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.

you deleted the main content from the Sindhi Child Given Names which I have revised now, I want to what made you remove the main thing from the article? If the main content of an article is removed then what lefts behind? If you have any reason kindly mention and try to improve the article. Thanks AngelicDevil29 (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(watching)(Non-Drmies comment) Hi AngelicDevil29, a quick reminder that Drmies' reason for removing the material was that your edit was a big list of stuff that you know. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, this is called WP:Original research; basically stuff that we know but hasn't got an independent WP:Reliable source to back it up. If you want the material to remain, you need a source for them. It can be the same source of course. SN54129 17:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

AngelicDevil29, the main content of any article should consist of content verified by secondary sources. In your article, that was clearly not the case. User:Serial Number 54129 is quite correct. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

kindly delete the page/article then. Thanks AngelicDevil29 (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No, find the proper sourcing for the naming convention. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't find the sources, there is not much work done on this topic, so its better to delete this article or move it to draft, if anyone have better citations they can mention them. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, we can't easily just delete an article, esp. not since another editor worked on it as well. What you have right now is not great, but it's also not unsourced, and it seems to me like it has potential. I really encourage you to work on it, keeping WP:RS in mind. In the long run, that's worth much more than a list of names. We're talking about a large population that's been around for forever, and they're important enough to be represented. If you want it gone, I suppose you could nominate it for deletion, but I think you should keep it and work on it. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't read this, or this, but who knows what might be in there. This might be relevant too. In the long run, a merge with Sindhi names is probably appropriate. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It appears you've disappointed someone. Courtesy link [1] Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the syntax and the fact that that user is posting on someone else's talkpage, it's unclear whether the disappointment is with Drmies or the editor whose talkpage they are posting on. BTW, this is the second time in a couple of days that the indefinite EC protection of this talkpage has been noted as a problem. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Where did they note that as a problem, Softlavender? For the record, and I think Acroterion saw this too, a few days ago dozens of edits, edit summaries, and usernames were scrubbed because an LTA sought to defame me, and I'm putting that mildly. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It appeared to me that they were unhappy that a bunch of things that have nothing to do with international relations were removed by Drmies and wanted to complain to someone else. It doesn't have anything to do with the defamatory LTA as far as I can see. And yes, I saw that LTA's activities. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Acroterion, I meant that in reference to the protection of my talk page... I'm sure that comment by that editor has nothing to do with any LTA. I think Softlavender is inferring from the fact that the user complained to someone else that they must not have been able to comment here, but they are not a new editor and should be able to post here, and didn't note this protection as a problem. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the talkpage protection angle. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The editor has only made 169 edits and so cannot post on this page, which is EC protected. The same goes for the editor (385 edits) who had to post on my usertalk two days ago: User talk:Softlavender#Good Faith. Did you get the ping from that post? Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I did. What do you want me to do about it, Softlavender? I have a document from the Trust and Safety team here, called "Report for Drmies (use w_law enforcement)", which I could share with you. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the reason I blanked the talk page for Pearl II is because that is now a redirect page, the talk page contents have been copied to the renamed article's talk page at Saga Pearl II I did it this way because I fell foul of a previous redirect and was trying to tidy up after making something of a pig's ear of the process. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Murgatroyd49, I think I fixed it. Don't just blank pages: move them. The history needs to be moved too. thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, having got myself in a mess, I wasn't sure how to get out of it. regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Sure thing! Drmies (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

A new user registered 18 June as 'Raybonam', made ten edits, then went quickly to LGBT rights in the UAE, to make almost the same edit/s as the previous sock you blocked, and all the earlier Jacobkennedy socks.

Appreciate you having a look at this, if you're able. Let me know if it's not okay to bring this here direct to you. Many thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks! Yeah, that's fine. What you can do also is add it to the SPI, just as a pro forma case and tell them that I already CU-blocked this hobbyist. And at some point we can start semi-protecting those articles: it's repetitive and tedious to clean up. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• SPI proforma done. Thanks so much! (And, yes: Sigh ...) AukusRuckus (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I've reported that level of vandalism before but was told to wait until they go past 4th warning. But, yes I can certainly report that type of edit as soon as I see it in future. Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm, OK--yeah, some admins should pull that trigger sooner. What they did in that edit, that's an immediate block. But listen, here's another thing: when you warn people, you don't have to start at 1. In fact, I never start at 1, since the wording is silly and insufficient. I mean, this wasn't some unverified stuff or something like that. So feel free to start at two or three, depending on the severity. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Now I'm back editing again I've done a few without bothering with level 1. Thanks for that advice, it does sometimes feel foolish going up the levels if they start with that type of stuff.

  Much appreciated. Knitsey (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I edited the WP:GWAR essay to warn against giving undue weight to maverick reviewers. Any feedback/improvements are welcome. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable enough. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Fun addition. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Remember any details on Pictureperfect2? Exquisite2's edit note style is very similar. -- ferret (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't, but well spotted! There is a whole nest there. I'll start an SPI and tag you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The mass deletion you just performed seems to have included some unintended mainspace pages: OnePlus 7T/Pro, OnePlus 7/Pro, OnePlus 8/Pro, OnePlus 9/Pro, OnePlus Nord CE 5G. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks--let me look into that. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Another one, I think: [2] [3]. No idea what to make of the username. -- asilvering (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes--but I don't know what to do. They have a lot in common with Bloop, but CU doesn't confirm it at all. So this is the third or fourth one that seems identical to me but is in a very different location. I'm wondering if there's diaspora-related MEATing, but that's kind of a stretch. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Depending on how far apart the accounts are, it could always be an off-campus project gone wrong. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Well, I do have a suspicion it's a project, yes, but that's the kind of thing that will be hard to prove. Still, if Salman and Bloop 91's edits were laid side by side, I think many editors would say they are a LOT alike. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
      • Some time ago I went looking through my mentor dashboard to see what my silent mentees were like, and I came across several engaged in edit-warring over whether the Mughals or their opponents won various obscure battles. Similar kind of pattern, just without AfC involved. I can't decide if it would be weirder if they were one person or multiple people, tbh. -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
        • Interesting. I think it's MEAT, yes. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Drmies. Walter white502930291 was blocked earlier in June for edit warring on Aračinovo crisis. They today restarted the edit warring with 2 new reverts [4], and even called me "Albanian fascists". Some time ago another edit summary made a reference to the perceived ethnicity of another editor [5]. Their edits on other articles are edit warring over controversial stuff concerning the 2001 war in Macedonia. As far as I can see, they have all been reverted, suggesting widespread disruption. Can you take a look if time permits? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• He keeps calling other editors "Albanian fascists" and is edit warring on several articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks, cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Adventures_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=1154821523

Regarding this edit is there is reason why it serves no purpose and it is not OK even though the names are revealed through their YT channel? Is it is not just unimportant and unsourced. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• We NEVER include the names of children and/or minors unless there is a pressing need to do so, a need which should be established on the basis of secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that you tagged that account as a sock of Africanhistory1930, but didn't block it. Was that intended? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Done, thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I was just looking at this mess when I noticed your blocks. What about JH61BN and B0415nil (hope you did an exhaustive check because I suspect there may be others)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm very much in the middle of it, Bbb. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Ah, in some other life I was a patient person. I'll see if I can - what's the latest idiotic phrase? - reach out to that previous persona. Let me know when you're done because I do have some questions (no change there, either).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
    • OK, I checked the two biggest ranges, and I think this is it--four accounts, all obvious when you see em side by side. In one of the deleted drafts ( I saw a possible link to another blocked account that led to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BhushanSRT/Archive, but the ranges are big enough and I think the focus of these four is quite different. Maybe they have a different clientele, but I saw no other technical links. I'm going to tag them all as socks of BNJ Nilam. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
      • Excellent, you eliminated all my questions but one: how did you find them in the first instance? Me, I believe I was patrolling Recent changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
        • Good question. Oh, I know: I'm always suspicious when I see someone "clean up" their talk page. I saw this one and started looking--same as you, probably. Now we need to clean up... Drmies (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
          • Oh golly, blocking is much easier than cleaning up. What do you intend to do?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
            • Delete sock creations... I wish we had an option in the block template that combined CU and UPE. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
              • Umm, what's the basis for deletion? G5 doesn't apply.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
                • I looked again and I see a connection with User:EditzIndia. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
                  • Dunno about the quality of the technical connection, but at a glance I don't see a behavioral one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
                    • I don't want to run the two big ranges again but that's how I got there. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
                    • And I'm bothered by the double L in Development Counsellors International. Why? Drmies (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
                      • Completely understandable, it should be renamed to Devellopment Counsellors Internationall.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

[ec] Littterally, as Mandarax might say. Bbb, I saw you protected Tunisia--was that in part because of User:Yassine181? I'm going to browse around and see if they have connections in other articles: a month or two ago I saw a bunch of disruption in that area, with POV Amazigh edits. It's a hot area, I think, about "arabization" of Berbers, that sort of thing, and it's a sad area, because the edits I remember were of course against policy but they were rooted in a long history of oppression. [Later:] if you protected because of the weird vandalism of the last few days, there may be a tail to that tale. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Well, not this time. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Holy moly: [6], [7]. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I have a headache.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

June songs

my story today

More detail on my talk! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Nothin' personal... You know the score: win some, lose some ("what you lose on the swings you gain on the roundabouts"). I'll be seein' ya! Technopat (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm just when I thought I got those Marillion songs out of my head, you come along. I guess it's high time I look up what that expression means. The game is over! Drmies (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Ah ok, so only losses for poor Fish, that makes sense. And then he lost all his hair too: happens to the best of us. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Wow! All that's gone waaaay over my head or, to be more accurate, looks like you bowled me a googly... Gimme a coupla days and I'll try to make a comeback... Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Please don't throw any more Briticisms my way. I have a Scottish friend and that's hard enough already. It's nothing fancy: just this, but maybe you weren't an anxiety-ridden teenager in Western Europe in the 1980s... Drmies (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
      • A) Nah, we speak a different language... those guys were waaaay after my time (my first-ever LP was With the Beatles (1963) and B) Believe me, I appreciate how "hard" it is having a Scottish friend... (hope yer mate isn't from Glasgow, 'cos he'd probably, and rightly so, "have yer guts for garters" for considering him "British"...) I "speak" as a veteran survivor of having several Scottish (and Glaswegian) friends... --Technopat (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
        • Hmm he has called himself "British" sort of in general, but I'd never say that to him or about him--and he is in fact from Glasgow! It's funny: he doubles the number of f-words per sentence with every beer/Jameson, so by the end of the night it's an almost continuous stream. Hey Technopat, you have a pretty hip name for an old guy. ;) Drmies (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

A Glaswegian drinking Jameson's? What is the world coming to? Are you sure you're not mixing up yer whiskies/whiskeys? (Geddit?) That said, for want of a single malt Scotch, Jameson's is actually a perfectly acceptable tipple... As for the doubling of Big Bad Words per sentence/name yer poison, yeah, pretty standard behaviour. Guilty as charged...

