          • As for that editor, how do you know that the editor in question "can't do all that much" about his claimed condition. Again I ask: are you a doctor? Have you investigated the situation by examining him in person? What right do you have to "play doctor"? Coretheapple (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
            • I was talking about your "condition" of...how shall I call it...making really, really low and nasty comments about other people. That's as nicely as I can put it. I don't know you from Adam, I have considerably less interest in you as a person than you seem to have in me, but that comment was an asshole comment, and now I think I said enough. "I think you know perfectly well that you were abusive"--I'll subscribe that asshole comment to the same condition, and I'll remember that phrase as an example of "gaslighting", a word I recently learned but don't know yet how to use. Now...how shall I say this...oh that was hard to delete. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
              • Doubling down, much? Since you don't know me from Adam, which is true, or I you, where do you come off saying that I have a "condition" consisting of "making really low and nasty comments." Based on one comment on in an ANI thread? When have I ever run into you before? Re "asshole" Do you just enjoy being abusive? While you're pondering that, perhaps you can also address the other question I asked you: how do you know that editor can't do much about his claimed condition?Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
                • Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass LadyofShalott 22:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am presently compiling a statement to be added to your message(s) at my talk page.

In the meantime, your AfD statement: "The sourcing doesn't bear it out--these are sources that name everything on the circuit (cause they're basically maps and histories of the race), and the one newspaper article is local and apparently verifies only that once upon a time the road was widened." (italics by Rocknrollmancer) is opportune.

Agljones has been vehemently Wikilawyering Wikipedia itself in many aspects, for example shouting WP:N and WP:V to spuriously assert that dedicated sources are not, in fact, neutral-enough to be reliable and/or comply with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (italics by Rocknrollmancer). Only local general interest newspapers, etc., are neutral-enough, not dedicated sources as these are not independent of the subject. Local sources are accurate, being published in real time, whereas multiple secondary sources are historically plagiarised from each other and become corrupted with re-use(s). Using this bogus rationale, he then deletes (my) existing prose sourced from industry-experts, replacing with his own prose and obscure local uncheckable alleged-sources which may be passing-mentions only, to establish false-Notability, when it is only a non-notable corner. This is how he edit-wars, and I really don't know how to address it, other than a topic block.

I hope this helps. There is much, much more. I put it here as, after nearly three years, I understand his psyche but dont want to dignify it where he is more-likely to see it at my talk page - (note 'he', not s/he or they ).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Rocknrollmancer, we'll see how this AfD goes. Please don't speculate too much on other people's psyches; apparently I do too much of that myself already. In the meantime: please do not demand again that your opponent disclose their employer or something like that. They didn't want to do that, and I assume that means they a. have no professional conflict of interest and b. they didn't want to dignify your demands with an answer--that is their good right. OK? Drmies (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith in my assurance that I have had more than adequate evidence for nearly two years, both on and off-wiki. Accordingly I am ready to go to arbcom once I am advised of the physical layout needed (I rough-drafted the email approach in December). Please wait until you see the bulleted summary I have nearly finished (nothing crucial will be disclosed there).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    • This isn't a question of good faith; it's just that what you asked that editor was not appropriate. As for ArbCom, please state it briefly and with some diffs--they don't like things that are too long and they can't read difficult sentences. Make sure you include diffs. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, could you take a look at this? I really think a six-month TBAN may not have resolved the issues with that user... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that I'm aware he has been on-and-off contributing to ANI discussions of late, so I don't think the fact that he posted in a thread I started is itself hounding. My concern is that he seems to be opposed to the (thusfar universally agreed upon) compromise proposal -- and just about every other reasonable solution -- just because he doesn't like me, even explicitly saying so (Based solely [emphasis added] on my past experiences with this user). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I have been commenting on-and-off on ANI threads. And I simply made a genuine concern that you may not be fit for mentorship based on your past behaviour in certain discussions. I also said that I agreed with a lot of what you were saying. These types of assumptions of bad faith are not acceptable. DarkKnight2149 22:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies (I have no interest in responding to DK anymore, since it's clear he has learned nothing): I suspect DK might have violated his TBAN by explicitly referring to his past interactions with me, both of which were centered around comics (at Talk:Mr. Freeze and Talk:Vulture (Marvel Comics)). It's difficult to think what else he could be referring to. I was initially so weirded out by the hounding that this thought didn't occur to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the previous interactions at ANI. This behaviour from you is clear retaliation because you disliked what I said at the most recent ANI discussion. DarkKnight2149 22:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies, just block them both for a month. That worked surprisingly well in a similar situation a while ago (I won't name names, because all involved seem to be much better behaved now). People whose only purpose here is to argue seem to think that their motivations aren't transparent. But they are. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I wasn't deliberately looking for a fight. I made a genuine comment, and Hijiri is now retaliating. I also have articles to expand and edit (such as a Halloween draft). DarkKnight2149 22:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Now, I'm apparently "trolling". I told him not to mention or ping me again. It's clear that going anywhere near this user was a mistake. DarkKnight2149 22:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • "I made a genuine comment"—he genuinely made a comment attacking Hijiri for his participation in the ANI thread that led to Darkknight2149's TBAN. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope. What I said was perfectly civil and valid. DarkKnight2149 00:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies, I'm sorry for bringing this whole mess to your talk page. If you still want to look into it, you can, but consider my request that you do so withdrawn. I believe I have found a solution that will get the ANI thread in question closed immediately, since all the involved users are now in essential agreement as to what the solution is. Getting involved with DK again is simply not worth the effort on my part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Floquenbeam, I don't think I have ever thought that you were wrong. But I can't do what you propose, though I would love to--I am just not man enough to do it. However, I will say this: Darkknight2149, that comment, the drive-by comment on Hijiri's capacities, that was out of line. I don't know about "genuine": it may have been "genuinely" something, but that's not the kind of something we should have in a collaborative environment. Kindly leave Hijiri alone or I will have no qualms about blocking you for hounding. Hijiri, I don't know how you attract problems--it must be magnetism. What if you were to ban yourself from ANI? Should I even look at the ANI discussion? Drmies (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What if you were to ban yourself from ANI? Nothing would please me more. You'll notice my sig appears a lot less in archived ANI threads I'm not involved in following my getting burned out on a certain incident in December. I opened the current thread because I noticed a lot of users having the same problem on RSN and NPOVN with a particular user who, at the time, I had pretty good reason to believe was socking, and really didn't look HERE. I no longer believe the former (based on some clearly newbie mistakes he has been making) and the latter ... well, I figured mentoring would be a good way to find out whether I was right or wrong in that belief. Once the current mess is cleared up (which should be easy enough now that everyone agrees what needs to be done) I'll probably go back to my Chinese poetry cave and wait for summer. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, also kindly, why is it that you side with them every single time? There's a reason that you are now the admin that they run to, every time there's a disagreement. What I said was out of line. Okay. But how? I expressed authentic concern of his potential mentorship role based on past disruptive behaviour. You're talking like I was gunning for this user, Al Capone-style. DarkKnight2149 21:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