BTW, although, to my dismay, most people seem to associate it with what some folks consider a form of "music"... ugh!... the "hip" "Technopat" moniker has nothing whatsoever to do with that. It was given me, back in the very early 90s, by a leading internet pioneer who was frustrated and deeply upset by my utter lack of interest in the new technologies. Give your Glaswegian friend a slap on the back from me, but remember to roll with the punch as he retaliates... But I digress... Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Technopat, he texted me to say he was having a great time even though it was raining. I told him it was a hundred degrees on our campus. In other news, I still think your name is cool, and I started watching Endeavour. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Rain! What a lucky so-and-so! Perfect whisky/whiskey-sipping weather! That said, I've just seen that they've just issued a heavy rain alert here for much of the country over the coming days. We'll be alright here in Madrid, with temps in the mid-90s, thankfully down from last week's 100s. By all accounts, that series is very good. Haven't seen it, but if nothing else, as it was filmed on location in Oxford, one of my fav. places, at least the exteriors will be cool. Enjoy it! And stay in the shade (as if that makes any difference...)! Regards. --Technopat (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I muffed it. If I'd simply listed a long list of civility issues, it wouldn't have become so strange. I gave the peanut gallery something to latch onto. Next week somebody uninvolved will indef the guy for cause. It's not an if, it's a when. BusterD (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Sometimes issues are just not resolvable. (Is that a word?) I saw you tried and I appreciate it. I did not see that there was a, ahem, proposal to ban you from ANI--I just noticed that now, and I that JayBeeEll responded. Anyway, we'll see. I think there are three possibilities. The user becomes more collegial and productive, the user is sent off to ArbCom, or the user is blocked. Hey, thanks for trying: I know you put a lot of work into that one. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I laughed out loud when I saw it in livespace. You mean I might be prevented from helping close uninvolved threads at ANI (which I almost never do)? And that's supposed to be a concern? Sign me up! I had a bunch of fun running page statistics on ANI last night. The stats page stops at 50K edits, so back to middle of last year. I was happy to see I was about 200th most active editor, at roughly 50 edits, out of about 4K discrete contributors. It was interesting to contrast that ranking by most content added. It's like all the iffy actors need someplace to hang out, and since they've been brought there before it's on their watchlist. BusterD (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm going to keep a straight face on that one. I used to hang out at ANI, mostly before I got the bit. As an admin, though, I've come to look at it from a very different angle, and I think now I regard it as a place where there's either a quick solution or no solution at all, with nothing much in the middle. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
      • I think the quick solution or no solution at all reflects the dual purpose of urgent incidents and chronic behavioural problems, or looked at another way, ANI's stated purpose and its organically evolved purpose as Wikipedia's drama release valve. Folly Mox (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
        • There was the old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct... Drmies (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
        • It seems an old comment of mine pointed the same way you just did. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
          • I have not been here long enough to have used WP:RFC/U, but I would have appreciated a less adversarial and less heated means of a conflict resolution. I started that ANI thread as a relative newcomer looking for guidance, and the response hit me like a ton of bricks. BusterD, if you would like to spend less time at ANI, then I advise you to avoid escalating disputes there. Trying to ban a good-faith editor based on unfounded gaslighting accusations is not going to improve any situation, and your fellow editors could reasonably interpret your peanut gallery and iffy actors characterizations as personal attacks. If you have a long list of civility issues, you are welcome to discuss them on my talk page; if a single usage of the WP:LISTEN shortcut is a bannable offense, then you need to document that more clearly.  — Freoh 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
            • Well, Freoh, I think you could have done better, given that you had a week to think about it. I do appreciate the "tq" stuff: you're much more advanced than I am. I also did appreciate BusterD's efforts there. I am not sure you realize how close you came to an indefinite block, despite your cool user name. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the username compliment. I too appreciate that BusterD was trying to improve Wikipedia, but a good-faith effort is insufficient. Their personal attacks there were completely inappropriate. I am aware that their bad-faith accusations nearly led to my indefinite ban from Wikipedia, but that does not justify the unfounded aspersions. I have admitted my imperfections and agreed to change my behavior, and it disappoints me that BusterD is unwilling to do the same.  — Freoh 12:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
                • Agree to disagree on BusterD's effort, and I'll keep that in mind next time your behavior is questioned; I'm sure BusterD will too. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I stay well away from the Israel/Palestine topic but there seems to be an outbreak of a related problem on this page. I'm uncomfortable with some of the comments there. Can I ask you to take a look and give me a second opinion? WCM_email 11:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• There's more there than meets the eye, but maybe you saw some of that already. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time, it didn't feel right but I just don't know enough to comment and didn't want to make it worse. WCM_email 14:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey there Drmies. Could you take a look at this SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalisa Manobal. I know admins are inundated with requests so I hope it's not an inconvenience. It's fairly short. Just need someone to do a behavioral check and close it. Thank you. Griboski (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Mad Clip? That article needs some help. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Thanks. There is also this case which is a rehash of a previous case you commented on and found no connection between the two specific users (the other part of this SPI found socking through CU). Can easily be closed, especially since it is a sock who posted it. --Griboski (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Drmies. I apologize for bothering you, but an anon IP, 107.221.56.77, and User:Richiekim are on the verge of an edit war over the Super-Skrulls' appearance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) series Secret Invasion. Basically, Richie wants to include an MCU section exclusively for Secret Invasion's Super-Skrulls, but both the IP address and I agree that we cannot do that yet because there aren't enough entries to justify the creation of the section. When you view the Super-Skrull page's edit history, you'll see what I mean. I could really use your assistance in de-escalating this situation before things get worse, please. Blazewing16 (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, can you take a look at this editor who clearly was editing through proxies 202.134.14.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 202.134.9.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) etc (see their edits at Hindu–Islamic relations) and seems to be propounding the same bonker claims that Islam is of Hindu-origins as Lazy-restless, whom you have dealt with before.

By the way, they are also likely to be active on Simple wikipedia, since they linked to simple:Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book), in case you or any of your page-watchers are active there or handle cross-wiki abuse. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the named account - they should really be globally locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. Bbb, is it worth running a check? Drmies (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If you think there are others...--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of others (big range), but nothing obvious. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Drmies. EHZeroEight was created while Typical Albanian was blocked. EHZeroEight made that [8] comment on the Llapi River RM, then deleted the comment [9]. The same comment then was posted there by TypicalAlbanian [10]. This suggests they are the same person. Today EHZeroEight made a support comment [11] on the Suve Reka RM which was opened by Typical Albanian. This look like classic socking. Since this concerns a RM that might soon get closed and TypicalAlbanian is making the same disuptive page moves that got them blocked twice, I would like a quick CU if you are willing and have time. The cases at the SPI page usually take 1 or 2 days and till then the disruption might have become larger. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• They have actually accepted that is their other account [12] and were told the socking policies by another editor. But it seems that they could not resist the urge to get some help from their other account. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I wish I could make money this way. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    • But then you wouldn't be priceless.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
      • That's really sweet but I'm finally living in the real world, Bbb--C.R.E.A.M. I'm surprised you haven't found any of my UPE accounts yet. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    • This recalled me a new editor some years ago who asked at ANI/I about the average salary of an Wikipedia admin. That guy had not figured out yet that editing Wikipedia is a career destoyer, not a career builder. lol Thanks Drmies. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Oh, that's a fact. One of these a-holes complained to the board of trustees of my university. I think that was the guy who claimed I was getting paid by Intel. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You familiar with Draft:Africatown Heritage House? The exhibition is opening on July 8th. S0091 (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks! Very interesting. Yes, I am familiar with it, and I appreciate the note. You're welcome to tag along. Tide rolls, why don't you take us to lunch. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Maybe if we call it the Wikimania Southeastern Conference, the WMF will pay for my trip. Tide rolls might need to still need to cover lunch though. :) S0091 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
    • S0091, I accepted that draft--it's not a good article, but it was fine, not too promotional, notable ([13]), etc. I kind of wish I had been more on the ball, and I would have improved it and put it on the front page last week. Sure, what a coincidence with the opening, but I don't care. Anyway, I think I'm going to drive down next week. Tide rolls, how about it. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

      Let me know what you think of the exhibit. I will check in the next week or so to see if there are any additional sources post-opening. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies for staying in touch through some rough days - it means/meant a lot to me. — Ched (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• User:Ched! It's so good to hear from you. Thanks man. I hope you're doing OK. Our new kitten sends her love--no she doesn't, cause she's a cat and cats are jerks. But she is cute AND IM SURE YOU ARE TOO. Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I was adding an unsourced material warning here and saw your note from last week. FYI. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• User:Orange Suede Sofa, thanks for that note: I appreciate it. Sergio is done here, as far as I am concerned. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You blocked Mrwiki1220 in June as a sock as Indianforc3378 and I suspect EthioWarriorHistoryPedia is also a sock based on their editing and resubmission of Draft:Battle of Dodota, created by Mrwiki1220 (see also my talk page). Mind doing a check? S0091 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishvendra_Singh&diff=prev&oldid=1164858480 Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ops, sorry about the missing article title. Point taken. Knitsey (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ha, no problem--it's that it was a mobile diff, that's all, and I put the title in there for me. Yes, that absolutely warranted revdel, and thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I usually bracket diffs but this time (and a previous request) I forgot, sorry. I will put the article link in future requests. You must get fed up of running around sorting out requests lol. Knitsey (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No no, not at all: I believe in the BLP. I'd rather people come and drop me a line here than having some unverified accusation which can do real harm to real people remain in our articles. Keep em coming! (I know there's an IRC channel for this kind of thing, and I bet that's fast, but I don't know how that works.) Drmies (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't tell me that! My brain can't cope with learning something new just now! Knitsey (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I tried to get someone else to weigh in on this IMPORTANT ISSUE, but so far to no avail. Meanwhile, the editor who has the chutzpah to disagree with me (see blocking policy on disagreeing with Bbb23) is getting impatient (see my Talk page). You're an academic, making you an expert with whom no one would dare disagree, even if you're not specifically noted in policy. Remember, your Doctor of Philosophy is at stake! --Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't think I can say anything useful, except that those degrees are always capitalized in the way you indicate, and a "bachelor of music" is an unmarried person who...no, it's just weird. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• My better half is an academic - she's got degrees up the wotsit, and they've all got capitals. Plus ngram. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Please, some respect for your wife: it's Wotsit.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    • We're not actually married. We've never quite decided what the best word to use is - girlfriend sounds a bit teenage and temporary after 20+ years, whereas 'life partner' sounds like something you'd read about in an airport book on self-improvement. 'Bedfellow' is an old Scottish word that describes the situation quite neatly, but I fear it comes across as excessively explicit in an international arena... Girth Summit _(blether) 19:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
      • • Bidey-in? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
      • "Bedfellow" is capital, but often all too true in a sad way. Scottish? My colleague is Scottish, and he's being it in Scotland right now. He went out in the pouring rain last week and caught a trout. Is that a normal thing to do? Drmies (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
        • That's a very normal thing to do. If you're stuck for summer reading, I recommend 'At the Loch of the Green Corrie' by Andrew Greig. It's about the author being sent on an errand to do just that by the dying Norman MacCaig. Funny, poignant and beautifully written. I shan't give away any spoilers about whether he catches the trout. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
          • GS, I got more summer reading than I can handle in a summer (in fact I just picked up four Thomas Hardy novels at the used bookstore; also on my stack, I Saw Death Coming, How Beautiful We Were, Barabbas, and a mid-20th century translation of Tristan and Isolde. Oh, I started re-reading Oe's A Quiet Life. My Scottish friend gave me a copy of How Late It Was, How Late, but I don't have enough whisk(e)y to start reading that. Also, this is the summer, when I'm living off my credit card (reminder: don't be an English professor in the US)--can you remind me some time in the fall? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

            Wait, what - you don't get paid over the summer? WTAF? That's... unreasonable. My partner (nod to Bbb23) is head of the history department here, and she is sticking to the line (despite disapproving glances from certain members of university management) that they always give even temporary staff 12-month contracts so they get paid over the summer while they wait for their next job. How are you supposed to pay the bills? (Well, I guess you just told me that...). Girth Summit _(blether) 17:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

      • How about just partner? I know it's common in the US and thought it was also fairly common in other parts of world, including the UK. What does she want to be called? Does she call you her worse half?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

        Does she call you her worse half?

        i wonder how many relationships have been destroyed because of wikipedia. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

        Six and a half.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Another one: Marianne Debouzy‎. The article has been expanded into a mammoth with thousands of small subsections by the same editor who brutalized the French version. I took a lot out of the article and made a ton of copy edits, but it needs a lot more work. I could revert it back to the version before the French SPA editor, but I'm not crazy about that version, either. I'm trying to figure out how notable the woman is. Not that I think the article should be deleted, but how important a figure she was, which would affect how much is WP:UNDUE. The article has almost no page watchers. Anyway, don't know if it'll grab you at all, but I thought I'd run it by you. Why do the French think it matters which arrondissement you're born in? I know they're snobs and some arrondissements are considered "better" than others, but really. I suppose it's not that different from which borough you're born in in NYC, but at least there are only 5 boroughs.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Noticed this at WP:AIV. I've blocked Franzkafkafanatic, but I think a check is warranted. Not sure if it's Freoh, a joe-job, or some other user, but...--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• I see that some of the experts have already looked; I don't know what they found, and it's probably not that exciting to know. Thanks for the block, though. Another troll/LTA has been active too, and Oswah, BusterD, and others have taken appropriate action. Damn, all I did was spend a day at Blue Springs State Park and this is what I come back to! ;) Drmies (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, you didn't have to come back, you know. Did you enjoy yourself?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Ah well, I was sleepy and not feeling great. I just had surgery, minor but it takes a while. I didn't actually get in the water--we got there at nap time, haha, and I had to be back on time because I had customers at the office... Which was kind of fun: one of them had taken a class with me, needed a few more electives, and asked if I was teaching anything fun for him to take. That's always good to hear. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Are you teaching anything fun?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
        • Not next semester, not really, not for him. The class that's somewhat fun (early world lit), he already took with me. It's all survey lit until retirement: we have few English majors, we have set no priorities for the students to get coverage that's broad or deep, and so we don't offer the classes that would provide for that. If you've ever read Stoner you'll get a pretty good idea of what it's like, and the protagonist's life was more exciting than mine. I would not advice anyone to go into my field, not anymore. Plus, everyone else on campus makes more money than we do in my department, except for art history, haha. It's ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
          • What is survey lit? Are most American universities like yours with respect to class offerings and money? It sounds very sad.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
            • There's a can of worms waiting to be opened here: Literature survey. Yeah, that survey lit, often two classes (a sequence) in literature and one in history, or the other way around, many work like that. For people in English (and History) it's our bread and butter: I've been teaching early British literature since 1996. For a while I taught a World Lit class on African literature, until they pulled that because of certain transfer requirements within the state--all those courses have to transfer to other universities as well, so it's kind of like that sausage machine in the "Brick in the Wall" video. As for money, yeah, English (and Arts, and to some extent History) are always underpaid, because of that bullshit "market value" excuse--like, those teaching in Business or Economics could get jobs in the Real World where they would get paid ten times as much, which is of course total crap. I used to teach Business Writing until that got taken away to be taught by someone in the Business School, who got paid twice as much for teaching the same class. So it goes, but we're not allowed to question that--and yet we are for many students the main teachers for their first two years, so you'd think they'd make us happy so we can make the students happy. I'm lucky, relatively speaking, as a tenured professor; adjuncts may have to teach twice the number of classes I teach to pay the bills. Meanwhile, on the main campus of every American state university the salaries are significantly higher and the teaching loads significantly lower than on satellite campuses. Don't be fooled by "non-profit". Drmies (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I received a message on my talk page today. Please take a look and see if you feel the IP is related to the subject of the previous discussion. The editing patterns do seem to match up. Carter00000 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know--it all seems a little esoteric to me. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• 115.136.136.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wj341936 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 원짜이 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems to have a thing for Kurt Gödel's signature. Pushy[14] If this is a waste of your time I apologize, it's a minor situation. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks--it's all in a day's work. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

They’re a sock an indeffed user… why did you only block them for a week? Courcelles (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Horseman wasn't being disruptive and I saw no overlap. That's not a very good reason, maybe, but I thought maybe they'd come to their senses. As I noted on the SPI, other admins are welcome to overrule my block. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey there! I noticed you re-tagged this article ((Undisclosed paid)) yesterday, and wanted to have a discussion about that. Before they were blocked for sockpuppetry, Harry6655 did declare on their user page that they had a conflict of interest with the then-draft article. I reviewed the AfC submission that they put up and checked the sources for reliability, made sure the language was neutral, as well as tagged the talk page as outlined in WP:COIRESPONSE. As far as I'm aware, both the paid editor and I followed the appropriate guidelines for this kind of situation. With this in mind, I feel that the tag should stay off the article. Let me know if you still disagree, or if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• You're right--I changed the tag. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

There's an IP user who is having fun in User:Jacobkennedy et al's favourite playground of LGBT-related articles. Not sure what can be done about IPs, but I'm not very good at the whack-a-mole game. Span I've noticed:

• 76.72.175.108
• 76.72.175.174
• 76.72.175.121
• 76.72.175.167

I've gone around behind them at

• LGBT rights in Libya [15]
• Capital punishment for non-violent offenses [16]
• LGBT rights in Somalia [17]twice
• LGBT rights in Brunei
• LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia

but there's plenty of their edits from just the last few days that I haven't even been able to look at. So sorry to trouble you with this tedium. My thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• • Thanks for looking at that IP and taking action, Drmies. Could this be one of the flock, also: 38.95.13.133? AukusRuckus (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • This may help: This edit made by 38.95.13.133, (with ES "why was this changed") restored these changes made by 76.72.175.121, a few days earlier. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Gotcha: I blocked a range. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023

• Suggestion improvements
• Favorite collections tips
• Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Mies, A few days ago you blocked a blcok-evadign IP editor. Based on the geo-location and the editor's obsession with User:ToBeFree - [18], and their desire to edit Talk:Sound of Freedom (film)[19]I am guessing the original block was this other IP editor who was similarly harassing ToBeFree [20].

I think this user may have now created a registered account (a day after you blocked the IP), and is pursuing the same behavior, but I could be off base here and don't want to accuse an editor of sock-puppetry without solid evidence, how should I proceed? Red Slapper (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Well, if there's no solid evidence no accusation should be made, and if there is solid evidence then administrators should be informed so that the matter can be looked into. I looked over that talk page but I am not sure who you might be talking about. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't want to make any public accusation w/o solid evidence. Can I privately email you my suspicions? Red Slapper (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Sure, but please don't expect me to respond in a detailed way; I may not be able to respond at all because of privacy concerns. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
      • sure. Will send you something shortly. Red Slapper (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
        • Got it. Nothing to see, sorry. Courcelles, courtesy ping because you discussed this matter a bit with the editor. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

          Thanks for taking a look. Red Slapper (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This (non-Wikipedia) admin doesn't seem to like you. Favonian (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That's wonderful. --JBL (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Strange. Courcelles, thanks for taking a look. Drmies (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, long time, no write!

I see you did a bit of work at Rajesh Talwar some time ago. I have been doing more these last few hours & am increasingly concerned that we are being used for promo purposes. Almost all the sources seem likely to have him pulling strings behind the scenes & I'm discovering that a lot (but perhaps not all) of his books are printed by self-publishing outfits. It's a bit of an awkward situation & I would appreciate it if you could run your eye over the article again. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah man, I've missed you! How are things? Drmies (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

May I ask why my user page was deleted JoshRamirez29 (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Two reasons, really: WP:NOTWEBHOST and Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Wasn't trying to trick anyone. Just put it back up and I will move the so called hoaxes to my sandbox JoshRamirez29 (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    • You are not permitted to have hoaxes anywhere on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Alright all right then I'll take them down, but I feel like a warning would have been sufficient because I had things like that up for years with no problems JoshRamirez29 (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
        • I also deleted User:JoshRamirez29/sandbox. Drmies (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

          Can you at least prop them up without all the fake stuff because some was still real and I don't know how to recreate my own pages JoshRamirez29 (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added some sources to the page now in regards to the previous edits I did yesterday and back in December. I hope this solves the issue. Luigitehplumber (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

On 24 July 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bruno Flierl, which you had created in 2021. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it's now time to decline that request. The socking on the "grandfather"'s account gives me pause as to whether this would be a good idea. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's all a bit far-fetched. And I've seen it plenty of times where accounts that were dormant for a decade were reactivated. I think my grandfather would say the same thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I recently pinged you at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). The discussion has now been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Massive wide-ranging IP block on Airtel India users. JBW (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Found it, JBW, thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your edit summary, I never added that material. It was added by another editor, in this edit. Nightscream (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Nightscream, my edit reverted to your version. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I've had a request to move Draft:Lizzy Rose into mainspace. I'm minded to do so, but thought I'd check with you first. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I don't really know what to say, and can't check, for instance, if the references are good and maybe support something. I'll leave it up to you! Drmies (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware I'm a bit stubborn at my edits but i appreciate what ya did with the talk with BlazeWing, I was dead set on my ways, and i apologize for my anger. JosephWC (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• OK--thanks. Drmies (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

July songs

my story today

My flowers of resilience. - Great music (in June, I'm behind: three great RMF concerts)! - Last Saturday, a friend played for us at her birthday party, on four instruments including baryton, with family (granddaughters!) and colleagues, from Renaissance to Haydn. - My story today is very personal: the DYK appeared on Wikipedia's 15th birthday, and describes a concert I sang. I was requested to translate the bio into German for a memorial concert ... - see background, and we talked about life and death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Wow--never knew we had drone strings in the West! Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Haydn wrote more than 100 trios for the thing for his boss who played it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • On today's Main page, you can find a cantata that Bach first performed 300 years ago, and an iconic saxophonist from East Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  • While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Today I remember Jahrhundertring, and I'm listening to Götterdämmerung from the Bayreuth Festival, close to the scene pictured, - the image (of a woman who can't believe what she has to see) features also on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, BE User:92.14.216.40 is active at 2.99.72.43. Could you? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

...also 2.99.68.104, 2A00:23EE:15E8:2A84:7995:D699:FAEA:EAC7 Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Giving you a heads-up that their red flag edit summaries continue and I just reverted.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks--I think we'll be good for a while. Drmies (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Is there an SPI already for this? I reverted a new user who posted on the talk thread so it's on my watch list. I never thought to check for historical updates, I will in future. Thanks Knitsey (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I seem to recall that in another life you and I tangled with an article in the general topic area of the law of attraction—although I can't find the article, so maybe I'm imagining that. Either way, thought you might appreciate this—we were citing the "Illuminati Conspiracy Archive" for 16 years, for the viewing pleasure of a few million readers. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Holy moly! That's...well, that's the history of Wikipedia, isn't it, and that we are also a platform for, ahem, determined idiosyncratic hobbyists. In other words, it's still raining in the motherland. Just my luck. Drmies (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  We get nice summer rainstorms here. Watched the thunderclouds roll in across the Bay a few weeks ago. I wanted to wait for rainfall but the rest of the polycule said something or other about lightning strikes. Shame.

  "Determined idiosyncratic hobbyists", that's one way to put it all right. :P I used to have a note on my userpage to the effect of "assume everyone here has, at least, subclinical symptoms of autism", but I felt like I never could strike quite the right tone (and still can't, even in this rendition).

  Anyways, enjoy your travels! I can keep holding down the fort while I hide out from tourists. P.S., did you hear ANI 2.0 is now the official recommended alternative to ANI? JayBeeEll said so. DRV time yet? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well I wasn't wrong, was I?  :-p --JBL (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm thanks...? Drmies (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Klein-Wallace Home".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course you can restore this draft shoud you want to return to working on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

You welcomed this IP[21] but this IP is yet another proxy evading his existing block on this blocked proxy IP. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm looking at it already. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

New editor User:Paulmlaforge takes issue with my deletion of unsourced, unencyclopedically written content at Oceanic Airlines and has let me know on my talk page that people criticize me on forums. At a minimum, can you take a moment to impart a second opinion? Muchas gracias. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like Cullen just warned him off: User_talk:Paulmlaforge. Edit History is a bit odd for an account created in 2010: Special:Contributions/Paulmlaforge. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Well that's really something, isn't it. And again the editor who really has no clue about how we do things here starts Googling and finds a forum where our editors get pissed on, and then extends the harassment. I'm sorry, User:Julietdeltalima. See the history of User talk:172.58.172.105--but that is a longtime disruptor. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s definitely a Defeedme sock. For sure. Doug Weller talk 20:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that the other day, and I saw that one of the IPs had been screwing with you. It's all just so fucking childish. I blocked User talk:Defeedme a while ago but the details of the case are just so weird and confusing. Who would care to spend time that way? Drmies (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Pretty pathetic. He must have no friends, nothing better to do. Obsessive. Doug Weller talk 21:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

And ironically, in the content argument, I think he may have been right. Doug Weller talk 21:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, in the JDLiverse, this is so inconsequential. I got screamed at nearly to the point of a seizure one day last week by a colleague who was THAT OFFENDED by my request for them to “repeat that?” over a bad cell connection without saying “please.” Within this next week I’ll be 52.