One thing I think we can both agree with, Drmies, is that it was a mistake for me to comment near this user at all. Because as soon as I did, this conflict happened. DarkKnight2149 21:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What "near"? You commented about Hijiri, attacking him for having taken part in the discussion that resulted in your TBAN. There's no light under which that could appear an "authentic concern". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, you're not helping ([9]). And I was speaking to Drmies. DarkKnight2149 21:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a great example of what got you TBANned, as well as whipping WP:FACTION out of the blue. Nobody cares who you were addressing—your behaviour affects us all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• DarkKnight, being endlessly obsessed with having the last word, wikilawyering, hiding other people's replies to your comments, and ridiculously accusing Drmies of "sid[ing] with [Hijiri] every single time" when he has done no such thing (quite the reverse) is very bad form, and is very reminiscent of the behavior that got you your current level of sanctions. Stop now while you're ahead (a warning that was given to you repeatedly last time but which you steadfastly refused to heed). Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• DarkKnight, I don't know you or your complaints from Adam, but hatting comments on another editor's talk page because you disagree with them is really not on. Please don't do it again.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ponyo: The comments were hatted because uninvolved users are coming in and attempting to resurrect old disputes. My comment was to Drmies and only to Drmies. DarkKnight2149 23:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • DK, please read WP:TPO, which you violated. If you don't like what is said on Drmies' talkpage, take it off your watchlist and don't read it. Do not refactor or hat other people's comments; it's Drmies's talkpage and if he wants to hat comments he will. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • "attempting to resurrect old disputes"—holy Christ, DK, do you even read your own comments before you press "save"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Final message: Drmies, if you have a reply for me, please give it on my Talk Page. I'm not going to pay anymore attention to this page (as it is already beginning to turn into another disaster). DarkKnight2149
  • Sorry User:Darkknight2149, I'm a simple man and I like to keep things together. Hijiri can tell you, if you ask them nicely, that I really do not agree with them all the time. Curly Turkey, I think we have a very on-and-off relationship; I came this close to blocking them, and they came this close to totally hating me forever. But I respect Turkey's editing skills, and I'm far from holy myself, so who am I to cast stones, dispersions, and asparagus. To cut a long story short, I don't know why they come to me; it's hardly because I have a history of deciding things in their favor. I'll say one last thing about that comment about that mentorship thing--it was completely uncalled for, it came out of the blue, it was poorly phrased, it evidenced not that Hijiri shouldn't be someone's mentor but rather that you had some old beef with him that you were anxious to share.

    As for this here talk page--it's a beautiful place, and stuff gets hatted or removed only if that's OK with me or one of my representatives/betters (like Ponyo, a kind soul and a merciless enforcer of the Letter and the Spirit of The Law). So yeah, please don't be hatting stuff, and don't think that this is ever a private place--the last time I accidentally tooted here more than a hundred folks tore up my Twitter feed. Today there were 600 page views. Crazy, I know--I have no idea what's so fun here, but there you go: there are no private conversations, and I trust the good people who come by (and the assholes too! :) ) to answer questions here with the best interests of our beautiful project in mind. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why they come to me The reason I came to you, Drmies, was because you closed the original ANI thread. That's all. There are other admins far more likely, historically, to agree with me. If anything, I think you are one of the admins more amenable to DK -- I imagine a lot of other admins would have been a lot harsher if they had been the ones to close that ANI thread last month. As for they come (plural? my gender is the same as the majority of Wikipedians and is specified on my user page) I checked briefly and it doesn't look like CT has posted here in the last year except in relation to your close of that one ANI thread (and the related discussion of fictional character MOS) and one brief technical note in early January about IP-visibility and deletion. I at least have come to you with random unrelated crap that I figured you'd be the right person to deal with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That's because I have Drmies' balls in my purse and get him to revdel everything that would incriminate me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so that's where they went--at the bottom, between the lint and the gum wrappers. So it goes. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• 600 page views? Wow. I'm just here with some popcorn! Garchy (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies: Oh okay. On that front, I apologise to you and @Hijiri88 for wording the comment poorly. Given the hounding accusation, I'll probably just distance myself from him for the time being. As for the hatting, what you say on your Talk Page goes. Hopefully I didn't come across as WP:DICK-ish to Ponyo. I won't hat here again. Thank you for giving a sensible response (I was honestly expecting more blame).

"[T]he last time I accidentally tooted here more than a hundred folks tore up my Twitter feed" - Now I feel like a dick for laughing at that. Cheers. DarkKnight2149 20:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

On 18 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Liza Ferschtman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Liza Ferschtman used seven different violins for her "tour de force" performance of the Rosary Sonatas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liza Ferschtman. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It's yours. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• No no Gerda, not at all. Are you still unhappy with the hook? Drmies (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I said it all in the discussion, no? It's purely personal, nothing Fram would understand, I guess. Did you know that my DYK #500 was St John Passion structure, carefully planned? This would have been the one to advance me to the lead group of the "number of DYK" list, - I didn't want that to be one where I hadn't contributed hook and content, so took the nomination credit. I took the step in the next set, with an uneventful article I created only to fill a red link (with "Always blame ..." in the title), while a lot of heart went into the other and the angelic piece I heard her play (that article not by me). If I had known how things would go I would have mentioned it with the conductor. I preach let go a lot more than I manage ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting grammar--but isn't it "everything is to be blamed on hats? "An allem"--dative, so "Hutchen" is the subject, no? BTW respect--500 is a great number. I plan to be there by 2068. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

500 was in 2014 ;) - I like your outlook! - Difficult to translate that title, my sloppy version refers to "always blame me" which works fine when people leave or other misery like me mentioning "random music" just because I am passionate about it. - "An allem ist Hütchen schuld!" - someone changed to "Hattie is to blame for everything!" which I paraphased. - Will add the violinist to my memories, with the music I remember, - so far the only time I cheat that way ;) - the others are "real" DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Off to the next: What does this say, besides the header? Anything worth knowing about the conductor? ... who trains them, even if they normally perform with "bigger name" conductors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

ps to above: looked at Breitkopf for other reasons, met the Violin Concerto again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. M. It was nice to see a "per Mandarax". I personally have rarely skipped directly to a level 4 warning; I believe I've only done it in response to hate speech. But the general principle of issuing an appropriate level of warning without having to blindly start at 1 is good.

Incidentally, I happened to be at a Hindu temple during Holi. The colors weren't flying while I was there, but there was plenty of evidence on the ground. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've gotten more ... open-minded. Good to see you, Mandarax. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foreign Affairs (Sharon O'Neill album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Lindley. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Some years back BBC Radio 3 broadcast a live performance of contemporary music. The score was somewhat demanding on the instruments, so one player performed on an old and knackered cello. He was so disgusted by the score that at the end after the audience began politely clapping he laid the cello on the floor and jumped on it, to riotous acclamation. When Radio 3 repeated the broadcast that bit was cut out. Can't find any reference to it otherwise it could go in Instrument destruction. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's wonderful, and thanks for taking care of business--I was distracted elsewhere, which is what happens to cunts like me. Anyway, that in turn reminds me of what I read about Keith Jarrett's Koln Concert, with the apparently untunable piano, so poor an instrument he had to adjust his performance to it. Oh, and that reminds me of something fascinating I read today on the Facebooks--scroll down Chemirocha and you'll see. (Fun fact: on the mobile Wikipedia that's automatically a redirect; on my laptop, I had to make it.) Drmies (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

-to what like you?!?!

tunnocks Well, I was reading Kipsigis people and I notice that they like words beginning with "k"- kinda reminds me of a kabal of kunts on another kontinent. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is beginning to give mine a run for its money. EEng 08:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It still can't be seen from space. Oh, I got the vaginal steaming article in! Drmies (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean "got the article in"? EEng 01:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Email me and I'll send it to you. I'd work on it myself, but I'm editing a 63-page article about Boniface in Bavaria, which is a lot less fun than it sounds. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me started on musician jokes. (OK, What's the difference between an accordion and a trampoline?) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I give up. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, that is NOT a fun joke, and my tante Renee would be very hurt by your punchline! Drmies (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty then, a selection at my own expense. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• The contagion is spreading. EEng 01:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't remember where we discussed it- at resource request (where it started) or here (where it carried over). I was being a bit cheeky: I had forgotten about this, and being on RX, I noticed it again. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can shine your light here: Talk:Dutch letter#Banket. Soemone who thinks that the article about "banketletters" should be widened to cover all pastry. The Banner talk 20:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I (probably) don't intend to take part in this discussion, and as you probably know I'm not one to look for offence, but I take exception to this. I would say I'm only doing my job in removing obvious BLP fails from articles; others are free to disagree I suppose. But I would rather not be insulted if possible. Do you agree? --John (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page stalker: I don't know the specifics of this situation, but that smells like a borderline personal attack to me (of course, I only have that diff to go by). And given that I am known for following and enforcing the citing sources policies rather strictly, the comment about sensationalism has me a little worried. DarkKnight2149 21:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page stalker: Hmmm, I have seen more unpolite and rather pushy remarks of this user. I regard him as "difficult. The Banner talk 20:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I ran into them before, being quite uncivil; can't remember the details. It's all the rage. Banner, you and I live in glass houses too. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, Doctor. I semi-protected this page recently, because certain IP addresses thought it would be amusing to replace the lead image with a diagram of the female reproductive system. I'm wondering, though, whether these revisions require a revdel (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdrabbuh_Mansur_Hadi&action=history history). My gut feeling is "no" but I'm not certain, and I've been told "better safe than sorry" with BLPs. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Vanamonde, I'm flattered you'd ask me for advice--I know you as a terrifically level-head administrator. So don't be surprised that I like to agree with you, ordinarily--but this isn't a low-profile kind of person, and by having such vandalism in the history we may well confirm that we're just a bunch of computer-savvy white boys steeped in orientalism who perpetuate islamophobia. I've grown more inclined to apply revdel generously, and so I'll go and remove them. I'm also going to block that one IP for just a bit longer than the period they've been fucking with this article; the other IP is probably the same person. Thanks--I appreciate your work and the question and yes, I do believe that it's better to be safe than sorry. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Please check if I got them all; I have a tendency to miss one or two every now and then. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Haha, I appreciate the testimonial. I think experience counts for a lot though, and in this case your reasoning articulates the discomfort I felt. You got all of the reproductive images, but there were a few lovely pictures of a bulldog that I figured I might as well remove. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You said "I'm baffled that you would say something like this", re: Blofeld.

Try learning about paranoid schizophrenia.

I've commented further here: http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/thread/230/dr-blofeld-feeling-love

Yes, the man is ill, and is probably receiving professional help. But he still needs to learn right from wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Singora (talk • contribs)

• I have no idea why you are linking this--I have no interest in what a bunch of other people are trying to say. Your comments there, though, are enough for an indefinite block: off-wiki harassment of another user. You "punished" him? What the hell you think this is? A computer game? You want Dr. Blofeld crushed? Drmies (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Bless you. If you hadn't, I was getting damn close to doing it myself. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Because the search box appears to have a casual relationship, at best, with capital letters in redirects. It's not the first time I've noticed the problem, though usually it goes the other way.

The redirect doesn't appear to exist, but the search gets confused and acts like it does. Stupid annoying stuff. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I've created it, so it should work now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had made the lowercase one, but once you do that you can't make the uppercase one cause the moment you type it in it redirects. A funny kind of circle--I could only have made it by clicking from inside the article, but I didn't want to do that until I got your opinion: "a casual relationship, at best" is a nice way to put it. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Any time. The search function here contains to frustrate me, and it's been over eleven years since I started editing. Maybe in another decade... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Foundation will be on it, I'm sure, after they finish booking me a flight and a suite for Montreal, and paid for the childcare. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

By the time the Foundation pays for my passage to Wikimania, my as-yet-unborn children will be graduated from college and likely married with children.

For the record, I'm not smarter than you are - I just have infinitely less patience with the vagaries of modern technology. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the search box is case-insensitive; as long as your search is character-for-character identical to an existing page, you'll go there, regardless of capitalisation. Unfortunately, this leads some RFD voters to support deletion for reasonable capitalisation variants, since they forget that some of us find articles by editing the URLs and that articles sometimes need to support alternate (even incorrect) capitalisations. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Right--I think I'm following you, Nyttend. I really am not smart enough, I think, to understand all of these things. For instance, I run into these things that say "redirect from alternate capitalization" or something like that, and I don't know why something needs to say that. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XPanettaa

He is making absolutely no attempt to make an unblock request, and is instead pinging anyone he can argue with endlessly. Everyone who has tried to explain to him what he needs to do has told him to stop pinging them. At this point, he's using his talk page to harass users. Letting you know since you were the one to restore it. --Tarage (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• No good deed goes unpunished, Tarage. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Random aside, how in the world did you manage to get the formatting to screw up that badly? I went to read your reply and it was jammed up against his next post. I went in thinking maybe it was some crazy character and deleted the white space and put it back, and it still jammed your two comments together. Whatever voodoo magic you did, I have no idea how it works. --Tarage (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, he is still not making an unblock request, and still pinging editors who have told him they do not wish to be pinged. --Tarage (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I found your Wiki Ed by accident today. I saw your alt and went "hmm, that looks familiar" - then saw the connection! If only I could have received credit for Wiki contributions during my educational tenure... Cheers! Garchy (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, I get more shit than credit for it, haha. So you're not in the education business anymore? How does it feel to make real money? Drmies (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I should have been clearer, my educational "tenure" ended at the student/graduate level :) However, even then Wikipedia was in its infancy - I'm fairly positive that if it was developed back then I probably wouldn't have contributed the same way I do now, even for credits - I mean, who does anything because they HAVE to?? Garchy (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Dutch letter. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Please file your opening statement at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Dutch letter#Banket. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm. So three hours after the "invitation" comes the reminder? Y'all faster than I am. Drmies (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies! The notice/invitation should have been served by the filing editor himself. In his absence to do so, i had to serve the notice. The reminder was necessary as the invitation didn't require you to participate but your comment was needed to proceed. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No apology necessary--thanks, Yashovardhan. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This message template was placed here by Yashovardhan Dhanania, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Dutch letter#Banket". The case is now closed: no party objects to resolution If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Yashovardhan (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Additional comments by volunteer: a new move request has been made by original filer as recommended.

This is a hazy area (at least in the research I've done), so I'm not sure what the correct method is. I noticed that someone had edited Dan Croll, adding information about a new album he has coming out. They created a page for the new album, with a redirect back to Dan Croll. I absolutely HATE it when a redirect is created that simply points back to the page it is on - I much prefer a red link (to aid in page creation), and WP:SELFREDIRECT appears to support this assertion. However, the haziness comes when you bring in a page with "possibilities" - which this certainly is (it cannot be expanded right now, but post-release it can be). What are your thoughts here, and what do the guidelines support? I sometimes wonder if people simply create these links to add to their "page creation" stats, as creating this type of redirect is not only confusing, but prevents the average user from creating a page - especially when it is done as quickly as possible, when no information is available. This redirect really does not help Wikipedia at all. Or maybe I'm wrong? Thanks! Garchy (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

TPS are invited to respond as well - just looking for some guidance :) Garchy (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some readers may try to search for a specific CD name, which is why redirects to the artist can be useful if the CD may never receive an article. Redlinks can't perform such a function. On the other hand, I can sort of see where you are coming from with this "quickly as possible" concern, especially when CD cancellations often occur. DarkKnight2149 20:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate you weighing in again on this. [10]. Thank you!Tomuchtalk (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe you chimed in on the long rant by the promotional user during this speedy deletion. Apparently his long rant had such an affect on my browser that now the New York Times is showing me their banner ads. Yes, not a social network and whatnot, but thought it was worth a laugh and a share. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oh dear, yes. You got to admire people's persistence... Drmies (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose that is an especially good trait to have in medical billing. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He does have a point that the subjective terms "significance" and "importance" are not good terms to throw at newbies. "Well of COURSE my doom metal band is significant, we're playing Chuck's Lobster Shack next Friday and only the BEST BANDS in Wisconsin play there!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point, Ritchie333! I try to keep that in mind when leaving messages on newbie's user talk, but always worth an extra reminder. I more shared for the kicks of the text being so long that it somehow affected my browser's ad history... Better than the time I did work with grants for an HIV non-profit, though. Scared my mother senseless when she saw those ads! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