User:Doug Weller, I’m not in a well-connected spot: did I overstep at a content level in some reversion? Let me know. I hope you’re well! Non-Wikipedian Alphadeltafoxtrot and I think of you often. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I know what day today is, and I'm celebrating by lunching at our favorite Thai restaurant on the peninsula (not that there are very many) and taking a walk along the water. I hope you (collectively) are doing something equally delightful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Woohoo enjoy! Yes, we'll come up with something. Thank you so much Bbb. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

202.134.10.141 has asked for a deletion review of Kalki Avatar and Muhammad. 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. —Cryptic 19:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Since both (blatant transphobic username, I'm not gonna repeat it) and Tobywb1 were pushing similar nonsense, do you think they might be related? Is it even worth a CU? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• I know they are not. ;) It's probably just meat. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Greghenderson2006 has been previously warned about promotional and COI editing, but has now revealed undisclosed paid editing for over 12 months as well. He is engaging on his talk page which is great, but I feel a little out of my depth as to what the appropriate next steps are - tbh, I'm not sure whether I am being too harsh, or whether I am not taking it seriously enough. Is this something you'd be willing to have a look at and give your advice/opinion as an admin? Thanks Melcous (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• That is just really, really disappointing. I'm not going to make any hasty decisions, not this evening. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I got this message on my talk page. As I do not use the mobile version, I have no clue to reproduce or solve the vandalism on the mentioned article. Can you help? The Banner talk 13:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Why spammers spam an encyclopedia in a language they don't understand . . . . Ima go to Urdu Wiki and use google translate to tell them what a great tourist destination Florida is. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This article screams for expnasion -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Go for it--I found you a source. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I noticed you blocked a user who was spamming. I'm not sure about Timzy D'Great. I havent addressed the user myself or inspectred their edits. But addition of this picture is fishy for sure. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• See this, [[22]]. BTW I didn't block the editor for spamming, but for not answering to legitimate questions by other editors, including you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, you may want to chime in on the two discussions about Greek Life at UMass Amhherst; we could use your opinion on the matter. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yay, Greek life... it's the only way I know. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Drmies, could you please take a look at the behavioral evidence I presented between a sock and a new editor in this SPI report when you have the time? Thank you. --Griboski (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Is it more than exciting than the former president getting a mugshot taken in Atlanta? Drmies (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Definitely not exciting but rather disruptive. Although.. not as disruptive as trying to overthrow election results. 😬 --Griboski (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Griboski, I wonder if you could have a look at this--it seems ridiculous to me. User talk:Ktrimi991? Drmies (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
      • I agree with you that it seems excessive but I honestly am not too familiar with wiki project template usage for talk pages to be certain. --Griboski (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Good day @Drmies! I have a problem with @Yenamari, who vandalizes pages of Miss World, Miss Universe, and other beauty pageant pages. Could you do something with this user? This user has vandalized articles of beauty pageants at Wikipedia Tagalog as well.

Thank you! Allyriana000 (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing right after expiration of your block

You might want to know about this vandalism with a weird "or else" edit summary [23]. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Bri I've indefinitely blocked the editor because of the the threat. Doug Weller talk 06:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

August songs

my story today

My story today - a first - isn't about an article by me, but one I reviewed for DYK, see here. I like all: topic, "hook", connected article (a GA on its way towards FA), image and the music "in the background". I just returned from a weekend with two weddings, so also like the spirit ;) - Pics to come, I promise one cake, the other was too large! Good music, and better even in the concert ending the second day, - Goldberg Variations theme for an encore, after Dohnányi Serenade! - I played with the dedication for Goldberg Variations in my Siegfried entry 10 years ago ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Again not by me: today's story - with the triumph of music over military - is uplifting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Now: picture of heart-shaped cake(s) uploaded! - Today's story is about a tenor, - why his roles are not linked on the Main page remains a mystery to me. Today is also the birthday of the Bayreuth Festival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

One more day uploaded, with another wedding cake - I couldn't resist. Today's story is about the Inkpot Madonna who returned to "her place" 9 years ago, and also has aspects of early learning, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Today's story is based on a 2011 DYK that you reviewed ;) - The hook would not pass 2023 reviewers, - they have to be of interest to the general public, which opera singers are not, so they say. Take Berit Lindholm, discussed here. - I added pics until a happy day with excellent food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Today is Debussy's birthday. The Lindholm nom is reopened thanks to Floq. We still argue ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• I see...in four different places. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  It should have been in the nom and only in the nom, but that was closed. Then I asked some what to do. It's back to the nom. I sort of gave up - on DYK at all practically - if all "we" want to say about one of the greatest dramatic sopranos of her time (one of three) is that she first was a primary school teacher, or that her director had an indecent way of not knowing what to do with her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Today is Gwendolyn Killebrew's birthday, - pictured: a spider and sweet food, - back then, in 2014, we could still say what an opera singer achieved. - Did you know that Lindholm is a GA now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

My edit was VERY CLEARLY SOURCED. It was a RELIABLE SOURCE which was perfectly VALID on its corresponding article! Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

As for BillCat, he has a very long history of REPEATEDLY ABUSING many different people - especially IP editors and new users. He makes personal threats against many different editors! Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Screaming at me on my own talk page is probably not the best thing to do for you. And a source doesn't become reliable because you write the word in all-caps. Drmies (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you [interacted] with "Xeditboy" previously, while reminding them of sourcing and personal attacks; it seems as if they're still not following your warning/advice. Despite being told claims need to be cited, they continue to add unsourced material to the encyclopedia, and when presented with a revert for their continued additions (and warning), they post on another's talk page, citing: Thanks for the the thank you, but ‪Livelikemusic‬ doesn't seem to agree and expects cite links for everything. They don't realize you can't cite individual zap2it episodes only the season listing., and then persisting on hurling a personal insult by calling me a "control freak" here (calling me a control freak for following Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and sticking to the source seems a bit far fetched). livelikemusic (TALK!) 23:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed this/overlooked it. I warned the editor. Next time it's a block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dinesh Kumar Mani 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/Dinesh Kumar Mani until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

PepperBeast (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my recent behaviour. Peace and kind regards. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Please be aware that I didn't impugn that source just because the website was dead (though that doesn't help). What was called for, on your part, was for you to prove that it was reliable, and that--for those who really care about an encyclopedia and its sourcing--is a really interesting exercise with possibly a useful result. I actually started looking into that website, yesterday already, but haven't found much. The real challenge for a real encyclopedist is to write that article. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

BilCat (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Administrator changes Pppery Theleekycauldron Dwheeler G.A.S Royalbroil Ssd

CheckUser changes Bradv Oversighter changes Bradv

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

POV-pushers on the following article Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars are edit warring to remove a verification failed tag from a grossly-misrepresented source, without any respect to the WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VER concerns raised in the talk page. I have already took the matter to the [| Neutral Point of View Noticeboard # Gross misrepresentation of non-massacres as massacres] but they are keeping up with their disruption. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't like anyone edit warring (except for me), but I think Kmitri has a point in this edit summary. I mean--"Your concern is another one, that the article should not contain info on settlement burnings without apparent massacres", that's true, right? Because the text (as poorly written as it is) is supported by that quote, if I'm seeing everything correctly... Drmies (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The tag was used after I have sought help at the Teahouse, where the admin administrator Nick Moyes was kind to inform me that the Failed Verification tag may be used for such cases where sources are placed on articles in an way that generates a POV-pushing fact. Discussion can be found here: [24]. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I think Nick focused on the more immediate matter of the tag and precisely what it meant rather than on your question, "is it OK to use a CN tag to request verification supporting the settlement's inclusion to that list?" I could be wrong. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
    • @SR, I am not interested in that content dispute, and judging from past experience, I would not like to get involved in such debates that end up with walls of text and too much drama. I did that mistake in the past, I will not do it in the future. However, I do not see the point of using a tag which, at least as far as I can see in its documentation page, is meant to be used for other issues. IMO, it is better to open an RfC on whether the disputed content should be in the article or not, because you and the other involved editors do not seem able to find an agreement with each other. I am sure only an RfC can put an end to that dispute. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
      • I trusted that the admins might know better as I cannot find which tag may be even more suitable than this, but if you say that there is a better and more appropriate way of tagging this kind of problematic POV-pushing placement of content on articles where they do not belong, please let me know. Because, right while we are focusing on the precise nature of the tag, the readers may no longer be able to be informed about specific content in the "Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars" that does not belong here and which requires cleanup. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
        • Idk if there is a suitable tag for this; maybe there is one and I am not aware of it. However, tagging is not a solution because the issue is much wider: should the article contain info on settlement burnings without apparent massacres? A tag will not give a response, and certainly will not attract more uninvolved editors to give their input. Just open an RfC, and notify relevant wikiprojects for more attention. It is a bit hard to attract outside opinions on such Balkan disputes, but I do not see any other path to follow. Btw, Drmies, I am Ktrimi, not Kmitri Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
          • Nor Ktimi. I made once the mistake of calling them by that. A lesson I haven't forgotten. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
            • Haha frankly these names are zillions of times better than "Krimi", which means "crime". At least they do not question my innocence Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
              • Oops, sorry Ktrimi. Usually I just copy and paste your name--no, usually you're here talking to me and I don't have to name you. BTW, SR, I agree: an RfC is the best way to settle this. I'm a firm believer in RfCs, and if you phrase them right you'll draw attention (I hope), since there's a central location where they're all linked, with a description I'm sure. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
                • No worries at all :) Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment:Drmies, I can't help but ask if the one-sided removal of the NPOV tag [25] was a right thing for the other editor to do in the ongoing NPOV dispute? Despite Template:POV#When_to_remove being clear on how and when this tag may be removed it was removed without that consensus having been reached, and without my NPOV concerns having been addressed (in fact, it is an active dispute both on Talk page and on NPOV noticeboard). The editor in their edit summary, claimed that they can remove the tag because they, unilaterally, decided that "the concerns definitely do not apply now." Can editors do as they please? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You added the POV tag because your source verification tags were removed. In itself, I don't consider it productive to tag an entire 136kb article for a single sentence in a single subsection in a dispute which concerns the use of specific tags, even more so when these tags are used incorrectly. If you want a second opinion, file a discussion at RfC. But please be clear in how you phrase the debate: it's a content dispute about the scope of the article and inclusivity, not a dispute about source misrepresentation. If you phrase it in terms which reflect the essence of the dispute, then it may get a lot of attention and this can only produce a positive process, regardless of the final outcome.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

SilentResident, your initial complaint was that the information was situated under the ‘Massacres’ heading. I solved that by separating the ‘Massacres’ heading into headings about geographic location, and then you found something else to complain about that I had actually previously discussed. That’s not my fault, I am trying to find solutions, regardless of your lack cooperation and friendly, civil discussion. Botushali (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

"You added the POV tag because your source verification tags were removed." Nope. I added the POV tag for the exact same reasons I have explained to you on the Talk Page [26]: is POV-pushing source falsification. You should have placed this information elsewhere on the article instead of under "massacres if indeed you think it is related to the scope of the article. Insist in placing a source not talking about massacres, under the Massacres list, is extremely disruptive and blatant violation of NPOV, VER and OR. that including non-massacres into an article section titled "Massacres", suggesting that these too are massacres which is POV-pushing. In simple words, this constitutes a NPOV violation. You should have respected that the others have NPOV concerns. You didn't. Hence I added the tag: [27]. Read carefully my edit summary explaining that the POV tag was added because the POV issue remained unresolved: "Issues not addressed at the talk page. Instead, editors kept dismissing all NPOV concerns expressed in the talk page. This leaves no other option but to add NPOV tag as the article, currently, is having NPOV issues that require addressing.". If you look carefully at the History Log, I tried to solve the NPOV problem by myself. It didn't work, but at least, I tried: [28]. What you did to brush these NPOV concerns? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The problem remains: the non-massacres content is still found under a title called "Massacres". A day later, the dispute was taken to the NPOV Noticeboard because of that. For your information, this Noticeboard is not a whatever board, is precisely for NPOV problems. The kind of problem you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge. Even third-party uninvolved editors told you that this issue is POV-pushing: [29] Labeling things as a "massacre" is a common tactic for POV pushers and nationalist editors..