On 1 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vaginal steaming, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "sorcery for your vagina" can result in second-degree burns? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal steaming. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Well, that and a new word for my vocabulary - healthist. A full three months into the year and I've added one ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The various hooks for this have been making me chuckle all week as they went through the DYK process...Vanamonde (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, you know, a hook would do far worse than second-degree burns. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought we'd have a lot more hits! Drmies (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, "healthist" wasn't totally new to me, but I was a bit surprised to find it has an article. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Funny enough, I thought this was streaming over the internet like on freecams. I thought to myself, "Well, I haven't heard of that yet, but I'm not surprised." But then it reminded me of this vulnerability I read about yesterday in a specific dildo with a camera on the tip. I thought this whole thing was another one of those new trendy things that everyone but me knows about.--v/r - TP 18:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"vulnerabilty" seems to be the word of the day, compare Main page, another of my musical memories ;) - I guess with an article like steaming, better go for any day's quirky than 1 April if you want hits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

... is that like Sergeant Dildo, but without the overbearing sarcasm? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Dildo? no Dido --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

TParis, that trendy thing of yours was news to me. Thanks for the link, I suppose. Gerda, I'll stick with you and Carthage. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, on 19 December 2016 you protected Haneda Airport for 6 months due to "disruptive editing". Firstly, the protection was applied a month after the short burst of edit warring, so protection was overkill. But 6 month protection is absolute overkill. Could you unprotect the article so that productive editing can again take place. Thanks 106.68.129.39 (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:HkCaGu, who do you think this is? Drmies (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Who do you think I am Drmies? At the end of the day, does it really matter? Seriously, champ, protecting an article for 6 months is ridiculous and it is preventing article development by anyone who isn't registered. 106.68.129.39 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes it matters. Happy days. Make sure to remind the next admin that this was blocked for six months because some jackass keeps IP-hopping and block evading and unproductivediting. You want to get anything done? Try manners, champ. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks , I will try to structure and streamline the content by adding reference sources and maintaining the flow of narrative.Though old material is poorly written but it contains detailed view about the life .Electriceag (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you--but I urge you to coordinate with Ms Sarah Welch. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

For making another excellent point over on Donald Trump. [11] Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! I don't get accused of making excellent points very often. And the berries are a reminder that I was going to make zabaione today. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drmies,

I didn't intend any offense in my "über-PC" remark. I'm sorry if it came across as insensitive or disingenuous. I think the overall sentiment of my comment reveals that we're very much on the same page. As a member of the LGBT+ community and someone who struggles with certain forms of mental illness, I find some of Chris troutman's comments unconscionable; that much should have been evident. That said, it's been my experience that the best way to persuade someone is to make minor concessions, which in this case was an offhand acknowledgement that some people do take political correctness to self-defeating levels. I could expound on that, but I don't think it's necessary or appropriate here. Perhaps I simply didn't think it through. I'm fully on-board with prescribing gender-neutral language for project infrastructure pages, as I was on Commons, and as you're someone I've long respected here, I don't want you to get the wrong idea about my views. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Y'know, these kind of offensive remarks are par for the course with Chris. [12] [13] [14] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's precisely what I was getting at. Something needs to be addressed here, and I certainly didn't mean to align myself with these regressive and hateful comments. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Julian. I'm sorry, maybe I have a short fuse these days when it comes to stuff like that. I've been listening to people complaining about this supposed PC shit for as long as I've been in the academic business, and this charge, that we can't speak fairly because we're not supposed to hurt your feelings, is all the more common in the last months. Much of what is supposed to be "PC speak" is in fact dictated by manners, and much of the rest is dictated by the Immortal Law that says we shouldn't say racist or sexist shit. Anyway, thanks for your note; you too, Ed. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I specifically said that I did not create the page as a joke. Maybe you misread or I mistyped, but I earnestly created that page and I belie it should be restored. Volvlogia (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well I'm sorry for misreading, if I did, but I am not going to restore that page. Tell you what, there's two admins who just came by this page, User:The ed17 and Juliancolton, neither of whom are on my payroll and will give you an honest opinion--and whatever opinion they give I'm perfectly happy to abide by. Ed, Julian? Rudy Pantoja Jr.? And please note that I deleted under G10, but it wasn't the subject of the article who was BLP-violated against. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, that page was a BLP nightmare. I'm happy to endorse your speedy deletion here. Volvlogia, I have no reason to doubt your good intentions, but we still have to abide by our core content policies regardless of how passionately you stand behind your work. We simply can't say something negative about non-notable people and source it to YouTube. It's exceedingly unlikely that even the article's subject himself is notable by our standards, so I would respectfully suggest finding a new topic to write about, being more mindful this time of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for clearing this whole thing up. I understand where you're coming from and it's all good. Volvlogia (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Cool--thanks Volvlogia. Juliancolton, thanks for looking into this. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Happy Saturday. Since you didn't answer my question at ANI, but the matter that sparked the thread has been handled, I thought I'd ask you again here: Are you advising users not to file ANI reports about threats?

The wording that raised a red flag for me was this: "i will report to my intelligence agency and will complain about the editior who wrongly editted and exposed unverified information.... im giving you time. edit it to 1032 or face concequences". Illiterate? Check. Puerile? Check. Verifiably juvenile in years? No. Vandalism? Technically not (and we do have sysops who will reject AIV reports that don't meet the letter of the policy). Most importantly (imho)—threat? Yes. And that's why I immediately took it to ANI. Sure, it's a given that, as you said, threats are personal attacks and are disruptive. But I was under the impression that certain types of disruptive edits are beyond the pale and do not warrant jumping through the hoops of issuing escalating warning templates.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not in the habit of making superfluous reports at ANI. In fact, I'm not in the habit of doing anything at ANI unless I think it's very important—and appropriate to the venue. I don't mind your implied criticism of my making this report, but I really would appreciate some clarification here. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't answer the question cause I had some place to go, that's all. No, I'm not advising that at all. Some edits are beyond the pale and require immediate administrative intervention, sure, but I do not believe this was a credible threat. And if you were to report this kind of thing at AIV, and you add that this is most likely the sock of the previous editor on that page, I am sure it will be handled very quickly as well, with less paperwork. One problem with ANI is that it invites chatter, since too many people confuse it with a forum, and that serves no purpose. So your report was fine, sure, but I'm just saying that AIV could have handled it just as easily, at least in this case. Mind you, editors look at ANI to learn how dispute resolution goes, and my comment was directed at a much broader audience. Does that make sense? Drmies (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. Sort of. LOL. I do get what you're saying about the broader audience. One of the reasons I avoid ANI is because discussions go off course so easily there. Regarding the rest of what you say, I've always emailed the Foundation when I've seen a clearly credible threat. Obviously non-credible threats I certainly wouldn't take to ANI; I might even not do anything except revert them, per WP:DENY. This one I'd put somewhere in the middle—not exactly alarming, to be sure, but above my pay scale to dismiss out of hand. (I try to remember that it's a global project whose contributors in some places might indeed be subject to real-world repercussions if their pseudonymity is somehow lost.) By going to ANI, I assumed that I'd quickly get more eyes on the situation, meaning I wouldn't be making the determination all by myself. (That's the good thing about ANI.) Anyway, thanks. You've given me food for thought. And now it's time for thought for food. I have ahi steaks. To blacken or not to blacken—that is the question. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

g'day from oz - would you ever use the form of accomodation in the plural as accomodations? just a random query from an ozstrylian trying to decide whether to go ostrich and ignore, or to take up the reliable steed and hunk of metaphors and... JarrahTree 03:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, "accommodations" is frequently used in US English--often as a kind of plural-only word to indicate, with a somewhat vague hand gesture, such things as food and lodging at a conference and stuff like that. Cf. Chaucer's "the chambres and the stables weren wyde". (You said "steed" so I went to the stable...) Later, Drmies (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • how terribly unfortunate, will have to dismount, and cast aside the metaphors, and growl at the yanks (yet again), brits and oz's would never addd the 's' JarrahTree 03:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    • thank you for your response JarrahTree 03:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Haha, the Transportation Research Board is probably not going to care what you think! I have not looked to see if US sources outweigh the others in a Google Book search, but it's entirely possible. Guess I never thought about that... Drmies (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• For the non-US case, as a native speaker of British English educated (FSVO) at a thousand-year-old school, I'd say it depends. If you mean accommodation in the sense of a dwelling, then the plural would be an abomination, but if you are making an accommodation for something, then there is precedent in the august (if diminuitive) person of the Rt. Hon Mr. John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons - see Hansard. However, Leftpondians do indeed use the plural for the dwelling meaning. The Oxford definition seems to back this: [15]. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You missed an opportunity to say, "The Oxford definition seems to accommodate this", Guy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Total non sequitur (well, not total because it does concern real estate [another term that Brits and their commonwealth fall down on – "estate" just doesn't cut it, you lot]), but this somehow reminded me of the amusement I feel whenever I read the British phrase "all the mod cons" (which gained currency in the 1960s, I believe), which is used when Americans would use the far more (if I do say so myself) euphonious phrase "all the amenities". In case you haven't figured it out, it means "all the modern conveniences". Softlavender (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not only referring to WCs!!! Cf.' All Mod Cons, of course. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 14:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Could I get your advice on how to proceed with this edit? The editor is clearly very angry with me for filing an SPI on their former account, which was subsequently blocked. I looked through my edits at SPI and the only editors I have reported who edit rap music articles are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XPanettaa/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xboxmanwar (and this one hasn't concluded yet). I had many interactions with User:JayPe, but I don't believe I commented on their SPI (I couldn't even find it). I know XPanettaa has been pinging User:Anachronist and User:Karst regarding a long forthcoming unblock request. I wonder if it's just a ruse to keep suspicion off the new account? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Magnolia! In general, and looking at that AfD, I'd say back off and let them fizzle out; admins will know what to do with it. However, I thought there might be something to your suspicions, and without going into too much detail, I'll confirm that Kakashi and 32zel are a match. I think this edit proves that the Kakashi account was made to revert a redirect they didn't like. I'm going to block Kakashi indefinitely; if something good happens between now and one minute from now I might block 32zel for only a limited time. Now, as for those SPIs, there was nothing there=-no overlap, no other accounts on the dozen or more IPs than those two. I do not have CU information on Xbox-person, so there is little need for me to ping Ivanvector, DeltaQuad, or Ponyo. Oops. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Great advice DrMies. How is this XPanettaa and especially EDM/Spinnin' related? Karst (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I haven't interacted with the XPanettaa case in some time, but as I recall they were disruptive in the area of German EDM. Being disruptive in music doesn't really single out a user on its own because we have so many disruptive music editors, but there was CU evidence for this one. As for JayPe they were discovered operating multiple accounts as a result of a previous CU on Xboxmanowar, but not technically related to that case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

On other talk page, you asked …

New account with similar joke name to research: Drmies ATTACHED 'Denver boot' & immobilize Ks0stm storm-chasing truck

Full list of accounts to research:

• Special:Contributions/Drmies REDIRECT WP traffic to 127-0-0-1
• Special:Contributions/Ks0stm ran SORTING SCRIPT on DNA sequence - output got RUINED
• Special:Contributions/Drmies try to use Emoji on EBCDIC platform - caused system CRASHED
• Special:Contributions/Ponyo GIFTED Commodore VIC-20 to DelteQuad but she REJECT
• Special:Contributions/Drmies ATTACHED 'Denver boot' & immobilize Ks0stm storm-chasing truck
• Special:Contributions/Drmies OVERCLOCKED Arcoterion CPU, removed HEATSINK and damaged CPU
• Special:Contributions/Oshwanker thinks JavaScript meaning is INDONESIAN island monologue
• Special:Contributions/Ks0stm CONFISCATE Crimson Tide season pass from Drmies

Cheers! Arturo Gustavo (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• You should really try a different hobby. I've been told masturbation is fun. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I heard that too. Nothing came of it. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 20:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Fortuna. I think there's a support group on Wikipedia Review with experienced wankers. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Bad advice Drmies – that'll cause blindness and hairy palms. He's better advised to take up heavy consumption of alcoholic beverages...although, given the "humor" and grammar of the user names listed above, he may already be editing under the influence. Mojoworker (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not see that UBX at the time. Genius! Guy (Help!) 12:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Credit goes to Bish. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Special:Contributions/AishPR needs a block and the edits need to be revdelled since they have repeatedly added a Whatsapp-number (i.e. cell phone number) that is claimed to belong to the subject of the article (Aishwarya Rai), an Indian actress. TIA. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• K6ka, thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • np, and I see it got oversighted too. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (double checks vision) Oh wait, nevermind. Looks like you're an oversight yourself. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    • My wife and my mother agree with that statement. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
      • :O —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drmies,

Regarding the infobox situation, I'm not sure what the situation is as the infobox error was not made by me initially and was tampered by another user prior to me fixing the date. I will speak to Raritydash regarding what happened.

For the AXIS Theatre page regarding the Britney: Piece of Me information. Yes, the information is a little bit redundant as there is also a Wikipedia page for the residency show itself. However, deleted information talks more about the theatre itself, along with significant details regarding The AXIS Theatre's reconstruction and its involvement with the entire process of creating Britney: Piece of Me and promoting it. They talk quite a bit of The AXIS Theatre's involvement in Britney's residency show documentary "I Am Britney Jean". Another reason being is Britney: Piece of Me is the first residency show to be hosted at this location, which is why the theatre had so much involvement.

In addition, for the two tags you have made for the Britney: Piece of Me page, despite the page has an extensive amount of information, all information has been verified and is noted significant to the show, its development, and progress throughout the 4 years of show runnings. I would like to request the tag removals that are associated with the page. We have done our best to remove any biases, unsourced, fan rumours and information on the page. The reason why the page has so many details is due to the fact the show has developed intensely and worthy for recognition.