Your role as an involved party to the dispute, directly responsible for the NPOV problem, your task isn't to suppress these templates denoting issues you are involved into, but 1) take in consideration the NPOV concerns the others expressed, 2) propose solutions that can soothe their concerns, and 3) reach a consensus. You have precisely done nothing about all that. (Only Botushali has tried to help). All what you did is to remove tags, and refuse to provide the necessary sources connecting the razing of towns to massacres, and now denying/dismissing all of our NPOV concerns. To make things worse, now you accused me that the NPOV tag is a retaliatory step for the removal of CN/VN tag. What's next? Will you accuse me even for seeking help at the NPOV noticeboard? This is not the way to go. I suggest that you drop this attitude and that Botushali self-reverts themselves and wait for the tag's removal only after the dispute has been resolved and meets the required criteria for removal. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 05:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the incorrect use of tags like all editors did, no I didn't accuse you of any "retaliatory step" and yes, the editor correctly replied to your claim (labeling thing as a "massacre"...). You claimed that someone was using sources incorrectly to claim that an event which wasn't a massacre was a massacre, but there's no such edit as everyone else has highlighted. You can continue via RfC and you should read what all editors have written to you once we moved past the incorrect claims about source misrepresentation which never occurred[30]. You can continue the debate at the article's talkpage. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

"Yes, I removed the incorrect use of tags like all editors did" Nope. The same editors accompanying you in every dispute out there, who are active in the same Albania topic area, are on the same side in every dispute, and history log shows you are acting together. Evidence of your tag-teaming: [31]. I am alone against four of you, Maleschreiber, Botushali, Alltan, Ktrimi991, who edit warred on the article to your preferred version by using your numerical superiority to prevent other editors from tagging the article and the content for its problems. All this happened while all of the editors on your side have failed to provide any sources that either: 1) explain the connection between the razing of settlements and the massacres occurring elsewhere and/or 2) verify the razing of settlements may constitute a massacre itself, as suggested fact due to the content's placement on a "Massacres" article. All this speaks volumes that your focus isn't to help verify the content, is to deny the problems and refute those pointing to them, alltogether.

Edit: If you indeed do ever care about other editor's NPOV concerns, then you should consider helping soothe them by supporting User:Yung Doohickey's proposal on the talk page: [32] to move the article from Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars to Atrocities against Albanians in the Balkan Wars which is a much more neutrally-worded and inclusive title that avoids labeling the razing of towns as something they are not: massacres. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has labeled anything which isn't a massacre as a massacre as everybody has told you and you are the only editor who has been trying to add incorrect tags. I think that you need to read again what Doohickey explained to you. You have the right to repeat the same narrative in every comment, but it's not very productive IMO. Instead you can file a discussion at RfC and see how many editors agree with you in the broader community ... or not. It's up to you. But don't reply to me in Drmies's talkpage any longer. It's not an article talkpage.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

SR, it's Saturday and Alabama is about to kick off. I really appreciate your appreciation of my opinion, of course. If someone, in an article that's seeing traffic, discussion, and controversy, places or removes a tag, I would expect them to take the matter up on the talk page, and it seems that was done. That such a removal is one-sided is part of the game; many things are one-sided until an RfC decides on them, and that's what needs to happen here. The tag, and the previous fight over the previous tag, those are symptomatic--what needs to be decided on is the real question, and I hope y'all got that process started. Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, I am too of the opinion that all the possible solutions should and can be exhausted before initiating a RfC and drawing the broader community's attention to the dispute. This is exactly what the RfC guideline also encourages. There is a good reason they are giving us this advice: because there have been cases across Wikipedia in the past, where RfCs had suggested article page moves to resolve the problems, page splittings, or cleanups. In some rarer cases, RfCs were unable to provide any help because the voters were proposing too many unexplored solutions that could very well been exhausted first.

Since I have been trying to remove the content due to not fitting the title, I am looking for an way to help resolve the problem in a mutually beneficial way and in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines: A page move. This can soothe my NPOV concerns and at same time allow the other party to keep that content in the article. Hence my support to page move proposals [33].

If this approach or other ideas won't work, then, yes, I will do as you advice. It will be a good time to initiate a RfC and leave it at the hands of the community.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I am in doubt now if I am the one who is wrong... See this discussion: User talk:The Banner#Battle of Britain - "bypass redirects". In summary: an editor changing direct links into redirects based on a Manual of Style. The Banner talk 16:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• I really can't tell you what to do. I ran into NOTBROKEN (and other relevant pages) a decade or more ago, and decided that the various guidelines were so...contradictory that I wasn't going to revert or get into a fight over it. When in doubt I look for what seasoned MOSsers like User:SMcCandlish do. Sorry I can't be of more help. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • So at least my confusion is justified. :-) The Banner talk 16:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

      (talk page stalker) When I'm editing and I notice piping to avoid a redirect, I often de-pipe it to simplify link syntax and because many redirects are situations where the relevant content is in article A, but you could imagine in the future it would be moved to article B, and if things are sent through the redirect then just one edit (fixing where the redirect points) would correct all such links simultaneously. But I would never go around changing piped to unpiped links in an article where I wasn't also making some clear improvement. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

      Yeah, there can be a few cases like that (e.g. I'm using tartan in a lot of instances where clan tartans in particular are intended, even though this is presently a redir to Tartan#Clan tartans, because I'm going to split it out into an actual article at Clan tartan next month. The average redir doesn't raise issues like this, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged here, but the meat of the discussion is at User talk:The Banner#Battle of Britain - "bypass redirects", I mostly responded over there. And I think that WP:NOTBROKEN badly needs revision to stop pushing some particular editor's hardcore opinion which is clearly out-of-step with decades of actual practice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • User:SMcCandlish, thanks--sounds like there's an exciting backstory. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

    Oh, yes, involving ninjas, a psychic cat, and dinosaur replicants.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

    Well I fell for it, but none of that is in the backstory. It's actually almost all just Wikipedia stuff. Folly Mox (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think the relevant guidelines are actually pretty straightforward. These are my interpretations, but they don't seem controversial to me. WP:NOPIPE says that simple, direct links are to be preferred, redirects are fine if no suitable direct link exists, and unnecessary piped links are to be avoided. MOS:NOPIPE essentially duplicates that advice. WP:NOTBROKEN advises against converting redirects to piped links, while WP:BYPASSREDIRECT provides a list of exceptions to that advice. The consensus at WT:REDIR appears to be that these guidelines are good.

Notably, nowhere in these guidelines are ideas like "A direct link is always better than a redirect" and "Direct links (piped as needed) are objectively better than redirects" expressed. And that, I think, is the basis of this disagreement. The edit summary "bypass redirects" seems to me to be a simple misunderstanding of the guidelines. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

And nowhere in the policies and guidelines you can find that edit warring is a good idea, as you more or less announced on my talk page. But that will be your choice. The Banner talk 22:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd hoped that by bringing this discussion to a more neutral space we might break the stalemate that's occurred on your Talk page. (Forgive me, Drmies!) I hope it's clear that my edits are made in good faith and based on the policies I've outlined. But you won't engage with my reasoning, repeating again and again that my edits are disruptive without being willing to explain how. I can justify them point-by-point if necessary, based on the policies I've referenced, and I'm certain that "bypass redirects" is not a valid reason for reverting them, again on the basis of those same policies. I invite anybody reading this to review the edits in question, or any other edits I've made. I don't say that I'm always right, but I do think I'm usually open to reason. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I keep my stance that superfluous and unnecessary edits are not protected by the MOS. What good did it do for the encyclopedia? What are the benefits for our readers? The Banner talk 11:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I've never claimed that my edits are necessary, but if they're unnecessary, so are your reversions. Is an unnecessary reversion with a spurious edit summary an improvement? Let's look at one of my edits in detail as an example. It's a short one at Zapp (album).

• I changed the wikitext "[[funk music|funk]]" to "[[funk]]". I did so because the first example is an unnecessary pipe to a redirect, rather than a direct link to the intended target.
• I performed a brief copy edit of the first paragraph for clarity, flow and grammar.
• I changed "[[United Sound Systems|United Sound Studios]]" to "[[United Sound Systems]] studio" to avoid an unnecessary pipe, and because the correct name of the studio is "United Sound Systems".
• I changed "certified [[Gold certification|gold]]" to "[[certified gold]]" to replace a jumbled piped redirect with a simpler, clearer unpiped redirect.
• I changed a red link, "[[Ronald P'"Stozo" Edwards]]" to [[Ronald "Stozo" Edwards]] because the latter seems to be the most common form of the name.

This all took about two minutes, and, I think, left the page slightly better (neater, more concise, more readable) than I found it. You reverted my edit with the edit summary: "bypass redirects". Now, I don't claim that my changes were necessary, but neither were they unhelpful, disruptive, or superfluous in the strictest sense. The page was a little better after my intervention than before it, and a little better before your intervention than after it.

This same process applies to every change I made at "Winston Churchill" and "Battle of Britain". None of my changes were necessary but they were all considered, and in line with the guidelines I've mentioned. I might rethink one or two, but I think I can defend all of them. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The Banner, looking at Zapp, I don't really see why you reverted that, sorry. Those look like reasonable edits to me; I mean, "certified [[Gold certification|gold]]" to "[[certified gold]]", that's an improvement, no? if only because it treats "certified gold" as a unit, which syntactically it is. And that redlink looks better too. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

But if I understand it correctly SMcCandlish would object to it because, basically, redirects are not to be preferred over piped links, with the hovering note/surprise and the frequent changing of redirects as arguments. (Summarizing from Banner's talk page.) OK, I can see that too. And so that's why I prefer not to get into disputes over it... Drmies (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@The Banner: Maybe just ignore me on this; I'm being mostly shouted down at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#NOTBROKEN needs to be moderated. I think the arguments being presented against mine are mostly faulty, but they are loud and more numerous than those in support, so my arguably more logical points look like they will not carry the day. If I get the NOTBROKEN and related advice adjusted at all, it's going to take longer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I have basically given up. People are trying to repair things that are invisible to the readers and are in fact not broken at all. As far as I know, we write this encyclopedia for the readers, not with as primary target personal hobby-ism. I personally think it is stupid and unnecessary. The Banner talk 16:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not sure it's fair to say that you were shouted down. I'd say that a strong consensus has emerged against your point of view! I do see that your preference has advantages, but I think the status quo does too, one of those advantages being that it is the status quo.