JonHoOfficial (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• John, I think rather that the excessive amount of information has something to do with the "we" that you just used. This recognition is not a function of how much a Wikipedia editor can stick into an article, but rather how much attention has been paid to something by reliable secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What I meant by we is any/all contributors listed in the view history. I do not mean in any other way/shape/form or specific groups (ie. Music groups, Britney Fan groups etc.). My point that I was making was there were many editors that added information that was not significant or "fan-type" information which has been removed from the aritcle itself. Can you give me an example of which part of the content you believe to have a lack of attention from the secondary source and is unimportant to the details and significance of the show? JonHoOfficial (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think setlists are extraneous detail. I think a list of shows is extraneous detail (and they're not "legs"). I think a separate table with all the dates that were cancelled is extraneous detail, though I'm sure some people are happy it was just a sprained ankle. I think the synopsis is too long. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding setlists and list of shows details, it is a valid information to include on the page despite there are over 200+ dates listed. If you think it is extraneous details, then you would have to include many concert tours and residency show pages on Wikipedia since almost all tour/residency pages included a full setlist (with any changes, versions, additions, special guests etc.), full show run dates and canceled shows if any. For example (with extensive setlists, cancelled dates (if any) + tour dates), Lady Gaga Born This Way Ball, Meghan Trainor MTrain Tour, Coldplay A Head Full of Dreams tour (setlist in the notes section) etc. Regarding the synopsis, I can't speak for it since I did not write it but when I first heard of the show and viewed the syponsis, I thought the information seemed valid to cover what to expect in the show itself. Regarding the "legs", from what its been called from official sources, Spears' herself and other articles, they call it a leg (a section or stage of a journey or process ie:"the first leg of a European tour") JonHoOfficial (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• You say it's valid; I disagree. That we have tons of crappy articles on tours that don't even qualify per WP:NTOUR is indeed a sad statement about the condition of Wikipedia. But those lists of show dates, that's just incredibly useless in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see in WP:NTOUR, I think it needs some retouching to clarify more on what's considered qualified and what a "tour" page should contain. When the page Britney: Live in Concert page was created, it was based on the notability of all the buzzin other countries, but not in North America so there was that "notability" confusion right there. If you believe it's incredibly useless in an encyclopedia, by all means, you can remove it from every concert page on Wikipedia. If it was someone like me, I found it useful to know the different dates, stats, locations etc. of the show (part of my field of study). Overall, this can be a bit biased since some viewers find it interesting and useful while others may find it useless. In general, if you have it there for everyone, then it's information that interested viewers can see while uninterested viewers (such as yourself I'm assuming) can probably just ignore. (I'm not trying to point you out but I just want to say if you delete it based on your perspective of importance/notability, then it's biased towards you and others who believe so too.) JonHoOfficial (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Why do people who ascribe "bias" to others as a motive fail to see that the same would apply to their own edits? Drmies (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And why do people fail to see it can be said the other way around? JonHoOfficial (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think we're done here. I didn't accuse you of bias, but I could--I could say that you have an obvious conflict of interest, since your user page indicates you may well be involved with management, or that you are a fan who can't make the distinction between relevant and irrelevant. That we have a lot of terrible articles on tours doesn't mean yours has to be one as well. I am not interested in further commentary here; this is best left on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Drimes, there is a user Mona778 who is harrasing me and insulting me again and again. Sometime it adds my name to sock puppet list and when he/she failed to prove it, he/she started messaging other people to block me out. When a user tell her/him that he/she is at fault, he/she insulted him too. Please help me. I know that he/she is doing all this because of my background (Pakistan) also the user is making irrelevent edits without reliable sources and using foul language. Please help me out. Many Words (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the above as a confirmed sock of Ishq Hawa Mein.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo! I hadn't responded since I saw that elsewhere an editor was mediating, but this makes everything that much easier. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a few minutes to take a look at the following discussions?[16][17][18] I've been asking around for someone willing to take a look at these three, but after several weeks, no dice. CorporateM (Talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, can you do something about this User: Many Words' troubling behaviour please? Disruptive editing, threatening, gross insulting language and incivility when warned. Thank you--Mona778 (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Mona778, Ponyo blocked the account on April 10. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• [19]

I can't deal with this kind of agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only who saw that edit and thought the same thing EvergreenFir (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• This better stop now. Thanks you two. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• You're so much braver than I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• No I'm not--I'm a big fat coward, but I have had it with this kind of nonsense. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to get my admin bit back so that I can block both of them. Wikipedia has been way too tolerant of bullshit like this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• 'ave a shufti at Category:Sex gangs by country. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, User:Xanthomelanoussprog, party's not over. Dylann Roof isn't even white until ten paragraphs into his article, I noticed. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Because you are (or were) aware of the past animosity of Alansohn towards me (myself?), would you mind keeping half an eye on this, in which he removed a considerable amount of solidly referenced new material I added to Tribeca because he didn't like the fact that I made the reference style consistent, changing from one that is his personal preference to the one that's generated by the "cite" templates. I've now jumped through hoops in hopes that it will satisfy him (restoring all his references to what they were, while leaving my added material), but I can't be sure it will. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Me". "Myself" is usually used to express emphasis; strict grammarians would call it incorrect. I must say, BMK, that your language is kind of ... leading, haha. I will look when I can--fighting over citation styles always looks incredibly silly for the outside observer, but for the inside editors it's a big thing. Maybe you're better off calling on an MOS expert? Drmies (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I know, I usually try not to lead so egregiously. Anyway, it's the potential behavioral issues I'm concerned about, not the content disputeper se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Now he appears to want to WP:OWN SoHo, Manhattan as well as Tribeca, removing reliably sourced material, apparently for no particular reason except that I put it in. If you recall, there was general opinion expressed in the various AN/I discussion about his conflicts with Magnolia677 that Alansohn shows ownership behavior over all articles about places in New Jersey. He seems to have spread that to Manhattan as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• [20] Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Good morning. I think that here is a sort of Wikipedia:Wikihounding (Panam2014 has never modified this page). It is also an an import of a dispute in Commons [21]. Best regards --Ms10vc (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. It is a false flag. Some accounts attempts to to place this fictitious flag here and in several Wikipedia to try to impose their point of view on the French version. [22]. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is really not something I know what to do with. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

On 14 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lillie Mae Bradford, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in May 1951, four years before Rosa Parks, Lillie Mae Bradford was arrested for refusing to leave the white folks' section of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lillie Mae Bradford. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Another interesting one! Thanks for thanking me for the two I enjoyed today, summarized here. - I promised (in a DYK nom) a stub article on Annelies Van Parys, - could you help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave it a start, but eyes on my translation are most welcome, - also it lacks sources, and ... - well found some led to several other wanted translations from Dutch, as always ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi - regarding your comments and opinionated responses regarding Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, please take care not to use your administrative authourity in that general area, thanks . You have also made edits to the article that have no consensus and that have been reverted - this one in particular - with an edit summary focused on ethnic details - is this essential to the crime? careful now--moved ethnicity and link from opening sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=775403272I suggest you stop threatening users in regards to the content with your advanced priviliges. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The sum total of my involvement was, by choice, to bring the article to what I think is a neutral, factual and logical standing. I have no wish to demonize anybody or get into wars over small things. If I'm going to die on a hill, it better be Olympus Mons and not some small town sitting idly in the centre of the British Isles more than half a world away from me. Other than that, I posted my reasoning on the talk page, and while I understand Drmies' edit in good faith, I have to honestly describe it as a mediocre "cover up". Come on Drmies, there's three mentions of British-Pakistani's in the lede and twelve mentions of Pakistani's in the article. It's not going to suddenly go away because you moved the first instance of it from the lede to reactions and left two more a literal single paragraph away. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude, "come on" and read the talk page. Explain how their ethnicity is essential to their crime--and do so without saying "they did it because they were Paki". I can get much more nuanced, BTW: I left the ethnicity in there because obviously it was relevant in at least one aspect--the condemnation by the British-Pakistani community, which is documented in sources and represented in the article. Now, this hill--it's simply called BLP, and the fact that these men did awful things doesn't mean we get to suggest that they did because of their ethnic origin.