One advantage that I don't think has been much discussed (and that may be the source of the guidelines we've mentioned) is that redirects produce clear, readable wikitext that's closer to natural language. I gave the example elsewhere of "British [[Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs|Foreign Secretary]], [[E. F. L. Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax|Lord Halifax]]" vs. "British [[Foreign Secretary]], [[Lord Halifax]]". It may be that whoever made those recommendations saw clearer, more natural wikitext as an advantage for an encyclopaedia with a lay editorship. It's a very simple form of WYSIWYG. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing that baffles me is that my edit actually reduced the number of redirects in that article by one. [[Funk music]] redirects to [[Funk]], so by reverting my edit (with the edit summary "bypass redirects"), The Banner actually increased the number of redirects in the article. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Immense respect for you all. My sense of history makes me wonder if something like this lead the French Citizens Committees of the 18th century to devolve from discussions about new names for the months to bringing on The Terror. Heaven forfend! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jean-de-Nivelle: I haven't looked very carefully at any of this, but from [34] it seems like you went systematically through the article and, like, tried to get rid of every single piped link? To me, it is completely unsurprising that this would annoy people: the benefit is, apparently, to make things more inline with a guideline, but not in a way that is helpful to any reader at present? I would encourage a less automatic approach: if you're editing an article for some substantive reason, and it has awkwardly piped links, then by all means change them; but don't make changing them the dominant feature of your editing an article. --JBL (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

JayBeeEll, I guess--but when I look at an edit like this, I can't find fault with it. It's a good edit that improves the article. If Jean-de-Nivelle had added "rm second instance of wikilink", you might not have noticed it in the history. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, as I said in my first post on this thread, when I'm making some other substantive edit and I notice something like this, I often do it as well. There's a difference between judging one edit in isolation and judging 20 edits (which is what I see in the history at Winston Churchill). I agree that the one you picked out looks fine -- maybe all 20 of them are fine, but 20 edits enforcing a relatively minor stylistic point is obviously going to make people bristle. That's why very first section of WP:MOS says "Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable". This is just my 2c, of course, take it for what it's worth. --JBL (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I would disagree with the word "enforcing". Again, nobody has reverted any of my edits at Winston Churchill. There were about twenty edits because that long article has about twenty sections, and it was simply more practical to tackle them one at a time. It doesn't strike me that systematic behaviour is intrinsically "bot-like". Still, this has been an education. Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not quite what I did. I went systematically through the article and, considering the guidance I've outlined, removed piped links where the piped text has a pre-existing redirect. I did a few other things too, but that describes the bulk of my work on that article. There are still plenty of piped links - I'm not going to count them!

Let me give a bit of background. I was reading "Winston Churchill" (I forget why, but I'm mostly here as a reader, rather than an editor) and noticed the awkward phrase "... to the wealthy Spencer aristocratic family" (wikitext: "to [[Spencer family|the wealthy Spencer aristocratic family]]"). I made an edit, mostly to improve the flow of the sentence, but while I was at it I made the link more concise and direct, removing the pipe (wikitext: "into the wealthy, aristocratic [[Spencer family]]").

I happened to notice a few more links that seemed clumsy - things like "[[Gallipoli campaign|Gallipoli Campaign]]" and "[[Iron Curtain|iron curtain]]" and (bearing in mind MOS:NOPIPE) set about cleaning them up. In the first case I left the direct link intact and removed the pipe, since the capital "C" of "Campaign" is superfluous, or maybe incorrect. In the second, I removed the pipe, leaving a redirect. Having begun, I decided to work my way through the article a section at a time making similar changes. I tried to leave the readable text unchanged where possible - although I think that may have been a mistake in a couple of cases.

I did make a few other small changes - things like fixing a "may/might" muddle, and altering a spelling in a reference that turned out to be a slightly more serious misquotation in the quoted source. After discussion with another editor, I replaced the source with a better one. I probably wouldn't have noticed those small problems if I hadn't been reading through the wikitext cleaning up the links.

I think it's worth noting that "Winston Churchill" is a high-traffic page with many active editors, and none of them intervened. Nobody left a message on my Talk page questioning my edits. Nobody reverted them (although page views at MOS:LINK increased threefold). The Banner has said elsewhere that he would have reverted them if he'd seen them sooner, but it's worth pointing out that The Banner is the only person who's reverted any of these edits.

I don't really see why these edits should be any more annoying to the observer than working systematically through an article fixing typos, for example, or replacing italics with ((lang|)) templates where appropriate. Typos are more obvious to the reader, of course.

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: This has been bothering me for a day or two, and I suppose it's because I don't find edits of this sort annoying. I'm confused by the notion that "fixing" clumsy links is acceptable if done incidentally or haphazardly, but liable to be annoying if done deliberately or systematically. Surely the purpose of a manual of style is to encourage a uniformity of approach. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually with you on that one--I don't find such edits annoying either. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jean-de-Nivelle: I responded above, but I will repeat here the key quote from the first body section of WP:MOS: enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus is never acceptable. It sometimes annoys some people to interact with editors behaving like bots, even when their edits are substantively fine. It's good to be aware of that. I'm not very interested in motivations -- I'm sure yours are reasonable. And I don't think there's anything wrong with any of your edits that I looked at. I'm just dabbling here, I happen to have Drmies' page on my watchlist, and my opinion is worth what you paid for it. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: I hear you, and I appreciate your input. I do think your "key quote" is taken slightly out of context though. There are certainly styles (regional variations of English, for example) that are quite arbitrary, and may be determined on a page-by-page basis. However, the MOS expresses a strong preference for redirects over piped links, and says that it's "almost never helpful" to replace the former with the latter. That's not a symmetrical recommendation. It didn't actually cross my mind that my edits might be controversial: I was simply clearing up a mess in accordance with the Manual of Style. We live and learn! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I was sent here by @Tamzin 'because it's AN/I but better (low bar)', but basically I'd like to just bring TruxtVerified to your attention, for a number of WP:CIR issues, one being hat collecting, [35][36][37][38][39][40], and another being their inability to respond to talk page messages and instead just removing them, which is allowed per WP:OWNTALK but is definitely not the way to collaboratively communicate with other users, and one more bit of information which I will email to you privately just because it is somewhat sensitive. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 21:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The user you blocked was spamming. Please revoke talk page access. Toadette ^(chat)/_(logs) 09:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm, OK, but "Why are you blocking me, you bastard?" isn't exactly spam. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you see any connections between creators? Special:Undelete/Draft:Danny_Yeung -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm, yes, but not a CU match. I did block the most recent account (Jimfbleak blocked User:Gary.hui.prenetics), and I threw in a CU-confirmed similar account, User:Krissyy9898. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

[41] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have no idea what that person is talking about, but such LTAs are frequently frustrated former editors with the memory of an elephant and a lively imagination. Moneytrees, who is ATMN? Drmies (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
  • User:AttackTheMoonNow, allegedly User:MickMacNee. Long time critic character, says some interesting things but is pretty nasty, holds grudges over old issues, and has a kind of silly supervillain shtick. It’s really not that interesting tbh… Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Aha--I remember the latter's name. Well, interesting--how did we attract so many people who somehow think that this kind of stuff is acceptable? I see that BHG's user page is already the target of some other LTAs as well: Wikipedia lives rent-free in way too many former editors' brains. If I ever get banned (apparently I'm behind a change in BHG's personality?) I will find better things to do than troll a community that didn't want me. As for BHG--I don't know what to say. I'm reading over the case; I have not looked at many such cases recently, because I also suffer from a kind of disengagement. I have noticed over the years that BHG's interactions became...more fiery, but I didn't know her well enough and she didn't really work in my field, and vice versa. But it's really sad to see a longtime editors go out like this. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

      Yes, it’s sad. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

      yes, it's sad, and yesterday she would have been called 10 years precious, and I was tempted to do it because this is the cabal of the outcast, but then I remembered her arguments with RexxS over indenting, and the temptation was over. Today it's 10 years that Andy was not banned, - look for "This too shall pass" in my 2013 archive, or 4 September, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Dunno what's going on with [42], but there are a growing number of puzzled blocked users. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've already changed the block. It's a range full of vandalism and spam, and I guess there's no stopping it. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Fun fact: I looked into one complainant, and then blocked them for socking. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

in Draft:Dabda (band), you said "No proof they pass NBAND--not with one album on a non-notable label." But couldn't you see that source....? I don't know what you want, but if you want to add more, you can modify it, Wikipedia is a space where everyone modifies together. I've filled it out enough, and I would like to you to modify it if you think it's not enough. 올해의수상자 (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I think you just made made a mistake by allowing a disruptive editor to further hamper the development of the regency of Algiers article, you should have informed yourself on the issue and therefore you would have known that this editor has already been blocked twice for WP:EW and WP:PA.

a quick look into the article and the discussion would have given you a clearer picture about the matter at hand, however you chose to allow this editor to disrupt instead despite a consensus and not only that but you threatened me with a block without even knowing what’s going on.

It’s sad to know that WP is being handled this way. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• I saw the user was blocked. I looked at their unblock request and decided not to grant it. I looked at the article as well, to determine if they were a returning user, and decided they likely were not. I told them what they shouldn't be doing, and I told them what you could consider doing to settle the matter via consensus, rather then having to rely on hardhanded administrative policing of the article. And then you make unfounded accusations of vandalism (an edit warrior is NOT a vandal per se), and you have the nerve to come here and accuse me of "hampering progress".
  Your account of the dispute is one-sided, and your own behavior in that dispute leaves much to be desired; to wit, you go to the talk page of a blocked editor and read them the riot act--that's called gravedancing. This talk page is watched by 1249 editors, many of them administrators, and you just flagged yourself as petulant. One more time: if you want administrators (I happen to be one) to look at this editor's entire career to decide on whether they are a net positive, take it to ANI--that's what I told you on User talk:Pickle Rick 02. You can bring it here, as some kind of personal dispute with me, but that's not going to help your cause. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • He literally pinged me. there is no gravedancing, we all agreed on the issue and he still showed his willingness not to respect the decision in the discussion. I’m sorry but you’re in no position to judge my behaviour since I literally responded to his questions and asked him kindly to stop hammering the article development, you should have asked him to respect the decision made in the discussion rather than giving him an « alternative » route…anyways.
    And yes he WAS vandalising (then proceeded to WP:EW)
    Other than that, I don’t feel the need to have a personal dispute with you. You were misinformed and tou made a false judgement. Nourerrahmane (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Nourerrahmane, I agree with Drmies here. Stay off the other editor's talkpage. All article-content discussions should occur on article-talk and nowhere else, even if you are pinged. If the editor is blocked, wait for the block to expire and then engage on article-talk. Disruptive editing, even removing citations, is not WP:VANDALISM. Drmies has never edited the article in question during the past 8.5 years. He has closed the article-talk discussion. If you disagree with his closure, then create a clear, neutral WP:RFC. RFC is the next step whenever there is a disagreement that is not resolved enough for all parties to adhere to, because it is considered "official" and binding unless overturned by a subsequent RFC much further down the line. If when the editor returns to editing and you have followed those recommendations, you still believe him to be a disruptive editor, you are free to take your case to WP:ANI, if your own hands are clean (because your behavior will be scrutinized there as well). Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Understood, I’d like to apologise to him as well for last night. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

See Erskine Ramsay‎ and Eramsay3, the subject's great-great-grandchild. As usual, I really shouldn't get involved in this stuff. I don't have the patience, or even the interest in "improving" the article, just protecting it, but then I get sucked in. Anyway, I've transformed the article from a piece of unencyclopedic, unverified garbage to about as small a stub as you can get, although I did leave in the infobox, which is bigger than the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Sportsfan 1234. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234: this is a real reach, and smacks of revenge templating. Not a good look. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please mind your own business, respectfully. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, what can I say--your silly shenanigans have drawn the attention of two administrators already--one older and wiser than me, and one even more manly than me. And for the peanut gallery: you reverted an editor, and then me, because you thought that sources either have to be in English or have to have their title translated. I hope you realize not only that that's wrong; it's also petty. You should apologize to Bearas. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please mind your own business, respectfully. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, everything and anything that happens on it is anyone's business, you can't gatekeep it with a rude comment, even if you add "respectfully" to the end of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew has reverted again. This would officially be his third revert in 24 hours. I don't want to revert one more time (even though I could without violating 3RR) just to prevent any more edit warring. He has been warned on his talk page after the second revert. I wouldn't call it a clear consensus, but with the content passing a GAN, being accepted by you and I, and no other regular editors to the article showing any disagreement, I would say the consensus is leaning towards keep on the content. Any preference/advice on how we should move forward? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Howdy. I noticed you'd been warning editor DolceFW07 about their behaviour being disruptive; I feel you should know about this edit to Roisín Murphy; where in the edit summary they accuse editors of "in favour of sterilizing and medicalizing gay children and censoring and ostracizing people who aren't". Just said I'd let you know. Thanks. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks--that was enough, wasn't it. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  • It's always kinda amusing to me how, sooner or later, editors like DolceFW07 always seem to out their hatred in one form or another. Thanks for blocking them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Hmm I'm old, and I think it's really sad. Like, what has happened that some people develop that hate? But at least they won't be doing it on our website anymore... Drmies (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me for bringing trouble to your door again, Drmies, but I'm still struggling with the issue described above and I'm hoping to obtain some form of arbitration. As you're familiar with the context, I thought you might be well placed to advise me about the best course of action.

Although there seems to be a clear consensus that the guidelines discussed (WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE, WP:NOTBROKEN, etc.) are good guidelines, there's considerable disagreement about how, if, when, whether, they should be followed in practice. I'd like to resolve some of this uncertainty if possible, in particular with respect to my edits ([43],[44],[45],[46]) that were reverted. Could you suggest the best way to go about doing so?

The second, related issue is that The Banner has begun following my edit history, making a series of unconstructive edits to a page I've edited in the past, and accusing me of edit warring when I revert. I'd like to nip this behaviour in the bud, so I'm making it public here in the hope that it will stop.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting fact is that he asked for a discussion but was angry when I just did that. And as you can see, he is always hiding behind shortcuts and is becoming historical. If have no interest in his shenanigans any more. Waste of time. The Banner talk 14:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

And let me throw in a shortcut WP:IAR. The Banner talk 15:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC) And I will now let him own his articles.

We all become historical sooner or later. Some of us get there quicker than others. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I am already historic, see here (sorry, in Dutch). The Banner talk 23:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you linked that, Banner. Maarten van Traa, Saar Boerlage, er is nog een hoop werk te doen. Broodje bal op de partijconferentie van de CPN? Boerlage had wel gelijk. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Because I took his remark as an unfriendly comment and hope that a funny reply is better than taking that remark too seriously. The Banner talk 00:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm there already. Sorry, but I really don't know what to tell you. I'm already sort of out of my league in terms of the content/policies. If there's a fight, ANI is the better place, or maybe the talk page of the MOSPIPE project...? Drmies (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023

• New partners - De Standaard and Duncker & Humblot
• Tech tip: Filters
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for deleting the draft. It was also a full copyvio of this YouTube channnel bio. I don't know if further action should be taken, considering that if also qualifies for G12. NotAGenious (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion about a new article, Susanna Gibson. She's only a candidate in an election, and all her press coverage seems to be for a single event (a porn video). When I Googled for more info, every source circled back to the video. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Would it be too tiresome to ask you to look at this new user's edits? Special:Contributions/Dukeofsamuels. I believe they are most likely yet another sock of Jacobkennedy (although maybe I'm jumping the gun). They have been autoconfirmed now, so there could be some bolder action soon; so far, they've been slightly more circumspect on the LGBT articles [47]; [48]. Still, the edits done to become autoconfirmed follow the recent pattern: category additions/deletions, especially cause of death and religious affiliation; protected page edit requests; pop culture/celebrity and high-profile crime articles. What do you think? If you think it's too early to warrant checking, I'll understand. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, this edit should get rid of them per NOTHERE. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's typical JK ham-fisted expression (not to mention fixation with undue detail): I mean, "gross", indeed! Are they 12? Also, seems to genuinely think the article they linked to could be a RS. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Drmies, hope I'm not being a pest here: Just noticed this IP 103.154.76.105, which I had completely failed to see was making pretty much the same edits as Dukeofsamuels. Just to take LGBT rights in Somalia as an example: Dukeofsamuels infobox penalty edit, emphasising capital punishment; 103.154.76.105 does the same, and here, also here. I was confused by their new prediliction for articles on weapons, but I think that's them again. (I filed a proforma SPI for Dukeofsamuels.) Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• How about this one? Special:Contributions/110.136.218.138– Y'know, the usual: LGBT and capital punishment, and now, guns. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Gays and guns, why not. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This talk page post from an IP has all the hallmarks of Jkennedy:

• Such "clear" phrasing as: "it not only removes off topic discussion about adultery which is off-topic" and edited into article "same-sex acts are a possibility of a death penalty";
• arguments that absence of evidence means that the opposite possibilities must be included: "with the possibility of unreported executions as that can't be ruled out in the report";
• and being adamant that (already clearly attributed and expert) commentary may not be used unless they can add their own commentary: "Finally in the note for the Amnesty report, I added that this interpretation that seems to be added to the summary twice is just that: an interpretation, and the application of anti-gay laws in the UAE are not confirmed to be only used for rape." (Which is not a contention in either the Amnesty report or the article.)
• Changed a sentence in a direct quote, which was included a reference, not in the article text itself, from: "Courts rarely issue stoning sentences but it has happened occasionally." to "Courts issue stoning sentences occasionally."
• Misleading edit summaries: "partial revert, you undid edits of North Korea", when, in fact, they reinserted much of the other reverted material, as before.

These are all so reminiscent of the dead-end—not to mention deadening—exchanges I unfortunately had with Lmharding (especially at Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates), that I'd like to prevent yet another editor being taken to the edge of insanity as I was—@SomethingForDeletion: left this message for me on my talk; it'd be great to get this latest sock out of here before SFD is pushed to my stage of derangement! I can already detect subtle signs of the slow leakage of brain matter suffered by SomethingForDeletion, inflicted by the logic of JK's edits and replies. (How do you remain so cerebrally intact, Drmies, with this stuff multiplied many times over? What's your secret?)

Probably this level of detail is unnecessary, but I just wanted to "show my working". Thanks for listening. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• That IP has now registered (with user name 'itssmeagain': contempt or obliviousness?) and re-reverted SomethingForDeletion, then posted at their earlier talk page discussion, here. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Here's another likely candidate - this IP, which is likely a proxy. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see it. ? Drmies (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• @LilianaUwU: My suspicion was also aroused when that 161 IP made, in part, a similar edit to the 110.136.218.138 sock that you had just reverted. However, this IP 161 stays close to the horror genre and crime articles. Back in May (if it's the same user then as now), they said in an ES: "No indication of gender-based/biased anywhere in the article, category isn't just for any incident in which victim(s) happened to be male." This is articulate and cogent to a degree never seen in the expression of JK! So I discounted them as one of their socks. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, Drmies, please look at this newly confirmed editor, Special:Contributions/Cheemsforever. They have returned LGBT rights in the UAE to practically the same version as earlier socks of (again) Jacobkennedy. Also, a range of IPs:

have been tag-teaming with Cheemsforever on any LGBT articles that are not already semi-protected, notably at Criminalization of homosexuality:

• adding extra countries as having the death penalty: [49]; no matter how many others object. This is the same edit an earlier IP sock made.
• As Cheemsforever, removing a WaPo quote they have objected to since 2019!; unsourced countries again.
• After reversion by @Buidhe:, back as another IP again, and after @Adakiko: reverted them

Was trying to leave it all alone this time but I am apparently incapable of ignoring their sheer contempt for everyone and everything WP: I requested page protection, which attracted this post from 104.152.222.44. The outcome for that request was to semi-protect for 2 weeks, and the editor who did that, @Daniel Case:, suggested a range block for the IPs might be needed. (Only pinging the other editors mentioned here, in case they wanted to mention anything: Hope that's not out of order).

Let me know if there is a better way of going about this, and I'll do my best to comply. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Hey AukusRuckus--I appreciate all the work you're doing. You may have seen I took some action. ;) You're getting quite detailed, and in the end the only administrative trail we're leaving for those accounts is in the tag I put on the user page. Perhaps it's better to post on the relevant SPI (I mean, file a new one), and ping me, if you want me to look at it. I think what I'll do is copy this entire section and put it as a subpage on the SPI--wait, no, it would be better if a clerk helps find a way to archive this properly. Tamzin, you're way smarter than me--what would be a good way to save all this information someplace else than in my talk page archive? Thanks so much--really, to everyone here in this thread. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank goodness: you've saved me from disappearing inside my own rant-iness spiral, Drmies. I was being completely silly on their talk page, as if I could convince them to reform: lost all perspective for reasons off-Wiki.
    Yes, I realised my detail above is a bit OTT. I can definitely file an SPI case; in a way, my earlier post was something of a rehearsal for that (in case you said that would be the preferred way to go). I admit I'm slightly confused by the whole process, though. When I have filed proforma-style SPIs in the past, are the details of those CU-blocked accounts then not recorded in the "Suspected" or "Confirmed" sock puppets page? Thanks so much for your help. AukusRuckus (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
    • No, not over the top--for an SPI it's good to have solid detail, with diffs and comparisons. I don't need to look at those edits very long to see what's what. No, what's saved is the detail you provide, and any answer that the responding admins and clerks may give; those end up in the archive. I didn't copy any of the details you gave me anywhere: I simply blocked and put a tag on the user page, which then links to the SPI, but without any of the supporting evidence (and I wouldn't share CU information anyway). So including that information in an SPI report, pro forma or not, does serve a purpose. Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Think I've got what you're saying: It's a reasonable amount of evidence to present for an SPI, but not so much needed if I bring it to you here (as you already know the case, it's background, etc., and you only need to give the suspected users and their edits a brief inspection to get the gist). The rest is superfluous for your purposes, but might be worthwhile recording on the SPI case page? If I'm reading you right, what should I do in future? Is it better to go straight to the SPI (and perhaps ping you there), or just turn up here and briefly say: "Please look at user:Example as possible sock of X."? I am aware that SPI tends towards a backlog. I would like to do whatever is most efficient for you, other admins, and those at SPI pages.
        As Tamzin has kindly offered to incorporate this section, I for one would gladly accept that as a solution to this current episode. Thanks again, Drmies. AukusRuckus (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I think your idea is mostly right, except I'd recommend just copying all of this into a ((cot))/((cob)) rather than creating a subpage. I can do it if you'd rather. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Hi Drmies and Tamzin: Should I file a proforma SPI case for Cheemsforever (talk · contribs) and copy the above posts into the case page within ((cot)) and ((cob)) as Tamzin mentions? Or would it be better if one of you did that? Thanks for your assistance and advice. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
      • AukusRuckus, I'm not sure--I sort of left it to Tamzin, who usually exhibits more mastery than I'll ever attain! Drmies (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
        • Hi, I'll either sort this in a bit while getting tattooed (mostly for SPI clerk bragging rights) or later this evening. Thanks for the poke. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
          • NO DONT DEFACE YOUR BEAUTIFUL BODY!!!!!!! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
            • OK Boomer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
              • Haha, like with any good boomer, my tattoos don't show. How's it going? Fuck yeah it hurts? Drmies (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
                • Sadly, my pickiness about design turned this session into a consult and pushed us back a few weeks. Will let you know. I'm told spine doesn't hurt as much as you'd think, but don't believe it. The bits of my forearm and upper arm closer to the bone hurt like Hell, for my last two, so surely against the spine would hurt more? Anyways, more errands, but will still get to the SPI sometime today.^{This on-topic sentence included to avoid a NOTHERE block.} -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
                  •  Done. I left out the part about my body being beautiful and you being a boomer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
                    • Well, SPIs, like Wikipedia, aren't necessarily about TRUTH. Actually truth is I'm not a boomer and I AM beautiful. Was the operation successful? Are you OK? Are you going to be OK for Saturday? (I know, we're playing another cupcake.) Well thanks for the SPI, and good luck with the rest. Haha I would want chamomille tea and all that for you, but my last one was so painful that it was beer and cigarettes for a day or two. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

                      No, no new ink till the 5th, that's what I meant about pushing back. What I get for being picky about which cetaceans were needed and how. (No joke: khamsa with dolphins in the design.) Envying your beer and cigarettes, by the way—or more the latter. Switched to a Juul a few years ago because my partner doesn't like cigarette smoke, which has been all well and good, but a single Juul is much easier to lose than a pack of cigarettes, and I sure could have used some of either the past few days. The pain of tattoos, though, no, I take it like a man. ;)