  Govindaharihari, you are full of it. I have not made "edits" to the article: I have made one single edit, and apparently I was not the only one to disagree with that formulation in the lead. As for you and your anti-Muslim comments, I think I have made myself clear: not a threat, a warning. Coming here to accuse me of being involved is not going to get you off the hook. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies, I did take into account how we treat other ethnicities on various articles. In response to this; We can't have different measures for different races, where whiteness is somehow transparent - We don't. Shooting of Alton Sterling first sentence; "two white ... officers". I treated these pages equally. I never removed, nor advocated the removal of that sentence. So, before you accuse me of something I never came close to doing, I'd urge you to take your "racism" glasses off and look at what I did and said. No, they did not do it cause they were British-Pakistani's, they did it because they were criminals. What is of consequence is that police neglected to do their duty "because they [the criminals] were British-Pakistani's". I don't like racists, and I don't like cowards. It is what it is, and what it is, is what Theresa May termed "institutionalized political correctness". Oh, and Dylann Roof? first sentence of the lede; ... is an American mass murderer and white supremacist <- would you care to explain this. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Eh, Mr rnddude, that Roof is a white supremacist doesn't mean he's white. Come on. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry Drmies, but, I am yet to meet somebody who is that self-hating to be a white supremacist and not be white. Two words; Clayton Bigsby. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Addendum; I apologize for continuing this on your page, the AN/I thread has been closed and I wanted to respond to the general allegation over there and to your reply to me here. One more thing, I'd urge you to participate with at least your !vote and reasoning on the talk page RfC. Nuance in an article comes with different perspectives finding localities of difference and the compromising. If all the participants in a discussion are pro-life for example, then there will be an inherent pro-life slant. Same with pro-choice. If pro-life and pro-choice come together (and don't rip each others throats out) then we get a balanced, nuanced, view. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I can understand your quietness Drmies, your comments including Paki were very involved, I could add more but I won't, you know it yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=775443787 La-di-da friends coming to get you to use your advanced privileges when they would'nt or could'nt was embarrasing also. You have historically stood out as a go to policeman, I support your quietness. Good luck to you Govindaharihari (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I seem to have seen you entirely too much lately, and you are beginning to look a good deal more like a person who is here to court drama, and not to build an encyclopedia. This is probably a good time to drop it, and put some work into making Special:Contributions/Govindaharihari look like an actual net positive to the project, rather than a waste of a lot of people's time. There are, after all, quite a few people who have been keeping an eye on that page in particular lately. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) There's one grammatical mistake and one factual mistake in the last section of the article. Come the 19th maybe Govindaharihari will correct them. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Xanthomelanoussprog hi - please point them out and I will correct them Govindaharihari (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I was wrong- the second is factual but unclear. "four men including three brothers and their uncle" and "One of the men was the brother of two of the men convicted in the earlier trial". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude, Govindaharihari, Timothyjosephwood, Xanthomelanoussprog I'm, in very good faith now, assuming that Drmies doesn't understand how grossly offensive the term "Paki" is, and how much offence is caused when stating that others believe something because an individual "is a Paki". I've lived through these epochs where ignorance was allowed, then completely policed, and now such comments need serious judgement. Drmies knows literally nothing about me, and the outbursts and usage of "Paki" were simply unacceptable from anyone here, let alone an admin. It's evident that Drmies has sufficient admin-friendly friends to make this go away though, so we'll hear nothing more of it, least of all an apology for all the crass and unsubstantiated slurs. This is not how admins are supposed to behave. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've read this four times, and I still can't make any sense of it. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oaky, on the fifth time I got it. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ha. I think TRM is in a low-punctuation mood; I still don't get the second half of the first sentence. TRM, have you looked at WP:Editing restrictions recently? "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

  If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

  If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy." Etc.

  It's time to move on. Trying to tirritate other editors (me) by pinging them with nasty little comments, like you did here, or pinging other editors so they can come by and piss on me, as you did here, that's insulting and/or belittling. And I know very well how grossly offensive that term is--and that it's not as offensive as using ethnicity in an article in an online encyclopedia on a criminal case when ethnicity is not essential to the crime. TRM, a few weeks ago I ran into you somewhere and you were making eminent sense, as you used to do so frequently, but this past week you seem to be guided only by your hatred of administrators. You have outstayed your welcome on my talk page: goodbye. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

...This is probably unnecessary, but there's a reason we have an entire article on Nigger, and that's because racism is okay to talk about. In fact, it's vitally important that people do talk about it. Not everyone who sees something as racist is a bleeding heart PC police, and not everyone who disagrees with them is, well... a racist. Thinking in that kind of duality just makes it easier not only to demonize the other person, but to demonize your perception of their perception of you, which is pretty clearly what's happened here to a large extent. Take it or leave it, but there's the advice from someone who's actually been spit on, and who has actually been assaulted for being a brown guy with a white woman. TimothyJosephWood 21:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Let's be clear about this - using "Paki" for Pakistani is exactly the same as using the N-word for a black person. If anyone starts using it again, I'll just block them in the same way as I would for the latter offence. I realise this may be non-obvious to some editors outside the Anglosphere, so I'm leaving it here now. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this one. It's not acceptable to call someone a nigger, but it is completely acceptable for rational people to use the word nigger when they're talking about the word nigger, and trying to have a reasoned conversation about modern racism. You may want to block me for saying that, and you're welcome to if you've ever actually been called one in anger, and you know what it's like, but Wikipedia is not censored, and we don't tiptoe around sensitive racial issues; we get waist deep in them and try to sort them out. TimothyJosephWood 23:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I see Black Kite likes to lay down the law in a pompous fashion. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that this comment is not at all conceivably helpful to any one in any way whatsoever. If you have something to contribute you are welcome, if you don't, then don't. TimothyJosephWood 23:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

TJW: Of course it's OK to reference the word in a discussion about its etymology. It's not acceptable to use it in any other circumstance. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, emphatically no, and if the opening sentence of 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers felt the need to point out that the guy was black, I'd be the first person on the talk saying "why do we feel the need to point of that it's a nigger that killed some cops" because it doesn't matter that the lead said "African American", because we all know what it's really saying. There is no prohibition against saying curse words, swear words, taboo words... Fuck, shit, cunt, cock sucker, mother fucker, pike, nigger, faggot, jap, wetback, and paki. We don't saction people for saying taboo words, we sanction people for being uncivil and they're not the same thing. TimothyJosephWood 23:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Then you'd be blocked. If you do not understand why, then you need to learn more about the use and misuse of racial epithets. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