                      Oh, hmm, still gotta avoid that NOTHERE block. How about: Did you, or any of your talkpage watchers, know that Culture of Washington, D.C. barely mentions Black culture, and doesn't at all mention Deaf culture? Meanwhile it mentions plenty of things that aren't "culture" by any reasonable definition. (Ah, Cory in the House, that pinnacle of D.C. culture.) I'll be putting that on my todo list but have my next few months of content work already planned out, if anyone's interested in tackling it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I undid 104.152.222.36's latest edit to LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia equaldex.com is wp:UGC Adakiko (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Adakiko. AukusRuckus (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the PROD tag from Chris Gore, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have removed PROD/notability hat; have added/fixed: other name, several refs, more details; I think it meets notability by WP:ENT & WP:CREATIVE. Thanks! StrayBolt (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

LTA pool, I've seen a few multiweek /24 rangeblocks landing for it lately. DMacks (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• DMacks, yes--I blocked that one, and then I blocked the larger range for three months. It's a pretty pathetic thing. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Indeed, thanks. Stoopid UI, forgot to scroll to the full set of blocks so I only saw the IP-specific one. DMacks (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Well, I was puzzled too: I went back and saw the log for the single IP, and had to check my own log. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies
At 02.37 this morning, you create-protected Draft:Maina Gam requiring administrator access due to A7 repeated recreation. We have a new sockpuppet User:Priyanka Goswami PG a blatant sock of User:PriyankasarmaLX who has created Talk:Maina Gam with the same promotional rubbish - Please could I ask you to delete this, salt Maina Gam and Talk:Maina Gam and block the new sockpuppet - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please could you also delete User:PriyankasarmaLX/sandbox, User talk:PriyankasarmaLX/sandbox and User:Priyanka Goswami PG/sandbox so the next sock can't just copy-paste the same text into another draft/article - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm on it. It's all so...I don't know. Pathetic, by now. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about these transphobic statements made by TheClubSilencio on their talk page (AllCine section, above the last one about edit warring)? While their views certainly do not align with consensus here (or mine views personally), to my knowledge, they have not done anything in article space or toward another editor that reflects their views so this is confined only to a view expressed on their talk page. I see it as a gray area but maybe I shouldn't? It is disrespectful to an entire group of people but not sure it qualifies as a "personal attack". The "Fuck off" isn't great but not my concern. S0091 (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, "fuck off" is not blockable, usually, but the BLP applies everywhere. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks Drmies. BLP should have rang in my head but for what ever reason, it just didn't. S0091 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. And then we discover it was an LTA troll anyway, nothing more. Haha, 'Added source from The Numbers, a site which specializes in film-related research: "Nash Information Services, LLC is the premier provider of movie industry data and research services. Major financial institutions, media companies, investors, data analysis companies and production companies rely on our nearly twenty years of data development and modeling."' Sure buddy. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/170.80.111.10. Magic Fizz ^(talk) 23:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Hi and what do I do next if my edits are reverted?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. I think this is related to your revert at Utility box art, but if it's not then my apologies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw. I think you saw the edits too. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Anachronist has already responded to that question and it seems to have covered why the edit was reverted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You're possibly right about some of the trivia, but your recent edits have taken a lot of joy out of the I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue article, and it now presents a much less vivid impression of the show's personality (and some of it was cited). Bah humbug. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Well, secondary sourcing matters. One reads encyclopedic articles for a different kind of enjoyment. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Once upon a time, when I was a mere prat, I read encyclopedias by the volume for the sheer enjoyment of it all. (In those days, we only had candles and scrolls, not screen readers.) And lo these many years later, I am merely insufferable. ;-) Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Mornington Crescent!! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Ah, a fellow encyclopedia reader! I used to pour over our tomes, purchased from some poor door-to-door salesman, determined to read every entry. I'd lose interest after while, then start from scratch when the spirit took me. As a result, I knew everything there was to know in the 80s about aardvarks, battlements and dadaism. Winches and Zoroaster, not so much.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
        • User:Ponyo, we were so poor our only encyclopedia was a single volume. I think we got it for free with a bank account. I don't think the pictures of genitalia were very impressive, and of course Commons has more porn than a dorm, but it did have a painting by Goya I'll never forget. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
        • @Ponyo: If this was social media, I'd post a laugh emoji. I enjoyed that. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Yes, sourcing matters. But – and I was being semi-serious – I don't think an encyclopedia entry has to be entirely dry. The quotations from the show helped explain the appeal, longevity and spirit of a show like Clue; I doubt you'd object to a quotation used to illustrate an author's style (appropriately cited and contextualised, obvs) in a different (more respectable?) genre. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Dave.Dunford, I'm not against that (though I loathe jokes and laughter, as anyone will tell you), but they'd have to be relevant, representative--and it's secondary sources that would make them so. If you can do that, go for it. But in general, those articles (including the list I redirected) were way too much Wikia material. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Lions and tigers and De Goya, oh my! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies Hi. I was wondering could check and see if this user is another sock puppet account of UncomfortablySmug/TheClubSilencio. I've noticed that this user has similar edits that were made by UncomfortablySmug in the past on this actresses' wikipedia page.

And this actress has two birthdates listed online. 1972 and 1974 Here's a few newspaper articles from the 90s. They're dated May 1996, August 1996 and April 1998. And respectively list her age as 23, 24 and 25 which all match up to a 1972 birth year [50][51][52]. And these were published at time where journalists were less likely to copy information from internet websites.

Also here's a Los Angeles Times magazine from the end of 2012 which says she had just turned 40 [53]. Her high school yearbook is also on Classmates and she's listed as a senior of Calabasas High School in 1990[54]. The only thing I can find that supports 1974 and would probably be considered reliable is this interview from Newsweek which is dated April 2008 and where Berkley says she's 33[55]. I don't wanna outright say that she's lying about her age, but that's no uncommon for celebs to do so. And while some celebs do graduate a year or two earlier, it's usually mentioned in other articles. And I can't find anything that says Berkley was 15/16 when she graduated high school.

What do you think should done? I've been trying to just leave the DOB out of the article as there's conflicting sources, but that editor seems pretty adamant about keeping 1974 up because of the Newsweek interview. He even accused me of disruptive editing. Kcj5062 (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Only just saw/realised Coat was back. I've been overly (and loudly) protective of him in the past, we did a few FAs together and he is superficially charming, we have a lot of shared interests, *but* since then he has gone after a few of my friends off site (c. 5-6 years ago). I see no point yet in outright banning this incarnation, but won't object if you do. Not an admin, but old enough to know that people don't really change. ps, hope all is well for you in this miserable, valley of tears website ;) Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Ceoil, they used to have a website dedicated to outing me--I think as a pedophile, but I can't remember. It was some vile shit, and I wasn't the only one targeted. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
• Wait: if you're pointing at the IPv6 talk page, that's not Coat--it's someone else. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Ok, I haven't seen that slandering; I would never want to be a wiki admin, and sincere apologies if I was harboring that kind of behavior. If they and 2601:19E different people, best I had said nothing. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Ceoil, it's all good--thanks. You can remove the entire section if you want. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with it staying...you are owed an apology. Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
        • Not at all, Ceoil. Ha, we put in quite a number of years, didn't we. Fewer of us left every year. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
          • Sometimes I think that the WMF funds should be invested in preserving institutional knowledge, ie life insurance policies for the likes of you, Risker, NYB, Bish, etc. I'm not even joking. Not sure how you feel about your brain being uploaded to wikidata :) Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmied. This user has been warned multiple times not to edit war and blocked once for same reason by you. Now they are doing same thing and removing Azerbaijan from We Are Our Mountains. This is clearly WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Can you take a look? Nemoralis (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems an oddly elaborate process to post a message saying you have an email, but that's the style of the times. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Well, Euryalus, what can I say other than YOU HAVE MAIL TOO. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The sock confirm probably didn't surprise anyone. NotAGenious (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Well, the surprise was I didn't see more. Thanks for helping out. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Not exactly a "my pleasure", but maybe an OK will do in this case. NotAGenious (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

Wikipractitioner, in their unblock appeal stated, I also hope [you] noticed that those accounts created particularly a Nigerian profile, and that’s never my niche or area of interest. This is patently untrue - see the whitewashing at Onyeka Nwelue (a Nigerian) right after you unblocked them.

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.— Yamla (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi, I wanted to ask a question. I was partially blocked by you for problematic COI editing and wanted to check with you first before asking to be unblocked. The reason to be unblocked is so I can directly edit a project I am working on that involves the California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County. There are many corrections that need to be made on this page as well as the landmark articles that, in several cases, do not point to the correct article and/or have no information about the landmark, e.g. the site of invention of the first commercially practicable integrated circuit. I admit that I did some problematic COI editing and I promise not to do it again. I enjoy doing the research and working on meaningful Wikipedia articles. Please let me know what you think? Greg Henderson (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Greg, thanks for stopping by. I made that decision based on the comments of many editors; in that sense, it's practically a "community block"--meaning that the partial block is a kind of community ban. As such, I do not want to place a unilateral unblock, in part also because we are talking about a long period of editing behavior across many articles, as your talk page indicates. I don't want to ping all the involved editors, but I find it noteworthy that even after all the conversations trusted users like User:Robert McClenon still have serious doubts about your various interests. My suggestion is for you to take this to WP:AN, following the guidelines at WP:UNBAN. The option that is always open to you of course is to seek the talk page, as you did at Talk:California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County, and perhaps place a notice on the talkpage(s) the relevant project(s). Thank you, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Greghenderson2006, User:Drmies - I will be leaving the Moreland draft for another reviewer. There have been enough problems with sloppy disclosure of conflict of interest that I will just leave the draft alone. User:Greghenderson2006 - My advice is to wait a while before appealing the partial block. If you appeal immediately, some editors will wonder whether you are in a hurry to get unblocked from article space so that you can advance your drafts into article space. If you no longer have a conflict of interest, or are no longer pursuing a conflict of interest, then In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm perplexed why Henderson went to @Bradv an hour after Drmies has given them a response suggesting how to proceed. Graywalls (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

September songs

my story today

Today's story is about a great pianist with an unusual career, taking off when he was 50. It's the wedding anniversary of Clara and Robert Schumann, but I was too late with our gift. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Today I remember Raymond Arritt, who still helps me, five years after he died, per what he said in my darkest time on Wikipedia (placed in my edit-notice as a reminder), and by teh rulez. Remember that we wanted him for arb? - Latest pics from a weekend in Berlin (one more day to come). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• I do remember that, Gerda Arendt. I was so pleased to work with him--I was honored. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Sir: I see you deleted the page 2023–24 Syracuse Orange men's basketball team due to an apparent sock puppet. This page is for the upcoming season, which begins in less than 45 days. Further, similar pages for other teams in the ACC appear untouched (ex: 2023-24 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team. It seems disingenuous to delete the entire page, rather than make surgical edits. Even the Crimson Tide basketball team has a page. Please explain, or advise on a path forward. Thanks, DarkStarHarry (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• What I deleted were, indeed, creations by User:Brownsbuckeyescavs. I thought all of them were redirects; I see now that 2023–24 Charlotte 49ers men's basketball team had more than that, and I'll be happy to restore the relevant edits. I don't know what you mean with "surgical edits", and I'd prefer it if you didn't call me disingenuous. I restored the ones with edits by others, particularly User:Bremerton98310. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for restoring the pages. DarkStarHarry (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. Please do keep an eye out for socks of that prolific puppetmaster. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The pleasant fellow over at Talk:Molly White (writer), who you blocked for edit warring, is the WMF-banned User:Willwill0415 (SPI). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• I thought so. I mean, I saw the SPI, didn't see that he was banned. Sorry Molly--real men are tiresome. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oh: there's a new one. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Or is he simply off on a frolic of his own? His contributions are prodigious and not useful, yet the topics feel potentially sensible. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)