you need to learn more about the use and misuse of racial epithets I know plenty, and that's the point. It's possible to use every word in the English language in a way that is constructive and productive, and that's the reason why we don't blacklist words themselves, because words are tools and the usefulness of the tool depends on the person wielding it and their thoughtfulness in doing so, not on the tool itself. TimothyJosephWood 00:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. But if you call the subject of a BLP (or indeed a person relevant to any article) one of those words, I suggest you should be unsurprised when you find yourself on the end of a block. Which was my point about seven comments above this one. Black Kite (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course, but I'm not, as far as my wife can tell, actually an idiot. You can't make a proclamation saying "if anyone says the word niggerfaggot then blocks are on the way" and do so without any real appreciation of the context. This entire issue was among editors and between editors and was entirely rhetorical as far as I can tell. If someone cited a BLP vio then I missed it. TimothyJosephWood 00:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My wife does think I'm an idiot, which is probably why I wanted to make the point really clear - the term was used a couple of times on other discussion pages. Anyway, I think we're done here (I really don't like waving the block hammer over people, so it's probably best). Black Kite (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite, I haven't asked my wife what she thinks of you, but I know what she thinks of me. Anyway, I saw your comment on TRM's talk page, and I thank you for it, and for your comment here; I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm the only person here who lives amongst British Pakistanis and British Indians, which is perhaps why I find this discussion insufferably pompous (and I include you, Mr Lexiconofracialabuse). You're behaving as if the P-word (which everybody somehow thinks is only used to belittle British Pakistanis) is 2017's C-word, and a transmitter of contagious racism. You're maybe not addressing points like- where are the British Pakistani editors who could contribute here and to that article. And would you want them here? (see above) As for the article I suggest that it's about the scandal, not the crimes, and like any race-based scandal the sources are going to be full of moral panic, special pleading and incipient racism. Maybe a lot of the detail about the assailants should be excised. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• You're not the only person who lives amongst British Asians, and I don't see the problem in reminding people that they shouldn't be using racially charged epithets. You're right about the scandal, though many "reliable sources" can't seem to make their mind up about whether it's a Pakistani issue or a Muslim one, or both, or neither. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Slowly crawling out of the weeds I found our way into... I do agree with you of course, in the sense that inflammatory language is usually best avoided, since there's usually a more effective way to communicate what you're trying to say. I don't know that anyone can really disagree on that in good faith. As we can well see, hyperbole tends to breed hyperbole, in its own neat little rhetorical arms race. And with that I'll stop pestering. TimothyJosephWood 12:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I apologise for blowing up. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Xanthomelanoussprog; Mr Lexiconofracialabuse - Is this being directed at me? I did not once use the work "Paki" in any of my above comments. I don't think I used a single racially insensitive term anywhere in any of my comments. Every single time I said; British-Pakistani. Unless that's become insensitive all of a sudden. Nor have I asked or suggested that Pakistani people should not be allowed to comment on the topic, edit the article or anything of the sort. In fact I asked Drmies specifically to leave a !vote on the RfC in question because they held a position contrary my own. For that matter, I have explicitly stated on this page and article talk that the reason that "British-Pakistani" is relevant is not because of the crime, but, because the cover-up was motivated by the ethnicity of those who committed the crime. I have said this here, and I have said this on the RfC. For fucks sake can people read my comments without attributing motives to me or at least ask me to clarify if you don't understand. If it's not directed at me, then, my apologies it just seems like it's being explicitly directed at me given that I am the only commentor here who's username starts with "Mr". Mr rnddude (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Chill, dude. If you read the conversation carefully, you would quickly realize who the comment was directed at. Softlavender (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I've re-read the entire conversation. My apologies Xanthomelanoussprog. It was directed at the string of curse words and racial epithets in one comment. Understood. Have struck the above comment. Thank you SoftLavender. Unfortunately I can't retract the ping, but, you'll see this anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it's my place to put in some final words. Mr rnddude, you know very well why I said what I said and how I said it: in case it wasn't clear, I was making explicit what my reading was of the implicit phrase. It is my experience, and I share this with many others who are slowly waking up, that including ethnicity is frequently just another way to point out difference, or deviation from the norm, and that such difference is meant to suggest a. they're not like us and b. this is the kind of thing they do. And weren't NPOV and V and RS and all that thrown around? Verified doesn't always mean neutral.

  Now, it may well be that "ethnicity" had a role to play in how the subsequent affair played out (someone scolded me for not knowing what I'm talking about, but they're wrong), and that's a fair point to consider, but again, that's the playing out, not the crimes themselves. I'll repeat what I already repeated: I didn't remove anything--I moved something, to the place where it seemed a. less racist and b. more appropriate. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'll be short; if it's in response to my edit summary when reverting you, then yes, I can fully understand leaving that impression on you. I clarified what I meant in the talk page comment, but, failed to provide a rationale for why; The ethnicity of the perpetrators is centrally linked to the case. You drew your own conclusions on about what I was saying - reasonable conclusions unfortunately for me. I can understand your impression on both fronts. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy keep as per SCh.OUTCOMES, do you think? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Eh, I'm not sure what that guideline says anymore, haha. But colleges (if it's post-secondary) should still be notable, no? Hey, why don't you run for admin, and then you don't have to bother me so often anymore--plus you get discounted gin tonics at the admin club! Ritchie333, have we upgraded yet to something decent, like Bombay Sapphire, instead of that cheap stuff we used to get? Drmies (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the Wicked Witch of the Westminster has her way, we won't be able to drink anything not brewed in the UK - fortunately that includes Shepherd Neame so I can cope. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "British eggs for British people", if you don't mind. See... just one big happy family on this side of La manche. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

OK now read between the lines and answer the other question. ;) Drmies (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As long as I have access to Thornbridge and Otter products I'm happy. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Mrs May doesn't answer the question she's asked, and answers the one she'd like to answer, so why can't I? Anyway, the school article - if there's a reliable source confirming it exists, then it's probably notable, though if the article's crap, parking a redirect to the town / district may be an alternative. If Black Kite's serious about copyvios, chop them out ASAP and revdel the revisions that have them in. And for FIM wanting to be an admin ... well he's never asked if he wanted to be one, simples. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You'd need to ship in something closer to a decent single malt than that Blue Sapphire you've been bootlegging, Ritchie333 :p I've filleted it of its most problematic aspects, although I'm not sure it needs much of what's left either. As for bothering Dr.M; ...I haven't posted here for nine days. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So that's why my heart felt so empty... Well, can you still run for admin please? Drmies (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• The school is notable. The article is crap, though - most of it is unsourced and at least some of it is copied verbatim from the school's website. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, can I just add that the only reason that you didn't get a card for Easter is that I somehow misplaced your address? Drmies (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    • No problem, we moved house last December anyway ;-) Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What led you to make the final decision to delete this page? It didn't appear that you weighed in on the conversation at all, and the majority of the talk during AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (4th nomination)) was in favor of keep. JonathanBentz (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That is called an independent decision by an uninvolved admin. The Banner talk 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I was actually just about to make a new section on this topic. I disagree with the decision to delete the article, partly because the "keep" !votes vastly outnumbered the "delete" !votes. Several reliable sources, some of which you acknowledged, exist about Gorny [23], [24], [25], [26] (the latter I don't think was brought up in the AfD). At the least, this article may be borderline GNG, but it meets GNG nonetheless. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

1990sguy, it's not a vote count: as I noted, many of the "keep" votes didn't present evidence, only statements. That Entrepreneur article was brought up. The sourcing is a lot thinner than you suggest, as was argued well in that AfD. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

An IP-hopper is adding some sour grapes and irrelevant info to the article Michelin Guide. Okay, I remove that but Ymblanter refused to protect that page. But now I am loosing my cool, after being named as sour grape The Banner, faschoide michelin fanatic. What can be done about this IP-hopper as I start to get angry about his comments. The Banner talk 14:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty to place this under pending protection level 1 (not enough disruption for semi-protection imho) ; this will at least stop the edits of going "live". I do not know if it will stop you from getting angry, @The Banner:, but I hope so. Lectonar (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A rap on his fingers would help to calm be down. The Banner talk 14:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: not a block or something like that (although..., etc.), perhaps a polite type of roaring can do the trick. The Banner talk 14:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think he is unhappy: User talk:178.197.227.208 The Banner talk 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the edit summary, as "faschoide" and derivations as "fascist" is of course reserved for me as a German :). I have watchlisted, and will rap on their ip-hopping knuckles the next time. Will be eating at Restaurant Mirazur next month, btw. Lectonar (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Lectonar, I really do not want to know that kind of information. OMG. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have Loam on the cards pretty soon... The Banner talk 19:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• This has happened before, a long time ago - I remember dealing with it then. Someone's got a long-term grudge. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tomas Gorny. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I appreciate your response to my post, but I respectfully disagree with your decision to delete. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

normally when an article like this is at Del Rev, I undelete the history, as a matter of course, but perhaps you;'d rather do it yourself. There's no real way to judge the reasonableness of the close without seeing the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks on behalf of my RSI. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)